How many of you will buy FSX the day it is released?
I have decided to wait until DX10 is released because I am going to get a new rig and hope that if any patches are released, I can do it all in one swoop.  After waiting for more info, I am starting to think that FSX is going to be a disappointment.  Other than improved mesh and weather,(which already exist on the market), I am just not seeing the kind of improvements that I had hoped for.  It sounds like ATC will be in the same format, just better voices.  That is not something to write home about.  Same default airlines, no FMC, nothing amazing to say wow.  Although I will still buy it, Im not sure how they can fix this, but the freeware and payware market has outpaced MS so far they really cant catch up at this point.  To include even the basic elements of all the new stuff would take more time and money than MS is willing to invest.  I think you will eventually see continuous patches or upgrades in the future rather than new releases.  Too many changes and improvements happen over 2 years for MS to compete with.  Now before everyone makes claims about whining, this is ONLY my opinion, everyone is entitled to their own and how they wish to express it.  I feel that my gratitude to the freeware and payware market should be expressed for truly pushing the boundaries for FS.  Without their hard work, the sim would be nowhere near what it is today.  Todd

Its been said over and over, "FSX looks about the same as FS9 with good addons, so im not happy with FSX" Well you havent tried it yet so whos to say you dont like it? And remember, if FS9 with add-ons looks like Default FSX, imagine FSX with add-ons. i know for one that the flight dynamics have been made better and who knows what elce they have improved, we need to wait for its release before we jump to a conclusion "I don't like FSX"

I really wasnt saying that I wont like it, Im just trying to get at the point that MS is going to have some big decisions to make about he future of this platform.  Since the freeware and payware markets will continue to drive the sim,  I dont think MS has much choice but to jump on the wagon if it wants to reap the benefits.  There isnt much benefit to MS spending millions of dollars every 2 years to release a product for 50-70 dollars, when payware alone sometimes costs that much.  With freeware and payware reaching incredible realism, how will MS market a sim that doesnt live up to the current standards of the market?  I assume that is why they are heading towards x-box features and such.
After thinking about this some more, maybe adding some of the game like features will attract a larger audience that may ultimately stabilize the franchise.  I just hope they can get the right balance so we dont head down the path of Train Sim.  Todd

No, it is great that it costs as little as it does.  I just dont know how they will continue to do so in the future, without making some sort of adjustments.  Who would have thought that the FS community would explode the way it has.  Maybe MS will have to hire some of these individuals and come out with a kick ass revolutionary flight sim.  Todd

Fozzer, as usual, will be rushing off to his local Game Shop to thrust loadsa money into the shop-keeper's sweaty palms for the luxury of purchasing FS X, immediately it is released....
...exactly the same as he has with all his other MS Flight Simulators... ...!

I collect 'em.... ...!

Paul "Loadsa-money" Fosbery.... 8)...!

Even though I am fan of the FS series, I have to say that Microsoft still has a long way to go when it comes to the flight models. For one, they have to fix the high-speed bug encountered in the FS series whenever a player reaches the limit. Microsoft would also need work on making FS understand the dynamics files a little better. I have learned from experience that the "aircraft.cfg" is pretty dang hard to understand when it comes to making anything stable. I guess it's because I'm the type who makes car addons instead.

Lmao.

Maybe they should release FSX with a slightly different name? : "FSX, the prophecy comes true / we did ya like kippers"

Perhaps more folk in the 'sim' community are begining to realize MS is NOT in business to give quality & accuracy. Their business is based on short life span high volume sales, period!

The bulk of our community say 70~90% are what might be categorized as casual gamers. purists and aviation enthusiasts account for a small minority. MS is not going to deliver what a small minority wants, there simply is not enough return in it for them. Hence things like air dynamics etc are taylored for the masses who would find aerodynamic concepts and historical accuracy too challenging. In other words, getting it right results in either a poor seller or a long life span product - not good for business.

An example is the fact that you hardly ever see anyone complain about the bull**** ground speed in any of these sims. Trust me on this, 200 feet altitude at 450 knots is very, very different from what you see in CFS1/2/3 FS9 etc. In the virtual world the average punter would fly straight into the side of a hill if MS sims were accurate in this respect. Although in my opinion they should at least get this one right as it would be a major selling point.

Someone on this thread stated that FSX will have improved flight modelling, I don't think so.

