|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 4, 2006 23:25:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Jakemaster on Jan 4, 2006 23:36:28 GMT -5
It looks really good. I expecially like the default planes! Maule, Goose, Beaver. Oh Joy of Joys!
|
|
|
|
Post by simonovman on Jan 5, 2006 1:50:24 GMT -5
So? I've already got a Goose, and I know where I could get a Maule if I wanted one (had it already, dumped it, boring plane) and there is at least one excellent payware Beaver available for much less than this thing is going to cost - especially figuring in the expense of jacking up my computer to be able to handle it. And while I haven't seen the new FS planes hands-on, I have absolutely no doubt that Aerosoft did a better Beaver and I'm quite sure they can't have done a Goose any better than Bill Lyons already did.
I'm not getting it. Enough is enough. They play this game with us - the software developers create things we think we absolutely have to have, so we spend money fixing up our computers (or buying new ones) and then just as we get everything to working and get it fixed up the way we want it they do it to us again.
At some point it becomes time to step off the bus and this is when I'm doing it.
Admittedly I said the same thing when FS9 came out; but I only changed my mind because my daughter got me FS9 for Xmas - if it hadn't been for that I'd still have been happy with FS2K2. True, I'd have missed GW3 and that would have been a shame, so I'm glad I got it - but since Mr. Lyons has said he's retiring, I doubt if there will be a GW4. (If I'm wrong, if there is, then maybe I'll reconsider.)
But even if I were to get this thing, it certainly wouldn't be because of the aircraft lineup. I have yet to see Microsoft Flight Simulator produce a decent model aircraft as part of the default lineup to any of its various versions and I don't for a minute believe this is going to be any exception.
|
|
joe
Flightsimmer
Posts: 84
|
Post by joe on Jan 5, 2006 2:48:34 GMT -5
I wasn't too excited about FS.X until I saw those pictures. Now I'm actually looking forward to it!!  |
|
|
|
Post by attaway on Jan 5, 2006 10:01:54 GMT -5
Anyone else notice that the atmosphere distance effects and textures look a lot like Golden Wings / Silver Wings?
Thats quite a compliment to Bill Lyons!
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Jan 5, 2006 12:13:26 GMT -5
Well they promised to concentrate on the ground textures and scenery and from those shots they've gone a long way towards that.
|
|
|
|
Post by simonovman on Jan 5, 2006 12:27:45 GMT -5
The screenshots for CFS-3 looked fantastic, too. Came very close to inducing me to buy it, in fact. Then I started hearing things and decided to hold off; and as it turned out that was a good thing.
Just remember, those screenshots undoubtedly were taken with the display settings cranked up to maximum, on a state-of-the-tech hardware setup tuned by expert professionals. Will it look like that on your setup or mine? That's another question.
Of course I realize that there are people who are going to buy new computers just so they can play with this thing. Must be nice to have money.
|
|
|
|
Post by scubakobe on Jan 5, 2006 13:25:23 GMT -5
I am excited for FS.X!!
Looks like I will finally be able to fly my dream route realistically, from L12 to KRBG.
Maybe get a better view of the sierra nevadas and a more realistic Avalon. Sounds like they are releasing it around 2006 Christmas holiday?? I certainly can't wait until then...
They might have more realistic flight models, so a Boeing 747 can't fly upside down, like in Fs2004.
Overall, its very good.
I guarantee I will be buying that, if I can wait until Christmas...
Also, the sense of progress will definetely be great, especially to those that say FS is boring because all you do is fly airplanes around....now there's a twist to it!
|
|
|
|
Post by dominique on Jan 5, 2006 13:29:55 GMT -5
OK, its for real now well, hardly Tom  still a long year to wait before it to be "really real" i.e. at the other end of my joystick... But it looks good, real good ! Simon, please allow me to disagree on a couple of points you made. Of course these are still pics with every slider to the rightmost position. It may not look as good on my/your setup when the time comes. Like I'm not sure to be able to display the fantastic reflection of the clouds (pic #2) on the water or the amazingly detailed (10 m ?) mesh of the moutains (pic #24). But there are things that everybody will benefit of, like the new beautiful textures on an obivously landclassed terrain from GIS data. Mercifully MS does not adopt photographic texturing (what we would call in French une fausse bonne idée a mistaken good idea ) ! I hope that we'll 've new terrain like that for Asia as well (rice paddies !). Don't you love your geography being rigth when you fly ? As to know if MS will do a worse job than Bill Lyons and Aerosoft, I disagree as well. The VC on FS9 vintage planes are truly excellent. The default Cub, Comet, DC3 are pure joy to fly. It does not diminish Bill L and others developpers merit to say that. And Simon, yep, it's better to be healthy and rich than poor and sick. Sure is ;D. What I see in the pics released today is the stuf I was dreaming of when I was flying 25 years ago at 2 fps on a Apple ][ with BW monitor. Let's keep on dreaming and I wonder what we'll get in 2030 (if still alive).
