|
Post by lifejogger on Oct 23, 2006 8:44:05 GMT -5
Here is another comparison of FSX and FS9. The first pictures is FS9 plus add-ons and the second is FSX with all scenery maxed out. As I said in previous post, I am using Sitka, Alaska to test, tweak and compare FSX. Based on these two screen shots I am wondering if I need to have different video card settings for FSX than I use for FS9. The mountains in the FSX screen shot look like they belong in the Guadalupe Mountains in southwest Texas. Would someone who has FS installed, and has the time, load up a flight at Sitka, Alaska and see if your mountains look like this? Thanks FS9 FSX The real Sitka
|
|
|
Post by beana51 on Oct 23, 2006 10:51:37 GMT -5
Hi,good job.Its amazing how the real thing is so important to use in caparisons. While both pics are acceptable on a Sim,both can only be held to be so in the eye of the beholder.We are told thats Sitka,we accept that its Sitka,some even improve Sitka,but its not Sitka. Not unlike the kid saying the guy had no clothes on.For the amount of times I fly there,it may suffice.Until a whole new way of simulating what we see comes along,I will accept what they try to do.I really thank them,for it must be difficult.Its a big world. I grew up in NYC,,and yes it changes often,it an't the 1932 place I knew. FS9,and FSX portray NYC, I can tell you "It ain't NYC." Yet I fly over it,my mind filling in the blanks,and feel like "Hey, thats NYC!". Such is the mind of the young,the sentimental,and the true simmer.,at any age. Thanx Lifejogger, VIN
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Oct 23, 2006 11:45:57 GMT -5
From other posts and forums it seems that the landclass for FsX was cut short in it's prime in order to achieve a release date. I'm hoping that by the time I get FsX a patch will have been issued.
I'm holding off longer than I thought because there seems to be hardware issues with pcs that should by all accounts , be able to handle FsX. Also I want to buy the right hardware for vista/dx10.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 23, 2006 12:28:46 GMT -5
My theory is the default landclass for FSX was purchased for $13.98 from a guy in a rumpled raincoat in an alley off West 43rd St. in Manhattan. Somewhere 'round midnight. This is only good for the US but if you want a vast improvement (though still not 100% accurate) in landclass, go to FS Genesis portal.fsgenesis.net/index.php?name=Downloads&req=viewsdownload&sid=11 and get the free beta of the US Landclass. Place it in Addon Scenery\scenery and enjoy. If you really like it, buy the full updated version. Hint - If you have FS9 landclass, try it in FSX by adding it to Addon Scenery\scenery, NOT scenery\BASE\scenery where it went in FS9
|
|
|
Post by beana51 on Oct 23, 2006 13:58:24 GMT -5
Re: Another FSX vs FS9 « Reply #3 on Today at 1:28pm »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "My theory is the default landclass for FSX was purchased for $13.98 from a guy in a rumpled raincoat in an alley off West 43rd St. in Manhattan. Somewhere 'round midnight." T.C. HA! Would not doubt it.Hey,its a "steal,"and it looks it! He can keep the change!Ya can get a $1000.watch for $20.bucks also. HA! "THATS FUNNY " VIN
|
|
|
Post by ScruffyDuck on Oct 23, 2006 15:01:53 GMT -5
OK I am going to be a party pooper here - can we please also see a third screenshot showing the area in FS9 default??
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 23, 2006 15:13:57 GMT -5
Why? After Ultimate Terrain, the bar was raised. That is the bare minimum that FSX should be in the default. Default FS9 is not a standard for judging FSX
|
|
|
Post by Sidler on Oct 23, 2006 16:48:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by beana51 on Oct 23, 2006 17:02:34 GMT -5
The question is why should FSX in some areas require a global face lift.What did those who put FSX learn from the now "Reasonable" FS9.Which took some very talented people to do it.We had our Bill Lyons.For serous simmers FS9 with out the creative input by him ,and yes,others would have been a 2 dimensional game. So now we have a new busy box.For many the elusive chase for FRs becomes an obsession.The quest for a new game player is mandatory,Now the corrective building process begins again.DE JA VO!! I have FSX,its OK,I'm spending more time with it trying to make some form of acceptation out of it.And when I get fed up with it,I go back,to those worlds of Bill Lyons,and enjoy,and remember as to why we are simmers.Who knows,in a few months/years,we may be pleased with the new sim...Sorry,I Bloviated enough! Just my thoughts. CIAO VIN "Think I'll go to 34st and see whats up!" LOL!
|
|
|
Post by scubakobe on Oct 23, 2006 17:21:35 GMT -5
See, where are the fair comparisons?
Let's see a comparison between FS-X and FS9 at full settings with no addons, then make a judgement.
