Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Shaun Fletcher

New Sim-Wings Heathrow Airport Pictures. (Large Post)

Recommended Posts

I won't even dream of the performance consequences for that. sure the graphics and visuals will be vastly improved, but at what cost? The tradeoff for graphics vs performance will simply not be worth it, at least not in the early stages of FSX, who allready have a troubled history the only year it have been out.

I believe FS11 will fix most of the problems FSX have to this date and that will be the real enjoyable new simulator, at least that's what i personally believe :)

As almost all of these things are handled by the GPU and not the CPU the impact on framerate is very predictable. As long as your GPU can handle it the framerate do not suffer a lot from these new things. And if FS11 does not add a lot of new things it will just be like FS2004 is now, pretty fast on hardware that is 4 years newer than the software.

I just do not understand all the commotion about performance at this moment. A $1200 system (not counting the monitor) will run it fine. In fact, checking back on my beta posts about FS2004, just as fast as it did the day FS209094 was launched and only when I upgraded to a $1600 system did it became smooth. Did the people who complain about performance actually try it on modern hardware with SP1 installed? We show FSX off to thousands of people on shows and we see it nearly every weekend, people who bought FSX, tried it on their hardware and found it slowish as they used the same settings as on FS2004 (for example with maxed out autogen, even though even sparse autogen shows more stuff than FS2004 did on max settings). The they see it as the show on our systems and they are amazed how smooth it is. They go home, install it again on their, in the mean time upgraded, system and most never look back. For a year they have just been parroting the things they heard a long time ago.

Yes, FSX needs a dual core PC (there just are not fast enough single cores cpu's), yes it needs a very solid graphics card. In fact it is almost like any first person shooter these days in system demands (although those guys even use SLI graphics and highly tweaked systems to get enough fps).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said Mathijs, and i have what most people would call an up-to-date computer. I do have the intel Core2duo E6700 cpu, i also have the Nvidia XFX 8800GTS 640mb GPU, i got 2gb PC6400 ram and to finish it off i have 2 WD raptors 150gb in raid 0, however if i am going to run aircrafts like the level d 767 to an acceptable frame rate (for me that is 20-30 fps) i have to deactivate so much autogen and scenery density that everything is blurred, details have to be taken away to gain FPS, however, with the deafult FSX GA aircrafts i can run it on almost everything maxed out. And that is of course with SP1 installed.

And yes i have read almost all tweaking guides out there, including Phil Taylors' blog, Nvidia's recommendations and more, but i can't run FSX the way i want it with complex airliners just yet, and increasing the details in FSX will simply make things worse.

Sure, i try to keep a neutral attitude towards FSX/FS9, but my own experiences say that FS9 is the best sim at the moment. the performance vs graphics trade-off is not worth it for me yet, as i have said earlier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, but there you see is a principal distinction that separates you from the ranks of happy FSX devotees. You like to fly airliners! Have you noticed a trend? Everyone I know who swears by FSX (rather than at it) is also an avowed GA/bush flier. I can usually tell when someone is hooked on shooting coupled ILS approaches in a 7xx by their frequent use of the term "eye candy"... just like anyone who refers to "spam cans" most likely spends their free time poking holes in clouds with a propeller. I'll be the first to admit that FSX offers a whole lot more to GA fliers than it does to airline captains. We use simpler aircraft that are gentler on our computers, and we stay down low where things like high-res ground and enhanced autogen pay off.

If I flew airliners more often, I'd probably still be firing up FS9 whenever I wanted to sim, so essentially we don't have much of a disagreement at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, but there you see is a principal distinction that separates you from the ranks of happy FSX devotees. You like to fly airliners! Have you noticed a trend? Everyone I know who swears by FSX (rather than at it) is also an avowed GA/bush flier. I can usually tell when someone is hooked on shooting coupled ILS approaches in a 7xx by their frequent use of the term "eye candy"... just like anyone who refers to "spam cans" most likely spends their free time poking holes in clouds with a propeller. I'll be the first to admit that FSX offers a whole lot more to GA fliers than it does to airline captains. We use simpler aircraft that are gentler on our computers, and we stay down low where things like high-res ground and enhanced autogen pay off.

