|
Post by Admin on Jan 5, 2006 22:23:49 GMT -5
After Vista is released, 4th quarter (Oct-Nov-Dec) My guess is later rather than sooner
|
|
|
Post by jordonj on Jan 5, 2006 22:35:25 GMT -5
I'm excited and optimistic, but I do think I'll let others be guinea pigs for it...let me know what I may need...
But hey...what if they fixed the floatplane bug?
What if the terrain is more accurate?
What if the lakes freeze in the winter?
I look optimistic...look how far FS has come in a short period of time!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 5, 2006 22:57:52 GMT -5
...look how far FS has come in a short period of time! Yup, it seems like only 15 years ago when we struggled along with a dead flat 4 color North America and the Cessna and the Learjet used the same panel and the engine sounded like a playing card on bicycle spokes
|
|
|
Post by dominique on Jan 6, 2006 1:22:40 GMT -5
Simon says ;D " 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? " hey my goggle are cleaner than yours Resized and compressed screenshots ! 'nuff said ;D ! Simon says " Why on Earth do you assume the terrain will be more accurate?" I do 'cause in my time I'm made sceneries for Fly! using extensively USGS GIS data or their Canadian equivalents and it looks very much like they are using the stuff in pic 3,5,28 etc. I may be wrong, but it looks like it. Simon says " But the airplanes don't really make any difference, since who flies them anyway, in any version?" I did and I do in spite of having purchased more than a couple of paywares (understatement) and having selected to keep about half a dozen of excellent freewares. And I dont feel isolated. Simon says " the default Cub has vicious ground-handling qualities" Read carefully this www1.drive.net/evird.acgi$pass%2a22115176!_h-www.landings.com/sites/J-3-book/How-to-fly-J-3-Cub.html and you'll see that the default Cub is not that much off the mark. I agree that the ground looping is a tad overdone. But all the other Cubs including Bill's (and I love it too) are a little tame IMHO. Cubs are supposed to be bitches if I may say so. Now I assume we've a moral obligation to live until 2030 to see who is right ?
|
|
|
Post by simonovman on Jan 6, 2006 2:00:31 GMT -5
Your second screenshot helps make my point. Look at that miserable, miserable job they did on the cowling of that Vega. All those corners, like something you'd tighten with a socket wrench, in place of the beautiful curves of the real thing. I've tried several times to fly the Vega and I just couldn't stand it.
You make a better case with #3; the Ford is in fact the best thing in the default lineup - in its very basic way, of course, and it's not realistic to expect a cabin interior in a default plane - and indeed I would say it's easily up to the standards of some of the better freeware that was available for FS2002.
As for the Comet, OK, it's not bad but who cares? What can you DO with it? Take it up and fly it a time or two to find out what it's like, and then?
But in the case of the Ford and the Comet we really don't have any standards for comparison because there aren't any equivalent third-party models available. (There was a Ford for FS2002 but it was more imaginative than accurate; I grant that the default FS9 one was better.) My point was that the FS default aircraft in just about any given version are inferior to the better free and payware models available, and so I don't see any reason to assume that this will not also be true of the Goose, the Maule, and the Beaver.
Consider the default DC-3. This is the one I had in mind most specifically when I mentioned murky VCs; it's like being submerged in an aquarium that needs cleaning. Certainly it's not in a class with the MAAM payware DC-3, even though that's an old model that started life two FS versions ago.
In fact the greatest strength of the FS series and the reason for its great popularity is that it can be improved and expanded on by the addition of better air and scenery models. If we were limited to the stock aircraft and scenery (as in some other flight sims) I wouldn't have stayed with it this long.
As for having a moral duty to live until 2030 - son, I intend to live just as long as I can, for a lot of reasons, but the future of flight simulation isn't one of them.
Enough. You've given your opinion, I've given mine. Hic finis fandi.
Oh, except for one little thing - my name isn't Simon. My handle in here is simonovman - simonov, as in Simonov, as in what I'm holding in the little picture - and my real name is William Sanders. I don't care which you use, but do me the courtesy of calling me one or the other in these little exchanges, would you please?
|
|
|
Post by dominique on Jan 6, 2006 8:38:35 GMT -5
Williams, Before buying the RealAir Spit' which is of course quite superior I've flown the Comet as a fast cruiser for tens of hours. It's a nice plane and a FS9 hidden jewel. A challenge to take off and land but nice. For the rest, I agree that we will not agree ...
|
|
|
Post by scubakobe on Jan 6, 2006 13:34:02 GMT -5
Wait, in the PC Gamer magazine it says FS X is coming out in February. That makes me happy. Windows Vista is NOT required to run FS X, but is recommended. So that means they can release FS X in February because they don't need to wait for Windows Vista. Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 6, 2006 15:16:58 GMT -5
Microsoft have said the report of February release was wrong. It will be released in the 4th quarter of 2006 (October, November or December)
|
|
|
Post by scubakobe on Jan 6, 2006 16:08:19 GMT -5
Dang, you had to pull out the truth didn't you, now I am too anxious! I have to think of something to get my mind off of FS X.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 6, 2006 16:22:07 GMT -5
FS9 keeps my mind off FS-X It won't be here for nearly a year. Forget about it. Enjoy FS9
|
|
bcbay
Flightsimmer
Posts: 25
|
Post by bcbay on Jun 13, 2006 16:07:00 GMT -5
And I will be 94
|
|