Aerosoft official retail partner for Microsoft Flight Simulator !! 
Click here for more information

Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dillon

  1. This justification of a sim that can only do half the job is disturbing. Like all FS versions before it, FSX should be able to perform all around (up high, down low, over major cities, etc). There should be plenty head room for add-ons no matter what the genre as that's what drives the FS franchise in the first place. If we're going to settle for half the experience maybe the name of FSX should be changed to "Microsoft General Aviation Simulator", then there would be no complaints. :roll: WEA-JHD (don't know your real name) you have more than enough hardware for any title. In another life your hardware would have FSX running like a top. A comparable system with any version of FS in the past a year into it's release would be screaming with your rig's setup (I hope you get my meaning here). There's no excuse you can't run Level-D's 767 at an optimal rate a year into FSX's release. FSX is still not patched fully for Vista/DX10 nor is it optimized to it's fullest potential. FS9 gives the perspective simmer everything he wants (GA, Airliner, Vintage, etc), with add-ons it looks very close to FSX. I have to say this again, most screen shots I see of FSX look like crap because most people can't run the thing at an optimal level (a month shy of a year into it's release). Mountains look like very smooth hills, the US west looks like the Sahara, there's more mistakes in ground elevation (mesh) around the world than with default FS9, etc... Even the FS9/FSX comparison shots presented above don't look hands down better than the FS9 shots I presented. Like I said mountains in FSX have lost that rugged edge they used to have in FS9 (although their not jumping around in the horizon), it's like the FSX ground textures are too smooth especially noticeable with mountain areas that don't have any custom mesh applied (and the user has autogen turned down or off). FSX is not knocking my socks off by any means... Both sim's give nothing that was requested in terms of better ATC, holding patterns, emergencies, AI spacing, etc. Even to the GA fliers nothing has changed much outside visuals (and the requirement for more hardware). I always felt like "Give me something Man" for my hard earned dollar on new hardware. I nor anyone in these forums asked for better visuals (sorry to say it FSX under accels in this area as well, it's far from ground breaking at this point. More like an incremental update to an existing engine). Everyone asked for everything under the sun and visuals was at the bottom of the list. Now all that's been forgotten about. I was one of the testers sending feedback off my machine to Aces concerning my FS usage. How does a sim get released that only caters to GA simming with no overhead for more complex add-ons when they monitored a great many people in this community before it's release??? I've never seen such a oneness with the add-on community as I saw with Aces before the release of FSX. Then the sim get's released and it may has well been developed without any input from anyone outside of Redmond. What was all the pandering about? Don't get me wrong I love the round Earth, Space flight, poles etc. Everything Mathijs mentioned above is great if you could run the darn thing all around. It saddens me that all this is acceptable in any since... :cry: Chris Brisland, Holgers new Tongas Forges is going to be a blast in FSX. I may try it next year around Christmas 08 when I decide to get a new machine (If it's even worth it by then). I'm leaning towards FS11 if that ever becomes a reality... Once again thanks SimWings for the FS9 effort...
  2. Bill concerning low and slow I have agree, FSX does appear in many cases to be the better of the two as long as your not flying in the US Southwest. I just hope you guys don't totally forget FS9 until FSX is officially up to speed with comparable performance on most machines. Aerosoft's Aspen would have been great in FS9. I suggested to Mathjis to do Jackson Hole to go along with Aspen. Hopefully if Jackson Hole (KJAC) is concidered it would be a dual plateform product. Once again a thank you to SimWings for doing yet another awesome scenery to be enjoyed by all. Mathjis has been a great guy since the Lago days and if something makes since I know you'll concider it (I haven't forgot that last Huphrey Bogart suggestion you included in Casablanca)... Bill your stuff is always top notch. :wink:
  3. So true but FS2k4 looks allot better with haze especially for comparison shots. Who ever flies without it in either sim (that wouldn't look realistic at all as there's no visible atmosphere)??? Like I said above for prospective buyers of scenery these days, no one flies with the default textures/mesh,etc... Below is more like what people are seeing in their FS9 installation these days. This in my book can give FSX a run for it's money any day (this is not to say the improvements in FSX aren't credible but the visuals below can be had with a lesser system than what's required for FSX)... The new Heathrow's pics above look just as good in FS9 as these shots (don't you agree)... That's why I see little improvement in FSX over a built up FS9.
  4. Hey Bill, first of all love your work.... Now explain to me why Fly Tampa, FLight Zone, Imaginesim to name a few don't feel the same... :? This actually makes since. Just like Heathrow I wouldn't recommend doing KEWR for FSX (at least not yet anyway). You don't need a crystal ball to figure that out...