If I flew airliners more often, I'd probably still be firing up FS9 whenever I wanted to sim, so essentially we don't have much of a disagreement at all.

Well said, and yes i am mostly flying the heavy iron and that's the main reason for me still playing Fs9, but when i feel like flying smaller GA aircraft's i do fire up FSX as i really do enjoy flying like a madman with the Extra 300 or just cruise around with the Grumman goose, which i really enjoy.

However, i still do look for a good scenery/ground textures as i approach the airports in the big airliners, i'm really into good and realistic looking scenery despite being an airliner pilot :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: Me too, Bill, me too. FSX is simply amazing at ground level - by flightsimm standards folks! It's no "Oblivion" agreed, but when you are flying up the Mosellle river valley getting your belly wet, the ground rush is incredible. Or Vancouver area - you should try some of those tight, winding river valleys - some gorges are tight enough to scrape your wingtips.

Anyway, there's horses for courses - and I thing at the moment, the FSX course could be seen to be for the low level lovers. Oh yes, I did swear at FSX a lot at first - but that is almost a year ago (already :shock: ) The FSX learning curve has been a steep and rocky path, but I have beaten my PC into submission and I get smooth flight without stutters. Don't ask me the FPS, 'cos I think MS have done something different. At a guess I'd say they have done the picture processing differently, because now 12 to 15 FPS is still very smooth. My guess is that the counter counts frames differently - 15 in FS9 was unflyable.

Anyway - there are a lot of interesting looking "tube-ports" coming for FSX, and some of the addons - like airport enhancement, additional commercial AI, flight planners, passenger and cargo loaders and such - well, they look really immersive - for you heavy metal flyers.

I reckon there's something for everyone.

In the meantime, I have set my autogen to max trees per cell and I just love flying low up valleys or into Bear Gulch, ur up the Moselle... I can't get enough of it. Who needs a "Follow me" on a small (preferably grass) bush strip?

Enjoy! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, but there you see is a principal distinction that separates you from the ranks of happy FSX devotees. You like to fly airliners! Have you noticed a trend? Everyone I know who swears by FSX (rather than at it) is also an avowed GA/bush flier. I can usually tell when someone is hooked on shooting coupled ILS approaches in a 7xx by their frequent use of the term "eye candy"... just like anyone who refers to "spam cans" most likely spends their free time poking holes in clouds with a propeller. I'll be the first to admit that FSX offers a whole lot more to GA fliers than it does to airline captains. We use simpler aircraft that are gentler on our computers, and we stay down low where things like high-res ground and enhanced autogen pay off.

If I flew airliners more often, I'd probably still be firing up FS9 whenever I wanted to sim, so essentially we don't have much of a disagreement at all.

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"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)."

"Everyone asked for everything under the sun and visuals was at the bottom of the list. "

Well Dillon, I personally felt that any version of FS before FS2004 was basically a IFR sim as detailed large scale scenery was just not possible. So we all flew large aircraft from major airport to major airport, ignoring the stuff in between.

And you do sell Microsoft short. You really think they don't do market research to find out what customer want? Believe me they do. Just like we do. And believe me, the few people on the forums and the shows are the ones we see, but they are NOT our average customer. We have seen an higher demand for GA scenery and aircraft ever since 2003.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mathjis how would you break down Flight Simulator users? Your saying most purchases are for FSX yet when I look on all the major FS sights I see most freeware being produced for FS9 (both GA and Airliner). How do you explain that as it's clear FS9 is being embraced more than FSX at this point (at least by the community as a whole).

Are there these one time buyers of FSX (and FSX related products) that never visit the web to see what's going on??? You can make a case all day but there are only a few of you (developers that is) reaching solely for FSX. Most are wanting to push that way but realize FSX isn't where it should be and many simmers are still using FS9. Bottom line is I don't have your sales numbers yet the word I'm hearing from my sources is the market is still hot for FS9 products. Put that all aside and just look at what sim most freeware guys are developing for, add that on top of what most payware developers are still developing for, then see what allot of people are talking about and it's clear FSX hasn't taken off the way you claim. Look at Avsim's front page today and see for yourself what sim most of the freeware of any substance is for...

