Classic British Flight Sim

A bit of a leg pull me thinks Degsy

Garry

nigelb wrote:
Oh, Garry - I doubt the 'Poles' have any effect on guiding developers also. ;-)

:doho:

Or the Russians for that matter

Garry

The Russians wouldn't touch that poll with a ten foot pole!

Nigel²

tonymadge wrote:Take the test ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc2o7XumdPQ

On the left is a DEFAULT FSX installation.

On the right is a HEAVILY MODDED FS9 installation.

Since you can get the two confused, that means that FSX is a better sim out of the box, while FS9 is definitely great for those whom have had it since the beginning and have all the good mods installed (versus people who might not have had FS9 and don't know or can't get those mods).

It's just like 95% of the other "tests" that are out there. You can't compare a heavily modified (and thus non-standard) installation to a default one and expect it to ever be fair. Some of those who want to say that FS9 is better are going to pull stuff like that every time. They put in payware addons and don't say anything about it to let people know that it ISN'T the default and that's what caused a lot of problems for new users and Microsoft. The new users were led to believe that they should go buy a value copy of FS9 because it's "better" than FSX, and then when they installed it, they were amazed to find a vastly inferior product to what they were led to believe they were buying.

It's called DECEPTIVE MARKETING, and had it been done by a real company, it would have been ILLEGAL. This is what aggrivates me so much about this whole thing when people put up stuff like this. They get away with something that if they were doing it for their work (i.e. advertising) would get them fined and potentially thrown in jail.

This has been a beef of mine all along. FS.X default versus heavily modded FS.9

Unless they are compared straight from the box there is no valid comparison.

But at the end of the day I use FS.9 and that is why I develop for that sim despite what everyone else may be using

If I was the only one left using 9 then that is still what I'd make. Nothing against FS.X and I try to make it work as well as possible in FS.X but I can't make a propper FS.X version. I often get irritated by the impression that developers are holding back for some reason. It is simple, to run FS.X as well as I can 9 then I would need to upgrade my system and that's not going to happen anytime soon but believe me, if I did run FS.X then there would be no more new FS.9 add ons form me

Garry

I don't actually care which sim I use, except that I like to fly classic jetliners. And FS9 is where classic jetliners are!

Ian

Too much of a hassle for my liking having to port over to FSX apart from that I would certainly need to upgrade my computer such as a bigger hard drive, at the mo I am more than happy with what I have got.

Nigel.

speedbird591 wrote:I don't actually care which sim I use, except that I like to fly classic jetliners. And FS9 is where classic jetliners are!

Ian

I like the classics as well...but I perfer the turboprop liners. Therefore, FSX for the modern setup, FS9 for the '50's and '60's.

Bruce

brucesim2003 wrote:Therefore, FSX for the modern setup, FS9 for the '50's and '60's

There you go

I think that my FSX is as about as far from standard as it gets, apart from using default sky, (the sky texture add-ons are too big to DL and expensive for a VFR flyer) I use Horizon VFR photo scenery and UK2000 airports only. I never fly default aircraft (same as FS9) either.
These polls are 'just a bit of fun', the bit about giving the developers some idea of what platform people would like to have stuff made for was a 'tongue in cheek' joke! I know those here have their own ideas of what they will be making and why