_Dre_ 0 Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 Just a question to all the FSX users: Did they improve the atc compared to fs9? And I mean meaningfull improvements (SIDS and STARS, proper terminology, holding patterns, faster speech, native accents, etc.). I haven't heard anyone say much about the ATC, everyone seems fixated on pretty water textures and the like. I also wonder if they made any other improvements other than graphics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skydvdan 2 Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 Just a question to all the FSX users: Did they improve the atc compared to fs9? And I mean meaningfull improvements (SIDS and STARS, proper terminology, holding patterns, faster speech, native accents, etc.). I haven't heard anyone say much about the ATC, everyone seems fixated on pretty water textures and the like. I also wonder if they made any other improvements other than graphics. Simply put.... no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron.Eagle 0 Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 actually they did - at least I remember you can request now Taxiing to the Gas station ("arrow guidance" too)... the arrows look a bit different now but never mind. rest is the same as far as I remember Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skydvdan 2 Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 I answered no because he said "meaningful improvements" to ATC. :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Dre_ 0 Posted April 20, 2007 Author Share Posted April 20, 2007 So what's all the hype about, pretty water and better landclass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanP 0 Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 Better graphics, better ground textures and mesh resolution, use of more animated scenery objects (animals, etc.) better use of the VC, adding new functionality (Missions and some other stuff...), no it isn't just "pretty water". It's far from perfect, but it is an evolution from FS9, no matter what the naysayers complain about. The flight models are also different. (Better? I can't say. Just different). It's mainly environmental, but ATC doesn't even seem to be on MS/ACES radar as far as improvements go. Possibly because most users don't touch it anyway? I don't know. Only the developers could answer that. More people probably would use it if it was worth using! Incidentally, the landclass really isn't that good in the default package. Nor are rivers. At high density, the River Severn in the UK is plainly visible as a dip in the mesh, but when you land in its nice grassy trench, you can see the default texture stream/creek that represents the river stuck half way up the wall! Plenty of scope for 3rd party improvement there! Ian P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted April 20, 2007 Aerosoft Share Posted April 20, 2007 So what's all the hype about, pretty water and better landclass? The 'hype' is about the fact FSX simply has a lot more options to show objects more realistic. Beneath the hype is a completely new platform for FS. With a lot of new standards the path to the future is created. FS really needed this fresh start. I know this sounds very 'PR' like but it is really true. On a personal level, I need to start up FS2004 a lot for testing etc. But every time I see how dated that sim is at this moment. The display is flat, lifeless. And the helicopter flight models are new and a lot better. Also the flight models of the light aircraft are now more realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Dre_ 0 Posted April 20, 2007 Author Share Posted April 20, 2007 Based on Mathjis and Ian's reply (as well as my own assesments) I may give FSX a try when the next generation of PCs are out instead of much later when quad-cores are the main stream. Hopefully by then software like edit voicepack and FDC and all the other addon stuff can help it to become more of a "simulator" rather than the "eye candy extravaganza" it appears to be right now (I know my opinions may be offbased because I don't own or haven't tried it yet), but what I have expressed has been based on the many reviews of the new sim as well as customer feedback on the many forums on the net. I do hope that Mathjis is right in that FSX is a new platform that sets new standards and opens up new frontiers in flightsimming because it would be a shame if we all had to wait on the next sim (2010 or beyond) to get the "next level of flightsimming" that FSX should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanP 0 Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 EditVoicePack for FSX is already available. It's already more than an eye-candy extravaganza, but it does require a fairly beefy PC to run. Most mid- to upper-range current PCs can run it quite happily. Ian P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Dre_ 0 Posted April 20, 2007 Author Share Posted April 20, 2007 Would a (P4 3.4Ghz HTT processor, NVIDIA 6600 256 MB graph. card) machine be beefy enough to run it with sliders ranging from 1/2 to 3/4 full? :oops: :oops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron.Eagle 