Mathjis I agree GA is an awesome development in FS (the ability to fly down low with a since of speed) but somethings not passing the smell test... I'd really like to know who these phantom purchasers of FSX related products are or should I say where they are. I sure don't see them represented in this day and age of the internet. No one get's involved with anything these days without searching out the support base on the 'World Wide Web'. Your argument makes it sound as if there's this huge segment of people that buy only FSX/FSX related products then takes them home to hide behind a couch without an internet connection (that's insane because they would at least have to search out and download the various FSX patches to get the sim to perform remotely decent on most machines. They would have to at some point find their way into the community for support one way or another). I know of no other computer hobby where alienation of the online community would be applicable. Online gaming is huge and pushes a perspective product along (heck even FSX built upon this with many new online features). We have years of this community building on top of FS and now all of a sudden with FSX that's no longer relevant (you and others constantly allude to more purchasers of FSX in the world than in this community that support, create, and buy the products). Not saying your being untruthful or anything like that but I'd like to know where these people are because it seems we've went backwards... How are these people receiving support among other things???

Now what makes since is a long time simmer like myself (for example) bought FSX and never uninstalled FS9. I would purchase any FSX related product for the new sim but FS9 is still alive and well on my new box. Most FS9 users at this point will buy FSX related products with hopes of totally moving over to that platform but have yet to abandon FS9. You hear these people very vocal in the forums. If I had the extra cash I'd have FSX myself along with Aerosoft's Aspen scenery with the same hopes. That's not to say FS9 is dead but that is to say people who have FSX up and running want more detailed places to fly. Many in this community don't purchase boxes so I don't know where those people come from :? but the basic point is this community is very well many of the one's purchasing FSX products because it makes since to do so if you've taken the time/trouble to have FSX installed, tweaked, and running. But to say FS9 is almost dead because of this is false due to the fact users have both sims installed and have to switch between the two for either GA or Airliner flying (something that should be unacceptable for the new sim).

We still have a couple patches to go from Aces that will hopefully bring FSX fully to Vista with the headroom needed for add-ons. Until that happens FS9 will continue to be a player. The longer it takes for FSX to get up to speed the more people may decide not to even bother.

Sorry for the long winded post... :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess PMDG saw the writing on the wall. They have announced that the MD11 and the 737 v.2 will now be dual platform releases for both FSX and FS9. Previously they stated no more FS9 releases. I guess their marketing research was starting to lean back to FS9 having better than expected numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mathijs: with all due respect, i simply have to state my opinion about this although it is only my speculation and not meant as an insult or to troll this forum, but if i went over to the cloud9 forums (which is now dead as far as i can see) and quote Virtuali's FSX vs FS9 sales number statements and paste them in this forum it looks like you have just cut and pasted Virtuali's statements over here.

Before Virtuali showed up here, i have never seen you write such statements, so i am a bit concerned that he's doing your market analysis as well, but i hope for all us FS9 users out there that he's not.

Also PMDG admitted they was wrong about their FSX market analysis and therefore decided to support both FS9 and FSX for the time being.

Now, that's a little thought for you. You may be correct that the boxed products may sell more for FSX than FS9, but i really doubt it's the same story in the download department.

Again i am sorry if i stirred things up here, but i am a bit concerned about this. Looks like you all have been affected by Virtuali's statements. Please prove me wrong though :?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will this never stop? Do we all want to use the FS9 till the end of all things? Why do we still use FS9 and why do we always need to prove ourselfs that FSX is not worth the money? Because the airliner pilots are used to some comfort: AES, several payware scneries (GAP, fly Tampa, Sim Wings..) and good payware airliner addons like PMDG. If the FSX would have these things today I think many would stop complaining. The FSX is not a bad simulator. It is what FS8 was: new technology and all the addons have to be rebuild newly and we have to wait for the releases. So is this the reason why in every single forum we can read the same things about FSX from FS9 airliner pilots?

