|
|
Post by dominique on Oct 8, 2006 3:03:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by windrunner on Oct 8, 2006 3:15:48 GMT -5
not sure if this can helps (I did not installed the demo so I am "blind") but I've read that some FS9 planes have textures dissapearing because of the envmap.bmp; try to back up the FSX demo's one and install the FS9 and check what it comes out.
I'd like to move my SF260 and Spit to FSX too, but I'm sure the guys at RA will release updates.
|
|
|
|
Post by dominique on Oct 8, 2006 3:38:32 GMT -5
The last demo is somewhat better than the first. Thanks for the texture tip... I'm sure that Rob abd Sean will update but as for now their aircraft are not transferable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 8, 2006 8:43:54 GMT -5
I can add that the Carenado Cessnas all work in FSX BUT you must "trust" all the gauges one time. A nuisance but necessary because of "advances" in Some Microsoft systems.
I should add that I don't plan to port anything else from FS9 to FSX since I have FS9 tuned to what I want in a sim and I will need some time to get used to all of the game elements in FSX. No point in muddying those waters. The jury is still out on whether FSX will ever be more than a casual game on my computer.
|
|
|
|
Post by ScruffyDuck on Oct 8, 2006 8:51:14 GMT -5
I would not assume that the final demo is behaving in exactly the same way as the full retail version of FSX either.
|
|
|
|
Post by dominique on Oct 8, 2006 9:36:38 GMT -5
The jury is still out on whether FSX will ever be more than a casual game on my computer. X is tempting but if I go for it I want to fly my FS9 aicraft in it. I dont want to have two sims running at the same time. As I mostly fly below 20K feet the new autogen trees, ground textures resolution and water are nice. I've flown enough in 2k2 and FS9 in the Solomons and Hawaii to appreciate the carribean demo. Flying is also about looking down and enjoying the view, isn't it ? Let's call it situation awareness, sounds more technical ;D. Now, I share your doubts Tom as my updated gear grinds FS9 to a very good fluidity with full clouds settings and I like that. I would not assume that the final demo is behaving in exactly the same way as the full retail version of FSX either. Better or worse  ? It's an interesting issue. I've a 13 to 18 (target) framerate in good weather with the last demo which is not bad assuming that I've not begun to tune it and that the sliders are pretty much to my liking including a dense autogen and a 1 m resolution. Now I see a lot of complaints on Avsim concerning the retail version Excluding the usual unpleasant crowd that big sites draw, I assume that it comes from fellow simmers using large airports and liners. However, I'd like to be sure is that the new autogen woukdn't kill all apparence of smoothness, say, flying low in an Idaho valley with a reasonable amount of clouds... |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 8, 2006 10:49:40 GMT -5
I'll do some testing over the next couple of days and maybe grab some screen shots. I fly low and slow and there is much to like in FSX visually. I am frankly not impressed with the new gaming features like the missions and the so-called multi-player being slaved to GameSpy. BUT as the developers have pointed out, Free Flight is still possible so it may become a flight sim over time. I don't plan on giving up FS9, FSGW3, FS-VFR, or FS2005 (my 4 custom installs of FS2004.) And all my FS9 airplanes work fine in all 4 of those installs.
I am using it on an off the rack eMachine T6420 Athlon 64 3400+ (2.2GHz) with a 19" Samsung SyncMaster 930B (Digital) on nVidia GeForce 7600GS at 1280x1024. The hard drive is ATA 200 Gb. I have 2 gb DDR SDRAM Dual Channel. Not high end equipment by any means and yet I am content with the results I have so far. I'm sure it will look/feel/run better on next year's Vista/DX10 computers.
|
|
|
|
Post by dominique on Oct 8, 2006 11:52:46 GMT -5
Why do you say that "it may become a flightsim over time" ? It is not out of the box ? I thought that the missions and multiplayer features were just extra added to a "bonified FS9" so to speak , aren't they ? Do they interfere with the simulation ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 8, 2006 17:22:00 GMT -5
Dominique-
This is strictly my personal opinion of FSX. It looks to me like Microsoft went after the gamer aggressively which is a legitimate business decision. My problem with FSX, which I am sure will moderate with time, is that all the development effort seems to have gone into the gaming elements so for simmers, what we have is FS9 with nicer water and autogen. shorelines about half as good as Ultimate Terrain and no working utilities. few working sceneries and some working airplanes. All that nice new AI traffic and no way for the end user to work with it. Not since FS5 has backward compatability been so broken. In the end, the choice belongs to each person.
I am sure over time that 3rd party developers will provide the tools to do with FSX what I can do now with FS9, and then it will compete for my attention. Meanwhile I have FS9 and I can play with FSX.
|
|
|
|
Post by dominique on Oct 9, 2006 7:07:31 GMT -5
I see your points Tom and like you I prefer working utilities to missions anyday.
We are getting back to the early FS9 situation when TTools and AFCAD had to be adapted to suit the new sim engine. I'm a little worried though. On the dedicated Avsim forum, some are hinting at the fact that Lee Sworthty was not much interested in adapting them.... And there has been no news from the GA-Traffic developper for a long time if I'm not mistaken.
On the relief/landscape modeling side, I've mixed feelings. There are of course existing tools for FS9 (G2k4 for instance) which become overnight obsolete but overall they are not satisfactory. I'm grateful that they exist but contrary to Fly! I neverr could finish a project. The products are not stable and often limited and awkard to use. On the bright side, I may add that I welcome very much the new detailed resolution both for mesh and landscape (7 cm !). This is an important milestone for this franchise which may show that the photoreal sceneries from aerial pictures are a dead end alley.
It's interesting to see on Flight One forum Allen Kriesman being very positive on the MS AcesSstudio cooperation with 3rd party developpers. I was one of Allen's B-tester when he was developping Terramodels for Fly! and I know that this is not lip service to people he needs. He means it.
Will we see one day a good scenery editor ? that's my ardent wish !
|
|
|
|
Post by lifejogger on Oct 9, 2006 8:01:52 GMT -5
I don't plan on giving up FS9, FSGW3, FS-VFR, or FS2005 (my 4 custom installs of FS2004.) And all my FS9 airplanes work fine in all 4 of those installs. Someone needs to enlighten me as to what FS-VFR and FS2005 is. |
|
|
|
Post by ScruffyDuck on Oct 9, 2006 8:06:24 GMT -5
There is work being done on a replacement for AFCAD. There is the start of a co-operative effort on a new Scenery Design Suite for FSX over at www.fsdeveloper.com. Some of us are working on decoding the new FSX file formats for scenery bgls and mdl objects. At the moment most of the scenery tools designed to work with FS9 will work with FSX - just not able to use some of the new features available in the scenery engine. AFCAD2 obviously cannot read the new bgl format in FSX, but AFCAD files developed in FS9 should work. Several people have managed to unravel parts of the new bgl format (it is not that different than FS9) but, as you say, it seems very unlikely that Lee will update AFCAD and, unlike TTools, the source code is not in the public domain. We have picked up some interesting comments for AI Traffic designers about the dangers of AFCAD2 and what to avoid in any AFCADX - particulalry the danger of removing or damaging approach data when AFCAD is used as a design tool rather than a Traffic Tool (which is, as I understand it, what it was intended for) The new mdl format is quite different than the FS9 one but that should not affect scenery designers unless they want to Tweak the mdl in some way. I have gotten enough from the new format that LOM/Scenery Maker should work. Arno Gerrettsen is also working on the new mdl format for mdl Tweaker - so stuff is happening |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 9, 2006 9:36:21 GMT -5
I don't plan on giving up FS9, FSGW3, FS-VFR, or FS2005 (my 4 custom installs of FS2004.) And all my FS9 airplanes work fine in all 4 of those installs. Someone needs to enlighten me as to what FS-VFR and FS2005 is. Those are some of my personal variations on FS9. They exist only on my computer. They are not and will not be availble due to their very nature. i.e. they are made with payware scenery. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 9, 2006 9:37:49 GMT -5
so stuff is happening Good news Jon. Thanks. I'm reading the forums over there. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 9, 2006 9:50:30 GMT -5
It's interesting to see on Flight One forum Allen Kriesman being very positive on the MS AcesSstudio cooperation with 3rd party developpers. I was one of Allen's B-tester when he was developping Terramodels for Fly! and I know that this is not lip service to people he needs. He means it. All the major commercial developers were involved in the beta and all MUST be very positive to stay in business. I'm sure they all mean it too. Only time will tell if attitude translates into addons. And remember, developers like Allen have tools we can only dream about And mine... We'll see. The advantages this time around are the early release of the SDKs and the formation of FSDevelopers. The disadvantages are the fascination with the gaming elements that will add mediocre mission after mission to the 249 thousand Airbus repaints at the major archive sites. And of course, the forum questions like "how do you beat the (your title here) mission? Where are the cheats?" And those will be your new MSFS fans. |
|
(no canopy, prop looks like a opaque black disk, most of the gauges dont appear)
(no canopy, prop looks like a opaque black disk, most of the gauges dont appear)
? 
