Sometimes it pays to be behind the times

msalama · Post by **msalama** » 11 Oct 2006, 06:40

There's been no flight modelling improvements to FSX as far as I know. And to be honest I really don't see any reasons for the purchase if I get nothing but eye candy and "exciting" plots in return, especially when the basic sim engine after all these years still fails to deliver on at least these counts:

* Prop effects
* Gyroscopic effects
* Near-the-envelope-edge (and beyond) flying - stalls, spins, etc.

So I think I'll pass this one by, thank you, being the WWII-era prophead that I am...

PushinPolys · Post by **PushinPolys** » 11 Oct 2006, 14:20

Nigel H-J wrote:Happy with FS9 for the time being. See no reason at all to go for FSX especially now that Stewart has passed on the info regarding performance.

Can anyone tell me why Microsoft see a need to release a product that they know will not run satisfactorily unless on a higher than average spec computer? Not exactly common sense Marketing wise is it!!! :think:

Since when have Microsoft ever released a finished product? Also when have they ever got the specs accurate for the required hardware on the box? How many updates has your Windows XP had? Who has tried I.E.7?
What was the file size for the last patch in FS9? It is going to be a killer for a few months but the trouble is for comercial developers we have to use the bloody thing as someone will request the next release to be fully compatable and with the cost involved to run it I fear that there will be fewer releases for a few months. :-({|=

Dyl Roberts · Post by **Dyl Roberts** » 11 Oct 2006, 16:53

It is going to be a killer for a few months but the trouble is for comercial developers we have to use the bloody thing as someone will request the next release to be fully compatable and with the cost involved to run it I fear that there will be fewer releases for a few months.

What about the freeware developer in all this?

I don't have much sympathy for the comercial developers, as they do have a revenue coming in from the sales of their products, wich would help fund their Hardware upgrades.

Freeware developers never gain anything by creating their projects. They do it for the love of their hobby.

So, I for one won't be worried by the lack of payware released.

Angus · Post by **Angus** » 11 Oct 2006, 19:45

If I had a half-decent computer then I'd buy FSX straight away, for the simple reason that recently I've got very sick of FS2004 even with all the great add-ons (mostly freeware) that make it a thousands times better than it was originally. But I've just had enough of seeing exactly the same world every time I go on it, even if a new aircraft keeps me occupied for a short while. The difference between FS and the real world is that when you're flying for real there's always something to do and the view out of the front windows is worth seeing - in FS2004 the world out of the window is just so boring. For that reason I'm sick of FS2004 at the moment, so if I could I'd buy FSX just for the novelty factor of being able to fly a slightly different looking world. Until I can get FSX then I'll just take a break from FS unless something interesting comes out.

Post by **Rick Piper** » 11 Oct 2006, 20:18

There's been no flight modelling improvements to FSX as far as I know

download the 2nd FSX demo and the flight modelling seems much better than FS9 to me.

I think the first demo had little difference.

Regards
Rick

jonesey2k · Post by **jonesey2k** » 11 Oct 2006, 23:05

Rick Piper wrote:
There's been no flight modelling improvements to FSX as far as I know
download the 2nd FSX demo and the flight modelling seems much better than FS9 to me.

I think the first demo had little difference.

Regards
Rick

The updated demo seemed to look and perform better and is more stable.
I hated the first one, but after flying the second demo Im starting to warm to it.

msalama · Post by **msalama** » 12 Oct 2006, 12:29

download the 2nd FSX demo and the flight modelling seems much better than FS9 to me.

Cheers for beers m8, will do that and give the bugger a tryout. Thanks for the tip!

AndyG · Post by **AndyG** » 12 Oct 2006, 12:40

The feedback I had from a certain scenery designer was, and I quote, "it's sh..... er, it doesn't work very well". This was a comment about the final RTM version, his opinion was that there were still far too many scenery issues and he will continuing developing for FS9 for the foreseeable future.

My own opinion is that nobody will get the real benefit from FS X until they are running it on a Vista machine with DX10. Feedback on some of the other forums I dropped in on seems to indicate this is a Microsoft faux pas similar to FS2000.

But then, what do I know?

AndyG

Charlie Bravo · Post by **Charlie Bravo** » 12 Oct 2006, 18:31

FSX is getting slated everywhere for it's poor performance.

Why have MS released a bag of shite like this?

Post by **MALTBY D** » 12 Oct 2006, 19:25

It sure is getting a slating.
I can't help thinking that for some reason they've made it run crap on purpose.

From what I've read so far, the situation with the autogen sounds plain stupid.
The minimum slider level of autogen is apparently more than the maximum on FS9 ? :k:

Some people have found tweaks to reduce the autogen down to similar levels as FS9 & they say FSX then runs so much better.
It doesn't take much intelligence to realise that too much autogen is going to give a performance hit for most folks, so I wonder why they set it so high?

Puzzled. :think:
DM