Jump to content

WEA-JHD

members
  • Content Count

    141
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About WEA-JHD

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Solo
  1. Interesting blog, but he is wrong about the hardware to run FSX, it will never, ever be able to run at it's max settings, simply because it's optimized mostly for sheer clock speed than multi-core CPU's. So no matter if it's 5 years, or even 10 years in the future, FSX will never run at all settings set to 100% with all the resource demanding addons we have today, for not to mention those we will have in the future. I personally don't see FSX as a worthy replacement of FS9, it's simply based on a much too old technology, it has it's roots more in the past and is not focused and optimized for future hardware at all. It's too bad really that we're stuck with a half-baked product as the only option after the addon companies drop FS9 completely.. Simply put: FSX have no place in the future as a good flight simulator option..
  2. and that is much appreciated, Thorsten, personally i don't care too much about the entire island, as i will only be in the keflavik area in FS9. So thank you for not abandoning the FS9 users
  3. Excellent timing Just in time to collect my paycheck
  4. Looking great, truly looking forward to this one
  5. Well, the Ariane 737 NG series is certainly pretty good, but i would, however wait until navigraph starts to release navdata (AIRAC) cycles for Ariane, but no one knows how long that will take. I really do like the Ariane 737 NG series, but without proper navdata, you can't really take full advantage of it's FMC. However, when that's fixed it will be a great plane to fly
  6. Very well said, Snave. You really hit the nail on this post. I agree with you 100%. It's also a reason why i think FSX was not a worthy replacement for FS9.
  7. although this was an April 1st joke. Those would be some ultra cool USB storage devices. The design is great Ditch the Avgas and release them as usb storage devices
  8. They even made the Bourbon Orca This ship is a frequent visitor where i live..
  9. Thanks for the advice, Mathijs, i will probably stay with my current system which is a stock E6700 CPU with the 8800GTS 640mb video card, 2gb of PC6400 corsair ram and 2 WD 150 GB raptor harddrives in raid 0, at least for a while. I also want to thank you for your understanding during our disagreements, and thank you very much for the FS9 addon
  10. Thank you for replying to my post Mathijs. I have been wondering a long time how windows 7 will work on FS9. So what you are saying is that windows 7 is good for FS9 also? and not just the latest software? You may be right about me not moving towards FSX, like i said i have some very high demands, maybe even unrealistic demands to some, but if hardware indeed does (or have) caught up, like saprintz have hinted about, i may consider upgrading towards this summer/autumn, so never say never, Mathijs Also as i have said earlier, i don't expect to see any more FS9 compatible aircraft from you again, as you have different goals and/or agendas than i have. I find it real rewarding to learn a new aircraft's systems and functions as it's real world counterpart does, and that's a reward that i gain mostly from the PMDG's product lines, aircraft from wilco, CLS.. and the likes is just not even close. I find it rewarding to read the manuals, try different tutorials and in the end be able to operate the aircraft as close to the real world procedures as possible, but i do respect that not everyone have that goal in flightsim, cause in the end it is just a game. I have no doubt that your coming airbus will look awesome and as you say it will probably not be for me, i guess Airsimmer will be my best choice in what i expect form an airbus addon. Although my primary usage in flightsim is to fly airliners, i do sometimes like to take a break from it and fly old warbirds, like the spifire, P-51 mustang and maybe even some piper, cessna and some other G/A aircraft. But i guess if you look at my profile on your sales page you will most likely see that i mostly buy medium to large airports and AES credits, but i have also bought some FSX addons, not that much though. We will probably have to agree to disagree as ou say, Mathijs, you and i have some very different goals/purposes in flightsim and i fully respect that. Have fun with whatever flightsim/addons you use, cause that's the most important thing. As long as you're happy with what you use for yourself, that's what truly matters Kind regards Jan
  11. Sounds very promising indeed, Saprintz If that's indeed the case i may consider upgrading my hardware sometime in the summer months, because if the hardware have finally caught up, then it's the time i've been waiting for and will mean the end of my frustration with FSX. Thanks for the answer
  12. Thanks for the link and your comments, Tom Yes, i know that the MD-11 runs relatively well in FSX as i bought the combo version (FSX and FS9). I achieved some "ok" frames in my current system around TNCM with it when i ran FSX with all settings to the max, but when i loaded it up at KJFK with the same settings, i got about 4-5 FPS and after 30 seconds i got an "Out of memory" message and the flightsim shut down. Of course my computer is getting old, no doubt about it, but experiencing what happened at jfk makes me think that even the best hardware out there today can't run FSX at settings like that in environments like that, at least not yet. Even people with top-end hardware don't reply to my questions when i ask them the frames in the conditions i have described. The day i can run FSX with ASA or REX, Ground environment, ultimate terrain series, PMDG's airliners at airports like JFK, SFO, ORD and LHR in cloudy, rainy and stormy weather with frame rates above 30 fps, is the day i will switch to FSX, but until the day i can find hardware that can do that i will remain with FS9, and i have a feeling i will remain with FS9 for a very long time. Have fun Jan
  13. Could you please tell me the FPS you get with the PMDG 747 and/or the MD-11 , maybe even the Level D 767 over the same place with full clouds and precipitation added to the same settings you have listed? Do that and you will see exactly the reason why i'm not using FSX, cause all i want to do is to be able to enjoy FSX with all it's new (mostly visual) features, but what's the point in upgrading when you can't do that? Why should i upgrade to FSX when i got the exact same FDE and system simulation in FS9 as i would get in FSX, only with a much lower Frame rate?.. it just don't make sense, Mathijs. FSX may be great for General aviation aircraft, like a catalina in VFR conditions, but when we are talking about the actual aircraft and airliners that fly in and out of this place daily, the tables will turn rather quickly methinks.
×
×
  • Create New...