I wonder though, why are people fighting FS-X? What if MS decided to end the series at FS2004? I think people should be grateful that they are continuing this simulator that people have enjoyed a lot,
So all of you that are bashing on FS-X, wait for some add ons to come out or don't compare them at all unless you are going to make it fair.
Sound good? ;D
(BTW, I don't like the land class either. Southern California might be a desert, but it's not the Sahara! Then amidst the barren land, they put a nice and big river through to it all, full to the edges with water!)
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 23, 2006 17:44:30 GMT -5
See, where are the fair comparisons? What do you mean fair? There are no fair comparisons. They are different animals. FS9 is 3 years old and nearly all of the many shortcomings of the original product have been addressed. FSX is new, unfinished and heavily laced with bugs that were not in beta 3. Fairness would invove a recall of the product and whatever time it took to finish it. That would be fair to the ciustomer. Why would that be fair? FSX would automatically win. The developers understood that 3rd party development took FS2004 to new heights and they incorporated much of that work into FSX. The fact that the Rush To Market version is dreadfully buggy, demontrably unfinished and loaded with broken or half realized features does not mean that there are not some improvements, but I'm only willing to give the Aces 3 stars out of 5. Nice try, no cigar. Who's fighting it? Legitimate criticism is always necessary. We would not be having this conversation. Why should I be grateful that Microsoft released another version of the MOST SUCCESSFUL piece of software of all time. They will be amply rewarded at the cash register. I am pleased that they didn't drop it like they dropped some other software that I liked, but I am equally displeased that they released a bug ridden unfinished product and want everyone to say "Oh that's ok, there will be a patch." SCREW PATCHES! Finish the program THEN release it. Criticism is not bashing. And why should I have to wait for addons to make FSX what Microsoft SHOULD have made it themselves? No, not at all. That's just one "feature." Enjoy!
|
|
|
Post by scubakobe on Oct 23, 2006 18:17:16 GMT -5
Not having been around on any forums to see the discussions of FS9 when it was first released, how did people judge it? Fairness to the customer regarding the bugs is a different thing, though. Seeing the bugs myself, I do agree with you that they should have completed it rather then rush it out to the shelves.
Did they review FS2002 add ons and incorporate them in to FS2004? FS9 was improved to what it can be today with addons, now FS-X is starting at those high standards in FS9 and making them an option to be improved on and taken to new heights in FS-X, just like FS9. With new coding, they opened more doors, so you will see more powerful add ons being released.
Yes criticism is necessary, but do you think FS-X is a total failure? Good remarks, no matter how small, are "always necessary" unless the whole thing is a failure.
Maybe it is?
Yup I agree with that.
What do you want out of FS-X? You will never have a perfect simulation of real aviation and the Earth, so what you want and what you can get may not ever match up.
So yes, it has it's downfalls like I said in my post which I did not forget to include.
I think we can anticipate the patches now. Having never owned a game that did not receive a patch or fix, I don't find this bad, but in the case of FS-X being released with many bugs and incomplete features, patches should have been avoided. They didn't listen to you beta designers, but will they regret that now?
|
|
|
Post by beana51 on Oct 23, 2006 18:43:30 GMT -5
With all the anticipated enthusiasm displayed by the Sim community, for a long time,it is normal to be a bit curious as to why we cannot retrieve from this product the featured and advertised things in it.It seems to do so it costs $$$$.I believe that is"The" reason for some criticism.To use a product only in some percentage of its potential, is frustrating.We ,or some of us accepted that in the past.It became part of the quest for good simulation flight/world. For those who like playing with a new busy box fine,Not I any more.Sure I will buy and enhance the thing,but please give us a choice.That is, a fully functioning FSX,usable by most.Then, a new vehicle for the tinkerers.I had a plane like that once ,4hr preparing,30min flight...needless to say its gone! Some say enjoy,most really do,irregardless. Most just want to enjoy,but just cant.Others will complain,and turn off,We all have choices. Like that famous movie line "But I Cudda Been A contender" FSX that is,could have been a champ!So the fun and games have started,no peace for the weary.It will be around a while now.In a year or two,after much input and money,we may enjoy.Only to be shocked with a FS11 out there...we hope. MMMMMM X-Box in the future?? If so the FS9 we have will be a treasure,to be passed down to new simmers. LOL! HAVING FUN! VIN PS I think I'll take a flight,on FS9, to never,never, land ,at altitude things seem a lot clearer up there..
|
|
|
Post by lifejogger on Oct 23, 2006 19:56:50 GMT -5
Wow, when I started this thread all I wanted to know was are the mountains around Sitka suppose to look like that in FSX. I guess they are.
|
|
|
Post by beana51 on Oct 23, 2006 20:44:20 GMT -5
Of course your correct.. ME!I.m sorry I blab to much..Apoligize to all..no more..Promise!! Back to the wild blue yonder.its quite there! except for that guy in the Goose,gives me the creeps. VIN
|
|