I tried - I really did !!

[Techy111]

I must of missed it but.......freeware water....? Whats the name Trev?

I would certainly like that mate....

Tony

[Garry Russell]

But complex I don't mean difficult I mean time consuming

It's counter prodictive to mend things that weren't broken when that time could be spent making new projects.

Backwards compatability was something MS promised

Garry

[TSR2]

Agreed Garry, but its actually only for pure FS9 models that were built to the letter of the FS9 SDK.... the thing is there aren't many of those. We all use techniques etc which make things easier, which, although they may work, fall outside the letter of the law.

I've been trying a new pure (and I do mean completely FSX) model of late and its the dogs danglies, with 30 - 40 fps in FSX, even though it is a much more complicated model.

And I do understand what you mean by complicated being time consuming, but thats exactly what I mean....

Lets take (for example) Ricks Vanguard, I love it... it is an aircraft that I never tire of looking at. Now to bring it up to todays standards would take a huge amount of time, theres not much that could be reused. But theres nothing stopping someone else who is perhaps starting out giving it a go. I doubt the first incarnation would beat Ricks, but as I'm sure Rick would agree, these things are a labour of love, and if someone was enthusiastic enough about it they could do great things.... if that was all they were doing.

I remember DM saying a while back (2 or so years ago) that he wouldn't make any new models as he'd never be able to keep them all up to date, and so DM has focused on his 4.

Ricks models are more of a history of flight sime developement and chart his own progress as a developer, from the early stuff to the current day.

There is no way on this earth, even if he worked a 24hr day that Rick could redo all of his models for each new sim, but thats not the point. Each time he brings out a new model there is some new feature or something that he hasn't done before which makes it better than the last, and the whole process is one of learning and evolving.

I guess its horses for courses, each approach suits the individual concerned, but the one thing all of our guys models DO have in common, reguardless of the sim, is that they are all made with a passion for that aircraft, and each one is the best that they can do with the tools / skills they have at the time.

Thats what makes you lot the best bunch out there. ;-)

[Nigel H-J]

Whole heartedly agree with what you have said Ben, but there is another key element that makes them
the best bunch out there and that is signified in their models.... 'nothing less than perfect will do'.

Perfectionists to the core.

Nigel

[Tweek]

I understand why people want to stick with FS9, but you can't seriously suggest that is the better sim

Yes I can and many others do to
point 1. FS9 out of the box was never this much trouble. I bought FSX and then sold it as I was not happy with it.
point 2. So many FS9 add-ons were incompatible with FSX...er where is the backwards compatability they luaded about.
point 3. tweaking and tweaking just to get it to run....not really a good selling point??
point 4. FS9 out of the box verse FSX out of the box wins everytime.
point 5. FSX was stated to be ideal for dual CPU's and DX10 it seems it is suited no better than FS9 on both accounts.
point 6. I have a decent system AMD 3800 CPU SLI video etc etc, FSX ran like a dog....out of the box...
point 7. There is no point 7 I just added this for effect ;-)

There is no point 4, 5 or 6 either. You repeated yourself 3 times. ;-)

Three points there - how it is straight out of the box (I can only assume aircraft, looks, features, etc), performance and backwards compatibility.

Out of the box, FSX brings you a whole lot more.
- The default aircraft are superb, up there with the best of them. I'm not sure if they are fully functional, with all the bells and whistles, but I don't like to fly like that, myself. Beautfully made exterior and interior models, smooth gauges (none of those straight of the box in FS9) and that nice little thing called 'self shadowing', which makes for a much more immersive experience.
- Missions. Not everybody's cup of tea, but it allows for a broader style of game play.
- Vastly superior multiplayer engine. I love being able to see all of the animations and effects on other people's aircraft, something I was starved of in FS9. Not only that, but the smoothness is much improved. No more jumping around the skies for Mr Boeing, over there!
- Far more convincing scenery. The autogen looks realistic - trees lining the edges of fields, rather than sitting slap bang in the middle of them, for example. Higher mesh resolution. And the water just speaks for itself.