Personally I would agree with the general concensus that MS are hedging toward gaming, i.e. xbox and it's offsprings.

For the enthusiast minority, I think it would be better to 'wait and see'. After all, plenty out there who are so eager to get the latest offering no matter what you tell em. This way there will be plenty of feedback, and at least FSX will have been given a chance.

Alternatively, re-write all the airfiles, damage profiles, model scaling, and make accurate sound files. Then you have a half decent sim.

(or just take up fishing or something like that)

Jasper

I won't be buying unless I can get my hands on a rig that will allow me to run it with full settings. And, considering that I will probably never have such a system, I'll just have to learn to live without FSX.

Quote:

True. I guess I just have to keep up what I'm doing then.

Quote:


Ground speed in MS sims is a scaling issue, CFS3 being a fine example of this.

If it was correct in the sim then probably the average graphic / CPU would not be able to keep up with rendering such a large amount of data in such a short space of time.

Another example is CFS3 fly-by, even at 500MPH the fly by aircraft appears as though it was doing ~150-200MPH. Again, if it were realistic your average comp would not be able to render the graphics quick enough.

Actually, now I think of it I'll go into the CFS3 fly-by XML and see what happens by changing this--food for thought.

**Later edit:- fly-by XML does precisely "nothing"

why oh why put an accessible config in the sim when it is hard coded and embeded anyway ???
About what you'd expect I suppose.

Jasper

Back to the subject of the forum.  Yes, I will buy FSX.  The only thing that'll change my mind about buying it, is if it costs $10,000,000, or if it looks worse than FS98 (which it doesn't).

Many may disagree, but FS is a game, to me, probably to MS, and to other people, but nomatter what you may call it, its still a great expierience, especially when they don't let capable 14-year-olds fly even a Cessna.

I've just re-read my post and realized it looked a little bit violent. X-jasper, I hope you won't be offended, sorry for that, just trying to explain, you know

I'm waiting to see what others make of it before I decide purchase it. I'm happy with FS9 so I feel no need to rush out and get this latest upgrade the second it comes out.

Quote:



Some of obviously don't have ANY self control!!! 
Vololiberista

Not buying.

Actually not even taking it for free. If someone wanted to make me a present of it, I would ask for an exchange with something else and better (not a difficult task nor a long stretch at all).

Quote:


I think it's just a matter of impressions. I understand that you think the airplanes look too slow in the sim, that their movements do not reflect their actual speed.

It's because of the field of view. Because of the way the stuff is drawn, we can hardly appreciate the speeds.

Here is a real-life example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krs2YRGEadk&search=f14
Look at this plane... I mean, looking at this video, I would never believe this Tomvat is going Mach 1.... but it is. The video camera field of view is just reducing the speed sensation. In the sim, when I watch a replay of my plane going Mach1 in the same conditions, the speed is just the same.

To get a correct speed impression, we would need to play at zoom 1x on a very big wide screen with the biggest possible screen resolution. In this way we would get correct proportions, and thus correct speed impression. That's the point, with our little screens and very smll resolutions that we can afford for now, we just do what we can.

But hopefully, the new 3D Holographic included in FSX will do the trick 

Quote:


Obviously, I will buy FSX to keep Uncle Bill and his crew happy...
...and to compare it to my existing FS9, with years of Freeware/Payware add-ons installed......!
For the outlay of a few English Pounds, I think it's well worth the expense for a comparison between FS9 and FSX...
...and I have loads of spare space on my hard drives for both programs...  ..!
...so many choices... ... ...!
LOL...!

Paul...loadsa money....gimme FSX... ...!

...and as I keep saying...
...after all, it's only a "game".... ...!

Its all marketing, and I hear ya.

Probably the only reason why they say it will be 'optimised' for Vista, is so that you will buy Vista.  And partialy cuz it is actually optimized for Vista.   (that last bit is said really quickly )

Quote:

Do you think the available shots look like FS9 ? I don't.  Change your optical glasses  8) OR maybe you could show us FS9 shots that are as detailled as those of FSX  ???

Quote:

The two versions will look the same but the deluxe will have more planes, tower control and SDKs. Of course FSX engine is built on top of FS9 engine. We call that "improvement". Now, can you tell wha kinf of feeware has been incorporated into FSX ? Give us a list, because I could not recognize anything for now  ???

Quote:

Why starting all over ? "New features" doesn't mean "complete incompatibilty". Plane creators will basically have to do some tweaking to their creations so that they take advantage of the new FSX features. That doesn't mean starting all from the beginning.

Quote:

Do you know what ALPHA and BETA means ?

Quote:

If I would be Microsoft, I would keep my products community informed as often as possible about the evolution of the products they are expecting, including some very early shots of an unfinished product, because it would be too long to wait for the final version.

Would you have prefered to wait additionnal 6 month before getting any info or any screenshot of FSX ?
Personnaly, I'm glad they did not make us wait all that time, and I glad to see that even an unfinished version is already looking that good.

Quote:


Reminds me of that movie "Conspiracy Theory" with Mel Gibson. Good actor, good movie.

Quote:


Nothing. It just crossed my mind when you mentioned the word conspiracy.

Quote:


Whoah! Easy there tiger. I only meant it as a joke. Come on.

I'll be getting it and selling fs2004 no point in kepping it.

"FSX will be opitmised for Vista, so you will buy Vista"

Interesting comment, probably more true than most realise. Getting their customer base held in vice-like grip by the gonads is what M$ do best. Sims are not unique in this respect and this is why M$ has the monopoly as a software house, not because what they offer is the best but rather there is no serious competition.

Bloatware, stutterware, poopware, are trademarks of puffed up products designed to force hardware upgrades. This of course provides an excellent back-scratching service to Intel.

Conspiracy? what conspiracy?

Try running CFS2 on a P4 these days and it will run perfectly, even with 64M graphics. It also happens to have the better flight engine out of all the series. On a modern machine massive scenery and terrain data can be run through without glitch. CFS2 scenery is very well understood. The sim is Gmax compatible too.

If anything, the new 'FSX' should have been based on the CFS2 model, where at least FM developers had full access to all aspects and the damn thing now runs flawlessly in virtually any home PC.

I have nearly re-worked CFS3 for use on a private network:

1) I shouldn't have had to do it.
2) Despite everything M$ failed to give access to rocket velocity.
3) It is historically inaccurate, no P80 flew combat in WWII. Where is the Meteor?
4) It is seriously flawed in a number of areas and unless you know where and how to correct things, you have a kids 'toy', not a sim.

It's a question of 'consumer confidence' with me. Basically I have no confidence in M$ products.

They fix EVERYTHING in the last sim I bought from them, and then I'll consider buying another. Also as a gesture of good will to all the sim comminity they 'pooped' on repeatedly for the last five years, I think they should include a free copy of Vista with each FSX purchase, just as a way of saying 'sorry' otherwise be forced to remove the word 'simulator' from their packaging under the trades description act. I.E. simulates what ? certainly their previous efforts didn't simulate aircraft flight characteristics.

No forgiveness from me, I'll not be buying unless it's to pull the crap out of it and scoff at it.

Jasper

In terms of a/c dynamics and flight characteristics FlyII still outpaces FS9. and instead of having to model 2 cockpit versions just one is modelled in 3D!!!!! The default scenery is slightly better than FS9 (the clouds not) AND navigation is "On the Ball" It's the only sim I've seen with ground effect!!

I don't just want to see what the Americans call "eye candy" in FSX. How about proper ATC? Directing a/c via SID's and STAR's with separation and speed notification. Proper navigation visuals and of course proper a/c dynamics.
To me these are much more important than dropping flour all over the computer!!!!!!
I really can't wait to see elephants crossing the African plains from 35,000ft LOL
Vololiberista

Quote:


Are you talking to me? Or are you talking to somebody else. Just confused. ???

Quote:

You are not forced to model a crappy 2D panel (2D panels sucks, id I say it already ?) and you can stick with a 3D panel. Unfortunatley, because 2D panel still exist in FSX, 90% of the modelers will still continue producing magnificient 3D models for AI only 

Quote:

I'm not sure about the default scenery, but I saw some ground effect in FS9. For example with that Swiss Bastion high altitude heliports. My copter can take off only at full power, and as soon as I am no more above the plateform, I just can't maintain my altitude anymore on stationnary fligh. This is ground effetc I think, isn't it ?
My plane (well, helicopter, but anyway) flies better near the ground...

Quote:

You can tun it OFF

Quote:

Agree with that. But how about the ATC in other sims ? I didn't try Fly II yet, and the only Xplane I used was too old, so I cannot compare...

