How Many....

[Rick Piper]

Hi Michael

I think Acceleration makes such a difference it's a must have

try this in SP2

you can rescue stranded swimmers in Acceleration and lots more.
far more fun that just point A to point B

Rick

[Vulcan_to_the_Sky!]

As I have now become a more casual flightsim fan, i.e less of the strict procudures when flying, I've pretty much moved over to FSX fulltime, to be honest I mainly now use it for flying around the Alaskan Scenery. Overall its quite good, but I have lost a lot of addon material in doing so.

[Michael davies]

Rick,

I agree, I have the full set up, courtesy of MSFS at Redwood but have as yet felt dis-inclined to explore at length as it didnt give anything over FS9 that I really wanted. It runs/ran ok but this afternoon I just found an errant graphics card setting that has boosted FPS by about 400%, slightly ticked off that its taken nearly two years to discover that !.

Acceleration does give much more but as the gent above asked, what does it give more ?, we know there are extra planes and missions and it does come with SP2 automatically, but is it possible for users to pick up SP2 and also enjoy sling loads, cat and trap animations and those extra features. SP2 changes and fixes many root code issues, I believe Acceleration goes one step further and adds more code to the root program like carrier ops and sling loads, that SP2 users do not get as default. It'd be interesting if SP2 only users can confirm or deny what they can or cannot do, one of the problems with these upgrades is that there incremental and you cant go back easily, you have to resort to a full clean up and then reload in sequence to get to the lower level you want to check.

Best

Michael

[Rick Piper]

Hi Michael

what was the errant Graphic card setting ??? as it may help others too.

Rick

[Tweek]

FSX solely, now. FS9 still resides on my system (pretty much dumped on the external drive) but I can't really think why!

This notion of FS9 being for 'simming' and FSX for 'playing' still baffles me, though. You people obviously haven't sampled the delights of the Aerosoft Hughes H-1B or the A2A Boeing 377 (haven't flown that myself, but I haven't heard one bad review so far)!

[dutch11]

To be honest, I am a point A to point B flier. I probably have 1 hour in helos in the last 8 years, and I don't fly military stuff much (I know, I'm boring). I mostly fly heavy iron and do some bush flying, so I'm not sure the money spent on Acceleration would be worth it. I was really disappointed in the default FSX aircraft, you'd think after all these years, that there would be some improvement. The DC-3 is virtually the same and flies like a Cessna.
I guess it's a matter of taste and how and what one flies. I think I'll probably be flying FS9 a lot for the foreseeable future.

[Tweek]

I was really disappointed in the default FSX aircraft, you'd think after all these years, that there would be some improvement. The DC-3 is virtually the same and flies like a Cessna.
I guess it's a matter of taste and how and what one flies. I think I'll probably be flying FS9 a lot for the foreseeable future.

I actually find the jet fighters in Strike Fighters/Wings Over Europe, etc, (which, in essence, isn't really a simulator) have better flight dynamics than any I've flown in FS98/00/02/04/X. I know I've never flown a fighter jet for real, but sometimes you can just tell what is more realistic, and every incarnation of FS has been poor in that respect. The Acceleration F-18 really does feel 'arcadey'.

I'm sure the situation improves with airliners and GA aircraft, but even then, it's only fully accurate when you've got it on autopilot. :roll:

[Michael davies]

Hi Michael

what was the errant Graphic card setting ??? as it may help others too.

Rick

Because i use alot of high end graphics work I'd set the AA to 8x and ....its name escapes me right now...the other to 16x, I reset these both to 2x and FPS is dramatically improved but with a few jaggies, FS9 looks deadfull but FSx is passable, maybe one or the other setting to 4x might help visuals in FSx but FS9 needs them cranked up, time to look at setting up display presets for each game i think. Max8 still looks ok and the renders are fine too so really no need for the high settings unless FS9 is used.

I also found that lower FPS settings were much smoother, a seting of 30 is smooth but occasionally jerks every few seconds, set to 24 and its smooth all round, but helo rotors seem to suffer if set to low.

Best

Michael

[ChrisHunt]

I run FSX exclusively and have done since the early days of FSX. I actually gave my copy of FS9 to my brother and I must admit I came to regret that decision prior to Acceleration (it was a long period of regret) but happy now.

Michael, UTX Europe is very good but a bit of a frame hog if not set up right - road traffic looks the biz but is a FR killer. You will find the local coast hereabouts much improved with improved landclass in addition to accurate rivers and a more accurate coastline. Of real interest though is the up coming release of Ground Environment X for Europe. Given the significant improvement this has made in the US, and with Europe even better, this will probably be one of the killer add-ons for FSX if most of your flying is in Europe. It is to be fully compatible with UTX and can live quite happily (if underneath) with photo scenery such as Generation-X. Hopefully the GEX for Europe will be released this year.

Regards,
Chris

[Tarasdad]

Both FS9 and FSX are installed on my gaming rig. For a long time I was using FSX pretty much exclusively, but find myself using FS9 more since the aircraft I prefer to fly perform better in the older sim.