0 Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 depends on your main RAM. but guessing from your CPU and Garphics card, I'd rather say from 1/4 to 1/2 full... if you have 2 gigs of 400 -nah let's say 533mhz Ram or more or faster RAM, It would be worth giving it a try... my system is Athlon64 3500+ @ 2,2Ghz, 1 GB Ram @ 400Mhz and GF 6800 GT 265MB PCIe and it runs a little below "average" 2GB RAM might help but... well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Dre_ 0 Posted April 20, 2007 Author Share Posted April 20, 2007 depends on your main RAM. but guessing from your CPU and Garphics card, I'd rather say from 1/4 to 1/2 full... if you have 2 gigs of 400 -nah let's say 533mhz Ram or more or faster RAM, It would be worth giving it a try... my system is Athlon64 3500+ @ 2,2Ghz, 1 GB Ram @ 400Mhz and GF 6800 GT 265MB PCIe and it runs a little below "average" 2GB RAM might help but... well... Guess my PC has no chance whatsoever (1MB L2 cache, 1GB PC-3200 400 MHz DDR). :oops: :cry: :evil: :x .... Oh wait I have an awesome FS9. Thank goodness for AES and Flytampa and of course Aerosoft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanP 0 Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 Mine is a Althlon XP64 3700+, 2Gb RAM, 512Mb X1650Pro PCI-E and okay, so right now I've turned a few sliders too high playing about, but it's normally fine... Ian P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron.Eagle 0 Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 *offtopic* @IanP: I hope so. I would'nt wanna spend more money than you to get a better machine like yours. I intend to buy an Intel C2D E6600 this summer or late autumn/fall. This one should be equivalent to yours, shouldn't it? (hope RAM is so cheap at that time, I can buy 4GB RAM right away^^) What speed is your RAM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanP 0 Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 According to a friend who can afford more than me, his E6600 leaves his old XP64 3700+ standing on both FS9 and FSX. In fact right now the E6600 is coming top in all the value v cost tests I've seen, with the E6400 coming top for overclocking capability. My system has got pretty generic PC3200 RAM in it (4 x 512Mb). Ian P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron.Eagle 0 Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 Thx, that's good to know... Thus yor RAM is @400Mhz - just as mine, but I've only 2x512MB, well... never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Dre_ 0 Posted April 21, 2007 Author Share Posted April 21, 2007 EditVoicePack for FSX is already available. It's already more than an eye-candy extravaganza, but it does require a fairly beefy PC to run. Most mid- to upper-range current PCs can run it quite happily. Ian P. Is the FSX edit-voicepack the same level as the FS9 version (improved terminology, faster speech, etc.) or has it gotten better or worse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanP 0 Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 This is getting seriously off topic now... Good thing it's in Radio Chatter! The new EVP does pretty much the same as the old one, it's still only a preview at the moment, but does the most important stuff - yes, including the speed up which was why I got it in the first place!!! http://www.fsonline.dk/en/index.php?title=EditVoicepack Ian P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Dre_ 0 Posted April 21, 2007 Author Share Posted April 21, 2007 It's not that much off topic since EVP does improve ATC. If only MS/Aces listened to their customers for even a fraction of what Aerosoft does FS would be much much better than it is today. I long for the day/night when I am sent into a holding pattern by ATC because of thunderstorms or low and thick fog at my destination airport. And as I'm starting to approach minimum fuel levels for my alternate airport I am forced to proceed there. This (although it was probably wishfull thinking) is what I expected out of FSX, or at the very least SIDs and STARs (especially since MS was hyping shared skies and the tower stuff so much). I wonder if u have to have the default airports installed to use VATSIM or if they cater to people with addon scenery, guess I'll have to look into that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanP 0 Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 VATSIM/IVAO/Any other ATC organisation prefers add-on scenery to default, because they'll use real-world airport charts, which ACES definately don't seem to (for parking, at least!). That's definately the best way to go for realistic ATC, but bear in mind that you will get less traffic, and ATC can be few and far between. When it's there, it's great, but you tend to have to fly from controller to controller, rather than get controllers at the places you want to fly to and from, if that makes sense? Ian P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Dre_ 0 Posted April 21, 2007 Author Share Posted April 21, 2007 Yes what u said made sense, I think I will give Vatsim a try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts