Classic British Flight Sim

The thing that pisses most of us off is the dated graphics engine..... not the graphics but the graphics engine that the game is built on. It's been the same since FS2000 and it is shite with a capital S !!!!

There are far more graphically advanced games around that do not stutter and look far more life like but the MS team seem to be incapable of dumping it.

FFS, even if I have to wait another year, rewrite it from the ground up instead of trying to polish an old turd :roll:

I'm still wondering where anyone is getting all this information about it being the same graphics engine, same airplanes, and such based on a handfull of screenshots and a few minutes of video.

When I looked at Ghost Recon Advanced Warrior's trailers, it didn't look much better than a couple of other recently released first-person shooters yet it said it was well beyond them. I didn't totally believe it based on the videos. Then I found out that the video left out a lot because of the need to reduce size so it'd be downloadable. I get the game and I'm still spending time just walking around and looking at all the cool stuff that it has to offer that is light years beyond what anything else out there does right now in terms of immersive environment.

I've always been wary of advertisements, but until I actually see the game in person on a computer screen, I don't make final judgements because a lot of compromises have to be made when they produce media for a program, chiefly among them is reduction in resolution to keep the file sizes reasonable. Try filming a 1 minute sequence in FS2004 similar to the 2 FS videos using Fraps and record it at full resolution and 24 FPS. The video will be nearly a GIGABYTE in size. How do you fix it? You do one of two things. First you re-film at a smaller resolution (say 800x600 instead of 1280x1024) and then you only film at 12 FPS. You still get a reasonably smooth film but your video is now only 20-30 megabytes. But you have STUTTERS! Wait a second, wasn't one of the complaints that the stutters were still there? Well if you were filming at 12 FPS, you'd get artificial stutters and you would have no way of determining if the stutters were the result of the video capture or the program itself.

Sorry but thats complete tosh. I've watched plenty of game previews with no stutters.

Also, if FSX uses a new graphics engine, then why on earth does it look so similar to FS2004?

Why do the textures look like FS2004?

Why are the textures on the aircraft so basic?

Why are there so many errors in the current game if the development team are experienced in aviation? No doubt these will be carried over.

Why does the default 737 look like it was drawn by a 6 year old?

Why does the default 747 look like it was drawn by a 5 year old?

Why does the water look worse than games that are out now? A new game should look better.

How Can Rick Piper knock out a new aircraft in 6 months when MS can't produce one thats accurate in 3 years?

Why are the AFCADS f*cked?

Why are aircraft cleared to land when you are on the runway?

Why do you have to wait to enter the runway when the inbound traffic is 9 miles out?


Will any of it be fixed? I doubt it very much.

Please don't feed me 'beta' and '12fps videos'.... if other developers can do it, then why can't MS?

I frankly WILL be buying it but thats mainly 'cause it's to keep up-to-date.
Ok I appreciate that in all honesty it isn't alot better than what we've already got but at the same time Microshaft havn't announced all to do with it yet....Im still waiting...for now. :think:

Also; as we've seen before; soo many new add-ons don't support previous versions of FS.

One thing that does bug me though is the frank obsession with eye-candy!
MS have admitted that FS is used as a training aid by many so why the lack of technical accuracies?!?!

Anyway...rant over.

Cheers,

DispatchDragon wrote:Frankly Im amazed

I said basically the same thing about 3 months ago in a thread and got royally flamed by a bunch of folks (many of whom I had never seen
on the website before) Guess it doesnt pay to be John the Baptist


Leif

Sory to remind you mate, .... :-$ he was also beheaded
............don't worry, after your dead and gone
generations to come will hail you as a brialliant man
and wonder why, you could have been mistreated
and all sorts of people will write books about it and make
tons of money.
Lifes grand, .....eh? :doho:



of course these thoughts could be a reflection of a bad day
I had.
Joe

I need to say something here. Did anyone see the FS2004 promo screenshots? They are amazing compared to what almost all users get on their PCs. Same thing with FSX.

Think I'll just sit back and wait for those who buy it and see what reaction they give.......Don't see the point in spending money on something that doesn't improve on itself...........Equally, it's all right saying that it will have improved performance on dual core processors but exactly how many can afford to upgrade or are willing to pay the extra expense for something that may disappoint?......

Came across this from Flightsim.com must have been on there for some time and no doubt that you may have already seen it, so apologies to any-one if this is a repeat.

http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main ... sx0104.htm

There are some Q & A's listed including one about being released on a DVD and not a CD. Scroll down to the bottom for screen shots.

Still can't be arsed with it! Looks like media hype! I remember them all being this way about past versions.

With the right hardware FS9 is awsome!! I don't see FSX being that much
better, more "game" stuff is what I see!! I don't care to fly out to a burning
oil rig!!













And this one is just to pi$$ everyone off!! :tuttut: