Classic British Flight Sim forum.
Support for Maltby/Piper FS models & other Classic British freeware.
Moderators: Guru's , The Ministry
Garry Russell
The Ministry
Posts: 27180 Joined: 29 Jan 2005, 00:53
Location: On the other side of the wall
Post
by Garry Russell » 24 Nov 2010, 16:47
7107delicious wrote: As for the system......REALLY?! What did you spend your hard-earned cash on?!
Not the kind of thing to ask in an open forum....have some respect.
Check your PM'S
Garry
"In the world of virtual reality things are not always what they seem."
DaveG
The Gurus
Posts: 7818 Joined: 23 Jun 2004, 18:05
Location: in a deep, dark hole somewhere.
Contact:
Post
by DaveG » 24 Nov 2010, 19:21
A lot of people still use FS9 out of choice even if they do have a system that is perfectly capable of running FSX well. Many have invested much time and expense in FS9 so see no reason to start over again with FSX.
I wish you luck making FS aircraft. It's not a quick job, so be prepared to put in many hours doing research, modelling, testing, gauge coding, re-modelling, re-testing, painting, tweaking, more research, defining the flight dynamics, testing again, banging head on wall, re-modelling...etc
Dave G.
austerdriver
Post
by austerdriver » 24 Nov 2010, 19:35
I have both FS2004 and FSX installed. I find that I still prefer FS2004 over FSX because it flys real good on my system.
Many people have got their simulator setup for their type of flying and probably had spent a lot of money to get to the way they want it.
As the saying goes, if it ain't broke why fix it?
Last edited by austerdriver on 24 Nov 2010, 20:06, edited 1 time in total.
Garry Russell
The Ministry
Posts: 27180 Joined: 29 Jan 2005, 00:53
Location: On the other side of the wall
Post
by Garry Russell » 24 Nov 2010, 19:43
Exactly AD
Each to their own for whatever reason.
I have FS.X..I just don't run it because I can't properly
My FS9 is basic apart form UIK2000.......so it's not a case of having to abandon anything....but that's just me and my choice.
Garry
"In the world of virtual reality things are not always what they seem."
Scorpius
Concorde
Posts: 1130 Joined: 21 Apr 2007, 21:49
Location: Bournemouth
Post
by Scorpius » 24 Nov 2010, 19:44
I think our heroes on CBFS have been quite moderate in answering the comments here. I know what I'd like to say really.
Expect to see the TSR2 in the next couple of weeks then.
austerdriver
Post
by austerdriver » 24 Nov 2010, 20:11
Garry Russell wrote:
My FS9 is basic apart form UIK2000.......so it's not a case of having to abandon anything....but that's just me and my choice.
My FS2004 install is almost standard except the clouds I downloaded and installed. The rest is default and it looks good to me.
DaveB
The Ministry
Posts: 30457 Joined: 17 Jun 2004, 20:46
Location: Pelsall, West Mids, UK
Contact:
Post
by DaveB » 24 Nov 2010, 20:15
Expect to see the TSR2 in the next couple of weeks then.
..
and of 'saleable' quality which looks and flies like the real thing
TSR2 is probably a wise choice for a first model as the real one had no quirks and had a very basic flight envelope
ATB
DaveB
Old sailors never die.. they just smell that way!
Techy111
Battle of Britain
Posts: 3319 Joined: 15 Aug 2007, 13:51
Location: Coming out of Retirement.
Post
by Techy111 » 24 Nov 2010, 21:07
7107delicious wrote:
and the Nimrod AEW3
God Nooooooooooooooo............
Brian Franklin
Concorde
Posts: 720 Joined: 14 Jul 2004, 19:42
Location: Chester / London
Contact:
Post
by Brian Franklin » 24 Nov 2010, 22:30
So right Techie.... I was just elated when they binned that carbuncle. How could they do that to such a beautiful airframe.??
Trev Clark
The Ministry
Posts: 2822 Joined: 26 Jun 2004, 08:54
Location: Runway 26 at RAF Tangmere....most Mondays!
Post
by Trev Clark » 24 Nov 2010, 22:37
ATB Trev