I think it would be enough if we would just say "I'd love to see these things in FS9 too" without the FSX bashing... after one year it gets boring :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will this never stop? Do we all want to use the FS9 till the end of all things? Why do we still use FS9 and why do we always need to prove ourselfs that FSX is not worth the money? Because the airliner pilots are used to some comfort: AES, several payware scneries (GAP, fly Tampa, Sim Wings..) and good payware airliner addons like PMDG. If the FSX would have these things today I think many would stop complaining. The FSX is not a bad simulator. It is what FS8 was: new technology and all the addons have to be rebuild newly and we have to wait for the releases. So is this the reason why in every single forum we can read the same things about FSX from FS9 airliner pilots?

I think it would be enough if we would just say "I'd love to see these things in FS9 too" without the FSX bashing... after one year it gets boring :P

Well it also get's boring to read that FS9 is "ancient history, relic.. etc etc. You try to fly with the levelD 767 with maxed out graphics at KJFK, while showing manhattan in the back ground and show me the frames you get while you'¨re at it, if they are over 25 FPS i will singlehandedly say FSX is better and will no doubt get the specs you have and play FSX, but until you can prove me that, i firmly belive that FS9 is the better sim, even after a year. Why do you think this bashing have continued for over one year anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@WEA-JHD:

Did you read my posting? Where did I wrote "FS9 is ancient history". I think we all spent a lot of money for FS9 and now most don't want to loose it. Thats ok. Next thing is that you describe hardware issues. How was performance of FS9 on pc hardware of the year 2005? With Level-D and Manhanttan Scenery at KJFK it was not very good... like it is in FSX with hardware of early 2007. FSX on current hardware runs good the only thing we are missing are addons like AES and a couple of airliner sceneries from fly Tampa. Thats all... but mostly the critics are hardware issues and connected to that performance. I think it is already a myth most people are telling in every thread and every forum til we all belive it. Even with my E6300 and a 8600 GT I get decent framerats. Especially the Level-D takes nearly no FPS in FSX. It is well programmed even it is an "old" addon. My E6300 from Intel and my 8600GT is not top of the art hardware in September 2007. What do you think FSX would be like on a current hardware... that is the problem in my eyes: FS9 runs good on most pcs but as before (and also for FS9) we have to buy new hardware. Thats a normal thing and what is boring about that is that most criticsim about FSX is that people don`t want to buy new hardware. But we also needed it for FS9? If you would "bash" MS for that they released the SDKs too late so that scenerie and aircraft designer could not begin their work early enough... ok, good point. But it is always performance and hardware .. that is whats boring about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use FS9 only.... not because of better framerates.... but because it can do things FSX cannot.

Yes the FS9/FSX argument is tiresome....best thing to do guys is vote with your wallets.

I bought FSX, but have not bought one FSX only product yet.... and do not intend to do so.

I will be buying FS9 products for some time to come.

I look forward to flying PMDG's MD-11 into my home airport LHR (either Aerosofts or UK2000)

Thankyou to all developers supporting FS9.

regards

Ed

eddd7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ EDOT-TH: I never claimed you have said that, but there are people out there that keeps on saying it, which is also tiresome to listen to. Yes this all debate about FSX vs FS9 is getting boring, but when this debate is still going strong it have to give a signal to the addon community that FS9 is still going strong, in which it is.

I can also tell you that i was able to run FS9 in 2005 with most graphics settings on high and get good and acceptable frames there, not even nearly as close as i could run FSX with addons and i have, as i have said earlier an E6700 cpu, 8800GTS 640mb, 2GB ram and 2 WD raptors in raid 0. Now, it can run general aviation on high settings, but not the level D I don't know what you call "decent frames", but apparently it is not acceptable for me. Also the current hardware that might be able to run FSX to an acceptable level is still very expensive and not all of us can afford it, which is also holding FSX back. FSX have not been patched properly yet, and god knows when the ACES SDK will arrive for addon developers. That also emphasize my point, New flightsim, new hardware and for FSX, like any other sim, people wait to get new hardware until they are certain it can use FSX which in this case will take some time, contrary to previous flightsim releases.