  5. I love the way people always like to take FS2k4 shots without adding haze when comparing them to FSX shots (I have to admit it does make FSX look considerably better next to the FS2k4 shot )... Either take the haze out of both or compare both with haze... :? No one is doubting FS2k4 default looks worse than FSX default but that was left along time ago thanks to groups like Flight1 of Ulimate Terrain fame. If a person is making a choice at this point their not using a default version of FS9 (why even raise an argument like that?). Another thing is Hawaii is not one of the more demanding areas of any version of FS. Try a comparison of a tricked out FS9 setup in a place like London comparing the airport previewed here and see what sim performs better. Let's add LDS's 767 on top of that as a realistic option for flying into that scenery. Make sure your facing London proper when you take the comparison shots. Last but not least add 'HAZE' to all shots... I don't own any boxed versions of add-ons (exception being early FDC/Radar Contact because there was no other way to receive those add-ons at the time), I wouldn't traffic in boxed versions either if given the choice (been there done that and the storage over the years get's used up quick). I'm not telling you to stop building FSX products all I'm saying is there's still a market for FS9 add-ons (SOLD ONLINE) and I'd bet you money it will stay that way until the next version of Flight Simulator comes out (this trend this time around is more apparent than any other version of FS). You said a year ago when you released Alcatraz that the FS9 market would be dead by now, you were wrong on some level (online sales that is). I work with quite a few developers and their still building FS9 add-ons. There's a great A320 coming out that proves this point and it will be released for FS9 first. Mathjis it's your company and you guys do with it what you will. I just know I'm seeing threads all over the community stating FSX is not catching on like versions before. I already explained above why boxed FSX products would sell over newer FS9 add-ons. I would order FSX add-ons if I was a retailer. There's no difference in that then what's going on with Vista and the products designed for it. At this point XP begs the term, "if it ain't broke don't fix it"... I'm going to remember this thread and see in early spring of '08' if FS9 has fully bit the dust. I doubt it will but for the sake of argument we should make a small bet... :wink:
  6. Just the same it only makes since you stand to make more money producing two versions. You can't tell me there's not a demand for an FS2k4 version of Aspen or Cloud9's Orlando Intl (for example). If your selling in stores it would only make since that an FSX compatible scenery would out sell an FS2k4 product with a brand new shinny FSX box sitting right next to your add-on. Most simmers prefer to download anyway. But just the same an argument could be made with any FS add-on sitting on a store shelf. Who would by new scenery for a sim sitting in the discount bin. Bottom line is when Johnny get's the product home and is treated to 5FPS over London what's he going to think. He searches the forums (if he even cares ) only to realize that recycle bin version was the better of the two performance wise (there you could make another sale if the said person wanted it bad enough)... You had to release Heathrow for FS2k4 if you hoped to sell it as London is not the best performance area in both versions (FS9 or FSX). Fooling novice simmers into thinking their getting a great deal with a new purchase of FSX on top of some new scenery is not exactly what I call demand (remember you mentioned boxed sales here). FS2k4 can't compete in that arena until the said simmer get's the reality check I mentioned above. The demand is there for a FS2k4 Aspen or Orlando (seeing people are tired of the Simflyer's version) but it would take more work and that's the real issue here, it's not demand. I use those two sceneries as examples but this could be carried over to any perspective future FSX 'only' scenery (people are always in the market for new scenery no matter what version they use)... Currently you could make more money making dual versions like this Heathrow scenery but the developers would have to want to do this. Every FS9 simmer will attest, if you guys did any of your FSX only sceneries (exception being a previous FS2k4 version already available like 'FlorenceX') for FS2k4 you'd have no problem selling it. You've lost quite a many sales waiting on people to purchase FSX and then purchase your scenery (not to mention be bothered with the many patches Microsoft is releasing). The price of admission far exceeds running the installer and off you go. :? Bottom line is no matter how you guys try to rationalize the FSX plateform as being the future, it's shaping up to be a version that many will skip (too many MS patches and headaches to be bothered with it plus the shots I'm seeing don't look that much different that FS9. In most cases they look worse). Actually FSX might be skipped more that any other version in FS history. Again FS9 add-ons will have a shelf life far longer than previously estimated and it would do good for anyone to capitalize on that if their in the business to do so... :wink:
  7. Kansas City from Imagine has just been released for FS2k4. Another high quality add-on in the scenery department... Aerosoft needs to take a look at this. Again another example of what's still feasible in FS2k4 (with great performance to boot) almost a year into FSX's release. Thanks again Simwings for the FS9 effort that we all can enyoy...