|
|
|
|
Post by scubakobe on Jan 5, 2006 13:48:55 GMT -5
What I see in the pics released today is the stuf I was dreaming of when I was flying 25 years ago at 2 fps on a Apple with BW monitor. Let's keep on dreaming and I wonder what we'll get in 2030 (if still alive). I bet, that by 2030, the flying will be so realistic that you could probably fly in the FS, and then go out in a real airplane to fly the same route, and see the same sights, feel the same excitement, and be able to relive almost exactly. I will be 39 years old in 2030, and by that time I will be a real pilot, so who knows if I will still be using FS then. |
|
|
|
Post by dominique on Jan 5, 2006 13:50:55 GMT -5
lucky you, I'll be 81  |
|
|
|
Post by 314clipper on Jan 5, 2006 14:17:30 GMT -5
Just speaking for myself, but I couldn't be more pleased after seeing the preview shots of FSX! Absolutely stunning, especially considering that you are looking at the default, "out of the box" package, still to undergo several months of development and improvement before release! I was also encouraged to read Microsoft's comments regarding the continued (even improved) ability for 3rd party designers to use FSX as a building block. From the screenshots, it appears that the quality of the base package has been raised to a level seen in today's best add-ons. If tradition holds true, imagine what that means we will see from developers as they improve on the boxed version!
Consider how far flight sims have come in just a few short years, and how much bang you get for your buck. It's easy to be a cynic and think that every time computer technology takes a step forward, it's all a conspiracy to get us to spend more money on equipment upgrades. And maybe it is. But like anything else, you decide if its worth the money, then live with your decision. Based on past experience, my guess is the new version of FS will be worth every penny. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 5, 2006 14:54:05 GMT -5
I have a computer savings account and there is money in there for a new computer. I would like to hold out for a 64 bit computer running Vista pre-installed for FS-x but my second machine is showing signs of age and it may die before next Fall. Time will tell. dominique: By real I meant that Microsoft has acknowledged FS-X's existence. And there is indeed a viable working internal beta. |
|
|
|
Post by simonovman on Jan 5, 2006 17:09:40 GMT -5
Why on Earth do you assume the terrain will be more accurate? So far we've seen some very nice textures but I will ask leave to remain skeptical until we find out whether those textures are in the right places. All the way up through FS9 they still have yet to get simple things like coastlines right; if they had there wouldn't be such a demand for terrain addons.
(I admit they have made some progress over the years; by 2004 they finally acknowledged the existence of Prince Edward Island, for example.)
As for the quality of the VCs of the default FS9 planes - are we using the same product? Dim, fuzzy - maybe the idea is to reproduce the effect of an aviator who needs to clean his goggles? Not to mention the shapes...you know, one of the reasons I considered buying FS9 was the Vega, a plane I always wanted to fly; and when I finally got it that was one of the first planes I tried - only to find that the view from the VC is so awful as to make the plane unusable except as an AI. (I know they have to take frames into account, but there's really no excuse for turning that famous round cowling into a sharp-cornered hexagon.) As for the flight modeling, it is to guffaw. The default Cub has vicious ground-handling qualities, though I admit its VC is one of the better ones.
But the airplanes don't really make any difference, since who flies them anyway, in any version? There'll be a flood of addons, both pay and freeware, for FSX just as there has been for every other version; and as before, at least some of them will be infinitely better than the defaults. And we'll undoubtedly see a lot of addon mods, too, to correct the flight modeling and other shortcomings of the default aircraft. So that's not really the issue. I'm just saying you can already get all these airplanes, either for free or for less than FSX plus a computer upgrade will cost you, modeled better than there is any chance of Microsoft ever doing, so there's not much point in buying it just for the planes.
The terrain is another matter. IF they actually got the terrain RIGHT, or significantly closer to it - if the accuracy of their appearance comes at least close to matching the accuracy of, say, Free Flight New England or Holger Sandmann's magnificent scenery - then that would be a good reason to consider getting FSX.
And maybe they did; but I'm certainly not making any such assumption merely on the basis of some screenshots and some pre-release hype.
As for 2030, the chances of my being alive by then are not high, but they're still a lot higher than the chances of FS or any other PC flight simulator actually reproducing the sensations of flight. In the immortal words of the Duke of Wellington, if you'll believe that you'll believe anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by scubakobe on Jan 5, 2006 20:17:44 GMT -5
When they say it should be out by "Holidays 2006", does that mean December? There are lots of holidays in a year, maybe its going to be out for Valentines holiday, makes me happy to even think that. When do you estimate it will be out?
|
|
still a long year to wait before it to be "really real" i.e. at the other end of my joystick...