Performance wise, I'll give you that FSX runs poorly on a fresh install. But seeing as I've moved from the 'out of the box' point, performance can be suitably increased with the use of third party addons, the service pack, and tweaks to the config which are simple to apply. FS9 was never without issue, though. To bring it up to the standard I had it before I switched over, I'd spent a lot of time tweaking the config, downloading third party addons, and the patch (FS9.1) before it ran acceptably (ooo, sound familiar? ;-) ). The hardware available still had to catch up before people were running it at a level they felt satisfied with.
FS9 is 3 years older than FSX, of course FSX is going to be more of a demand on your system. It defies belief that some people thought that because they were running a tweaked FS9 at a constant 30FPS, that that's just what they'd be doing with a fresh install of FSX, on the same setup.

And finally, before my keyboard wears out, the backwards compatibility issue. I seem to remember many addons created for FS2002 that didn't function correctly in FS9. What about all the missing gear struts and hollow fuselages when you looked at them from a certain angle? The Flight Simulator series has never been FULLY backwards compatible, there's always been an issue with models that were created some time before the release of the latest sim.

I hate to go on, but... I just did. :roll:

[Garry Russell]

Backwards compatibilty was claimed by microsoft this time....that's what makes it different from the past and that is why we expected it.

Garry

[Tweek]

Backwards compatibilty was claimed by microsoft this time....that's what makes it different from the past and that is why we expected it.

Garry

Righto, point taken.

[DaveB]

Ooops.. me again!

I think the 'pure FSX' model is stretching it a little Ben if it's the same one I have (which IS to all intents.. an early beta) although yes.. it IS a pure FSX model. ;-) Also true is that it probably does run a treat on your quad-core system. I see 29.9fps (locked at 30) most of the time in FSX but it sure doesn't look like it :roll: TBH.. if I had a system like yours and FSX didn't run well.. I'd give up and start photographing trees instead or some other worthy passtime

Is the FSX SDK any better than the FS9 SDK?? I really don't know. What I DO know is that the goalposts have been moved again which has become a stumbling block for the chaps who build the models. I know from a-n-other project that the SDK has changed enough for it to require (possibly) a separate set of gauges for FS9 and FSX (made in C.. not XML) though oddly.. the FS9 set work fine in the FSX VC :think: They were re-written to comply with the FSX SDK and now run slow in the FS9 VC model.. terribly slow :brick: Odd world isn't it! |-)

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[stegs]

I reckon it's just the time, effort and, in many cases, the cash that has been put into FS9 by all the hard case simmers on this and
many other forums that puts them off FSX.
I don't know whether I could be bothered to build up all the free/share/tweaks/thisthatandtheother/ware again to get FSX as good as FS9.
Until I upgraded my comp a year ago I also realised I hadn't really unlocked the beauty of FS9. I now have this wonderful unstuttering, fast FPS flightsim
that, with all usual add-ons, gives me endless enjoyment.
And, as DaveB said, I'll need FSNavigator before I go to FSX

Steve

[Trev Clark]

Well, I think this one will just keep on going in circles!

Yes, the days of FS9 are numbered, but as an owner of both I know what I prefer and will use the most. Payware developers will be forced to go FSX, but many freeware designers are happy to stick with FS9 as well, so perhaps we will both be happy for a while.

In a couple of years, I hope I will have the hardware to do FSX justice, but I doubt it. Having run FS9 on max with loads of super add-ons, I may well wait until I am forced to upgrade. We are getting posts today from people exclaiming how well FSX can be 'made' to run with mods on top of the line equipment......and it is easy to forget that it has taken a YEAR of misery to acheive this, and then only by a lucky few. That is what makes FSX a 'TURKEY' in my opinion. How many add-on sceneries have we had too, not many thats for sure and I hate arriving at an airport that looks just like the one I left, it gives you very little sense of acheivement. I fear buying what is available, because landings would be a slide show.

Oh, and as for the bloody S. Europe desert I have in my local area, well the developers could not even be bothered to look up google earth to see what it looks like!!!!!! RTFM