  8. It sure is nice this is being done for FS9 (Simwings is not Aerosoft who would have nothing to do with FS9 at this point). My guess is when you started this scenery it was pre FSX days... An unprecedented thing has happened this time around in the history of Flight Simulator (although some preach falsely that this happens with each new version of the sim). A year ago Aces treated us to the first FSX demo which performed like crap on most machines. Here it is a year later and detailed add-ons are still being developed for FS9 (the version before the latest incarnation of the sim). My bet is by January of 2008 FS9 will still be in the running right along side FSX instead of left behind like versions of the past. Peaple want to fly not tweek, fly not watch pauses and stuttering, fly not constantly buy new hardware with meager improvements in the sim's performance... There's something to be said about this and the hosed up job FSX was release under. We still haven't seen the full Vista/DX10 version. Once that comes out I may take a look... All this is to say proof is in the screenshots above as to the longevity of FS9. Most screenshots I see of FSX look way worse than what I see above because most people can't run the darn thing decently. When this version of Heathrow comes out you can rest assured what you see in the pics above is what you get at home and the performance will be stellar on top of that. When simulating Flight one needs fluidity and that's something FSX won't give us at this time (especially in the London area). Aerosoft refuses to acknowledge this and in turn won't make dual versions of their scenery. SimWings my hat's off to you guys for this effort as all those who own FS9 will be able to use this scenery with products like LDS's 767 with maybe a hint of a slow down. Those waiting for FSX might not have the same experience (well maybe they can if they tone down the sim to look like FS2000) but that's their choice. The bottom line is you gave us a choice instead of forcing a slideshow product down our throats. A newer sim is not always a better sim and in this case turning down sliders to somewhat enjoy a scenery as awesome as this won't be something I'll have to deal with (many like myself will appreciate this very much)... :wink: It would be nice to have a screenshot contest of the FSX version and the FS9 version using LDS's 767 when both versions of the scenery finally get released. The screenshots would have to show the framerate counter as anyone can take pretty pictures. The bottom line is what's the whole experience like (fluidity and all) and can you have a smooth approach into the airport both day and night (I doubt this is possible in FSX on any machine)... I brought this up as I know people are going to say something about this post. Why argue when screenshots and YouTube videos can tell the whole story? :wink: Thanks again Simwings....
  9. FSX only... :cry: Just looking at the screenshots again today brings tears to the eyes... :wink:
  10. Since Aspen has been done (unfortunately for FSX only) just thought I'd chime in with another great location that many would appreciate, KJAC. This is a little known airport in one of the most beautiful areas in the western United States. It would be nice to finally see the airport and the town near by modeled especially in FSX. :wink:
  11. If you look at comparable sites like Amazon you'll get about the same thing. Like I said before just like everyone else with any since knows FSX if properly patched will be the future. Again like I said above I support add-ons for FSX but at this time FS9 is still a contender. Due to the horrible state in which FSX was released I truly believe many will pass this version up altogether in favor of waiting for FS11. Hopefully by then more user requested features will have been put into the base sim outside of just graphics. For the record since the argument always leads to FSX's release being the same set of circumstances as FS9 or FS2k2 was before it, check out these numbers: 1. Amazon has only 126 reviews for FS9 coming in at four stars (higher than FSX with 196 reviews in a shorter time period). 2. FS2k2 comes in at 4 and a half stars with only 145 reviews since it's release on the market. 3. I may as well skip FS2000 which has higher reviews scores as well over FSX on Amazon. IGN: reports FSX at a whopping '7.0' rating. FS9 comes in with a rating of '9' and FS2k2 comes in at '9' as well. Gamespot: reports FSX at 8.4, FS9 at 8.8, and FS2k2 9.3. Reader reviews were, FSX 8.7, FS9 8.9, FS2k2 8.8 I could go on and on but outside of FS2000 what recent version has needed the level of patch work FSX is in need of? FS2k2 didn't need a patch and was never patched. FS9 was out for a whole year and a half before a small patch was released. FSX not only needs a major performance patch but a patch for the new OS and new DX10 version as well. For the average user that's not only a long wait time for the final product to see the light of day (with all the new bells and whistles) but users also have to wait while developers patch and then repatch their products. The point here is FSX is far from being what other versions of Flight Simulator were upon release. That's why most add-on developers are sticking with FS9 a year longer if not more. This is not to say FSX isn't the future if Aces can get the performance issues straightened out, this is saying no matter what the dynamics/circumstances around FSX's original buggy debut will leave many skipping FSX altogether. There will be a market for FS9 titles until the release of FS11 which has not happened before. There is no market for FS2k2 titles anymore and that's the difference here. All one has to do is read the various forums, hunt down reviews, or load up the new sim for themselves. Aces may compound the problem by not releasing a new media on the market that contains all the fixes making it that much more of a pain for users to get in and use the sim later on down the road. You'll have to hunt down a few patches, spend the time waiting for them to download, and then installing them. This may be acceptable to some but when you look at FS2k2 which had really no major issues upon release and all one had to do is a straight install from the CD and be on their way, in comparison FSX is a hassle when it comes to the same process. Aerosoft and Cloud9 are the only ones pushing their titles towards the FSX only market. Hopefully in a year that may make good business since but the pendulum could swing the other way and find the FS market still split until the release of FS11. We only have Aces to blame for that. Today to release a title that no one else has done yet for one platform only ticks people off that don't have the horsepower to run FSX at acceptable rates (let alone decent rates)... That's why I say a title like Aspen should be available for both versions of FS...
