Classic British Flight Sim

Cheers Alan!

Without going to far into the debate here, the reason we're still developing for FS9 is simple, the designers have old computers and can't run FSX properly, so no point designing for a sim they can't use.

I personally only use FSX, and find that all the old planes I liked can be imported, panels and scenery is another matter. One of the elements of FSX I particularly like over FS9 and for that matter earlier versions of FS, is the way the light is presented in FSX. Everything seems brighter somehow, going back to FS9 is dreary and not something I do often, even though the frame rates are way better in FS9.

Reason for doing the BAe-146... The project has been kicking around for years, I pestered Paul for years to come join AFG and forgot about him after being told no several times. He turned up a couple months back with his project still in development and we've done a lot since he came on, and I honestly feel his version is going to be the best one for FS yet. You're all correct about there already being 2-3 other BAe-146 on "the market", I've tried them all and been disappointed by all. For some reason the nose and cockpit section of the BAe seems to be particularly tricky to nail down properly for designers and it has always been the point where all other models failed in my eyes. Hopefully you'll be as happy with ours as I am, and we'll try to get her released soon, and by that I don't mean years as it turned out with the Caravelle

Really looking forward to this release mate........Definitely a type i want in my FSX stable.....and yeah...i know what you mean....FSX seems more...alive...?

All the best with the project...

Tony

FS9 is dreary

Oh dear you have found out why I like FS9..Drearyness is my middle name
This 146 project looks great and if it runs on FSX as well then a lot of folk will be happy in both sims... A first... AFG may get the Nobel Peace prize for unifying FS9 and FSX nuts CHEERS

:think: One of the things I dislike about FS 9 is the colours are unaturally bright.

Severe shadows and metal that is over shiny on the none light side and hardly shiny on the light side.

Can't seen anything dreary, often bleached out aeroplanes and over vivid landscapes and seas


Garry

The weird thing is the graphic engine in FS2002 was superior... the colours were definately more natural, FS2004 changed that then FSX came along with cartoon look maybe it was designated for the Disney Channel

I have to say that FSX has more of a depth and distance perception better than FS9, and looks much better, but im now wondering if i should try to install FS9 on my new rig that has FSX running well...

Go for it Chris.....You will see the comparison and think...OK...I'll take FS9 back off.....

Tony

Yeah, knowing my specs it would chew up FS9 as outdated, junk and throw it straight into the recyle bin... Thats if my disks work, just had my BF2 disk fail on me :roll:... Anyways my Velociraptor 300gb is prime HDD space so only goes to game I want...

tonymadge wrote:The weird thing is the graphic engine in FS2002 was superior... the colours were definately more natural, FS2004 changed that then FSX came along with cartoon look maybe it was designated for the Disney Channel

I couldn't have nailed it any better Tony, but I really thought the winter textures in FS2002 were a pretty big let down....

Rgds

Ben