This performance and hardware debate is boring, i agree, but it is highly relevant, and as i said earlier, not everyone wants or can afford to upgrade just yet which is holding FSX even further back and apparently the only one who have realized that is PMDG up to this point.

Anyway, i am really looking forward to Simwings Heathrow with AES. can't wait to get my levelD or pmdg 747 in there :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should be Heathrow we are talking about here :)

Anyway I just can't believe that you have problems with FSX when using such a hardware you do. Since SP1 the performance is good. Not great but good. In FS9 I use the FPS limiter ans have locked it at 25 FPS. Sometimes 20 and it is good for me. In FSX same works fine for me. Could be that you expect 50 FPS.. ok, than it is a difference but for me I have no problems with performance but that could change when the Megaairports are released.. don't know but than it is my hardware which is causing trouble. And remember FS9 is history since 1 year but it gets still new addons every day. I am glad using both simulators but future is FSX or FSXI. No need to discuss that point in my eyes and at some point in time we just need a break otherwise I as MS would not realese a FSXI or wait 10 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should be Heathrow we are talking about here :)

Anyway I just can't believe that you have problems with FSX when using such a hardware you do. Since SP1 the performance is good. Not great but good. In FS9 I use the FPS limiter ans have locked it at 25 FPS. Sometimes 20 and it is good for me. In FSX same works fine for me. Could be that you expect 50 FPS.. ok, than it is a difference but for me I have no problems with performance but that could change when the Megaairports are released.. don't know but than it is my hardware which is causing trouble. And remember FS9 is history since 1 year but it gets still new addons every day. I am glad using both simulators but future is FSX or FSXI. No need to discuss that point in my eyes and at some point in time we just need a break otherwise I as MS would not realese a FSXI or wait 10 years.

Hehe, i agree, we have de-railed this thread into a whole new level here :lol:

I am a bit frustrated myself that i struggle with my hardware, but after following many tips and tweaks i still can't run the level d properly in FSX, of course i don't expect 50+ FPS in a flightsim, that would simply be no point in having that many frames when the eye can't see more than 25 frames :), however about 25-30 fps should be realistic in my opinion (and i get more than that number when i fly the General aviation aircraft).

I agree that FS9 will be history sometime, and as i have also stated earlier, i think the real break through will come with FSXI when they have managed to fully exploit the new technology in FSX, but that's a subjective point of view of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think the real break through will come with FSXI when they have managed to fully exploit the new technology in FSX, but that's a subjective point of view of course.

Ok, lets end it. Btw I agree with you on that. I think that was the same with FS8 & 9. But we need this step we call FSX and I think if community and designers would not support FSX we could not get a FSXI we all hope for but this is future.. who knows when this will be? So far I am looking forward to all the nice FSX addons and still use my FS9 (just bought Casablanca scenery yesterday ^^).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@WEA-JHD:

Did you read my posting? Where did I wrote "FS9 is ancient history". I think we all spent a lot of money for FS9 and now most don't want to loose it. Thats ok. Next thing is that you describe hardware issues. How was performance of FS9 on pc hardware of the year 2005? With Level-D and Manhanttan Scenery at KJFK it was not very good... like it is in FSX with hardware of early 2007. FSX on current hardware runs good the only thing we are missing are addons like AES and a couple of airliner sceneries from fly Tampa. Thats all... but mostly the critics are hardware issues and connected to that performance. I think it is already a myth most people are telling in every thread and every forum til we all belive it. Even with my E6300 and a 8600 GT I get decent framerats. Especially the Level-D takes nearly no FPS in FSX. It is well programmed even it is an "old" addon. My E6300 from Intel and my 8600GT is not top of the art hardware in September 2007. What do you think FSX would be like on a current hardware... that is the problem in my eyes: FS9 runs good on most pcs but as before (and also for FS9) we have to buy new hardware. Thats a normal thing and what is boring about that is that most criticsim about FSX is that people don`t want to buy new hardware. But we also needed it for FS9? If you would "bash" MS for that they released the SDKs too late so that scenerie and aircraft designer could not begin their work early enough... ok, good point. But it is always performance and hardware .. that is whats boring about it.