  12. This was posted over on which says it all: :wink:
  13. First of all Mathjis proof of what I'm saying here is you and Cloud9 are the only ones out there releasing FSX only products at this point. Even AirlinerXP is releasing a new title for FS9. FlyTampa (TNCM St Juliana at St Marteen , St Barths TFFJ, and SABA TNCS) has great new scenery that focused on FS9 first and later FSX. If your point is correct why are most other developers outside of two still focusing on FS9 as the priority??? You tell me the ratio of FS developers releasing FSX only titles. I only can point to 2 who's starting to do this consistently, you and Cloud9 (BeaverX, FS9 version only available on the CD version. What kind of ^%& is that??? I sure hope that's not the original FS9 version included on the CD). This is a problem... The FS9 titles you mentioned for the most part were created pre-FSX. Now that FSX is released you've all but dropped FS9 in importance as though FSX is fully embraced by the whole community as was the case with previous new Flight Simulator releases of the past. Don't get me wrong I'm all in favor of you guys or anyone for that matter supporting FSX but to create a new scenery like Aspen only for FSX is a slap in the face to quite a few users. If there was already a professional Aspen scenery floating around for FS9 this wouldn't be an issue but there's not. The hardware game MS has been playing with user across the board is not going over that well this time around. Many aren't running out paying $3,000+ for one application (that still doesn't run as it should even with the new hardware). I have much faith in SP1 but I won't upgrade until it's all said and done with Vista/DX10. Many won't upgrade until FS11. All you have to do is just go to every forum in the FS community and see what people are saying about FSX. Yes many like it but most have a dual install of FS9/FSX used for different purposes. I shouldn't have to say this as I'm sure you know this as well as I do so your reasoning here escapes me... As far as what stores are selling really doesn't tell the full story. When I go to Amazon or other like venders, FS9 is still selling while FSX is getting passed up on the shelves. Actually FSX has been pulled from many places in my area. People are starving for new FSX related products but the fact is FS9 is still going strong. I'll just out and say it, "It's really bogus for anyone at this point to release an FSX only title. It's almost like extortion but I won't use that strong of a word to port people over to the new sim. Microsoft makes titles that really aren't that much improved over the older stuff (case in point new versions of Office) yet requires beefed new hardware to run it, that game has run it's course with more than just the private sector. In order to use this new scenery I 'HAVE' to load up FSX while all the other major FS vender's have no problem at this point supporting FS9 a while longer for obvious reasons"... In a year from now an AspenX FSX 'ONLY' product may (and I say 'MAY') be a good choice but as of today a good 90% of people are still using FS9. If that weren't the case why is AirlinerXP, DreamFleet, FlyTampa still releasing great titles first for FS9 and FSX versions are promised sometime in the future. I work for a few developers and believe me FSX is an after thought while the FS9 version takes priority. There's a reason for this Mathjis... :wink:
  14. You guys are way to far on the 'FSX' bandwagon. No one but you and Cloud9 are exclusively making products for FSX (a practically unusable sim at this point). I know SP1 will be out shortly but you guys should really consider supporting FS9 for at least another year. FSX won't come into it's own until well after the Vista/DX10 patch is released for it. Aerosoft makes great scenery and it's terrible you currently only wish to share it with a certain segment of the community at this point...
  15. Thanks Mathijs, FS9 is far from dead at this point... :wink:
  16. I for one am very glade scenery is still being produced for FS9. FSX is not in any condition to properly handle add-on's on this level (at least not at this time). Aerosoft among a few others are doing their best to ignore this fact... FS9 is not over yet... I can't wait to run this version of Heathrow in FS9... :wink:
  17. Alcatraz island only for FSX??? It's nice to give something away for free but to say, "we are sorry, we promised a San Francisco scenery for FS2004" and then release a piece of it only for FSX is interesting... FS9 is far from being dead and until Aces fixes FSX FS9 is still the better of the two for add-ons... :wink:
  18. The first picture which is supposed to be a joke should actually be part of the scenery for real. When people think of this area the classic movie always comes to mind. Please include those figures and the car in the release version... I'd go as far as to say a static Beech 18 would fit the bill as well. Put in a cool location at the airport (the real scenes were depicted next to a hanger with the plane back in the distance), this would diffidently be something worth flying to Casablanca to see in FS. Imagine 'Bogy' at the real airport (or shall I say the FS version)... Guys the first pic was coolest idea of all... Play it again Sam or should I say 'Mathjis'...
  • Create New...