I have the same computer I bought when FS9 first came out (Dell 2.8gig processor with 1gig ram) and FS9 still runs great with 90% of the products out there. The only add-ons I have issue with is PMDG's 737 using the VC and Eaglesoft's new Beechjet 1.5. Everything else from LVD's 767 to Cloud9's KLAX runs great. I would shudder to think how my install would be running now if I bought a machine a year into FS9's release. I wish you guys would quit trying to compare FS9 to FSX because there's no comparison. We're a year into FSX's release and it's still not a great performer on machines built today let alone machines made when it was released a year ago... :?

Ok, lets end it. Btw I agree with you on that. I think that was the same with FS8 & 9. But we need this step we call FSX and I think if community and designers would not support FSX we could not get a FSXI we all hope for but this is future.. who knows when this will be? So far I am looking forward to all the nice FSX addons and still use my FS9 (just bought Casablanca scenery yesterday ^^).

The threat of MS not making another version is no reason to support something that doesn't measure up to previous efforts by Aces. At this point FSX is worse than FS2000. I have every confidence FSXI will be a reality. But once again as long as we have developers like PMDG that get it and other shops like Simwings that see the writing on the wall we'll have something to continue to enjoy until Aces finally get's it right again. I thought there was no toping FS2000 in the blunder department, I see I was wrong. I'm glade to see your one of those dual FSX/FS9 users I spoke about earlier to Mathijs who seems to feel FSX is the only thing most are using now. As an example many here in this very thread are using both FSX and FS9 versus FSX exclusively (that's why we need dual platform products at this point in time Mathijs. You can thank Aces for the extra work load)... :wink:

Thanks again Simwings for a winning decision here with Heathrow...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worse than FS2k? Well, don't make it worser than it is. FSX is a good simulator. I wouldn't say that it is a worse one. I am not angry or disappointed if one product will be released for only one FS. To be honest: I don't care about it. At this point FS9 has everything it needs. If we have a look onto the upcoming releases I see no addon which has to be in FS9. PMDGs MD11 could be the last thing which FS9 has not. But hey, its PMDG so when can we expect it? 2009? :)

I think there is really no need for addons in both versions if it means that the addon will be limited by fs9 technology. Even if PMDGs 737 NGv2 would not come for FS9... would you miss it? I would not. At this point the world of FS9 is nearly complete. I think designers should now concentrate on FSX because if not we really coud wait for FSXI but that is no option for me.

Btw a 2.8 GHz CPU and 1 GB RAM when FS9 was released was a very good PC at this time ^^.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, There is a word for all this FSX vs FS9 chat its called evolution, I bet when the first mamals crawled on this earth That if there were a couple of caveman type simmer's watching they would have been in a heated debate about fur vs scales , Heat retention vs cold blooded and how the hell would they cope with the loss of size and such small teeth. Personaly I have so much money tied up in FS9, that due to the fact I can't take my add ons with me I will be staying with FS9 for the time being. That said I know the time will come when I have to move on and leave FS9 in its rightful place in history, but until then I will watch and wait and keep flying in FS9. As for tiresome or boring or what ever it was callled I hope you keep the debate going or else how will I know when the time has come to make the move. look at what we had ten years ago and where we have come in that short amount of time, Im looking forward to the day they get Google earth linked into the scenery in full three dimentions. So I will sit back and let the guys and girls do their thing and sure enough it will all come together in the end. Mind you for every spieces that makes it a couple become extinct,.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back on topic I hope Simwings sprinkles some static aircraft around the airport. At certain times of the day traffic can be pretty sparse using programs like Ultimate Traffic. A little static aircraft here and there insures a nice rounded level of traffic around the airport at all times... :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Getting back on topic I hope Simwings sprinkles some static aircraft around the airport. At certain times of the day traffic can be pretty sparse using programs like Ultimate Traffic. A little static aircraft here and there insures a nice rounded level of traffic around the airport at all times... :wink:

Agree! especially for simmers like me who play multiplayer only :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...