Quote:

Sure, FSX has only one new feature: elephants.
In fact, they should have called it Elephant Simulator, don't you think. It's amazing this crappy ACES team took three years only to develop moving elephants. Ahah, MS really sucks you know  Personnaly, I will never pay 80 euros for elephants. And Vista certainly has sme elephant features too, like elephant icons, elephant sounds for events, and when you install it your computer weight increase, cool  8)

Quote:



Not necessarily so. That basically is an excuse for bad dynamics banded around originally by people who, not by their own fault have little comprehension of aerodynamic basics. Not everyone is an expert, M$ knows this only too well.

Some developers specialise in 3D, some in scenery, others objects etc. Each to their own however my particular skills are with sound files and air dynamics.

I can tell you it is perfectly possible to get ACCEPTABLE performance from the flight engines of all the CFS series, FS2002 and FS9. I have compiled / reworked many airfiles in the series.

Obviously, you cannot achieve absolute modelling however this has nothing to do with the fact that M$ individual FM's are basically flawed from the start. They have to be re-written, properly.

I used to rewrite FM's for people, unfortunately having once seen  my work pinched I have a policy of not giving anything away, otherwise I would have been glad to write FM's for an aircraft of your choice, and let you see for yourself. I am sure you would be amazed at the difference.

Of FSX? well I am considering making my own sim based on the CFS2 core, but with FS9 globals and UK VFR photo scenery. This should essentially make a combat sim out of FS9, giving the advantage of common player weather formatting (i.e as per CFS3).

FS9 scenery in CFS2 is well understood.

Why would I bother with yet another sim from M$?

Jasper

Agreed on the 'american Eye Candy'

Too much guff for too long.

Unfortunately, the main market for these products actually believes what is sold represents reallity.


Jasper

Who's bitching?

Plenty of 'NO' replies, if you care to look.

Quote:


Are you bitching? or are you saying yes or no?
Be careful though. If you give an explanation as to why you will or will not be buying someone may accuse you of bitching!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vololiberista
LIMZ CUNEO/LEVALDIGI  (Elev. 1267 ft - 42mb) CUF
METAR LIMZ 211200Z 02004KT 9999 NSC 32/15 Q1019=
METAR LIMZ 211100Z 02004KT 330V080 CAVOK 32/13 Q1020=
TAF
No TAFs available

I hope the franchise (evil empire I call it) does collapse.

You know with each of these sims when I get down to the nitty-gritty of the differences between versions, the more I see 'other adjendas'.

Recent point in case is XML, NOT user friendly for the average punter. First appeared in CFS3 and looks like M$(£££) trend from now on.

XML is a 'bastardisation' of SGML. You may or may not know SGML is standardised to ISO. Guess what: m$(£££) does not like standards. In a note of sarcasm:"I wonder why?" LMAO.

Like it or not, XML has been forced on us for business reasons rather than giving us greater freedom. Same old story.

There is no point - counterpoint in the way you infer, rather the actual reason for having a forum like this is to encourage discussion.

If everyone instantly agreed on 100% of everything there would be no sense having a forum in the first place.

It might also be worth remembering if by any slight chance m$(£££) read these forums YOU / WE might actually benefit in some way.

I note from preview of my post if typing 'M' suffixed by a dollar sign, it is automatically changed to the complete word 'microsoft'-----did microsoft object to something here?

Jasper

Quote:


Apparently if we don't use the M.......t name in full when we are discussing them, their lawyers get very upset and are at this very minute searching the domains for our addresses in order to bring actions against us for bringing the "good?" name of M(something)s into disrepute!!!

They, I mean M(qualcosa)s do everything they possibly can to monopolise the industry and get very upset and protest like spoilt children when they hear objections. Personally I think the EEC fine of €2million a day should have a large number of noughts added!!! €200million a day would be more interesting!!!
Vololiberista
LIMZ CUNEO/LEVALDIGI  (Elev. 1267 ft - 42mb) CUF
METAR LIMZ 221100Z VRB03KT CAVOK 31/15 Q1017=
METAR LIMZ 221000Z 02004KT 350V080 CAVOK 30/16 Q1017=
TAF
No TAFs available

Each to his own view Kat

VOLO!!
LMAO, In-fact I'll gladly give them my full postal address, not just domain etc. They are welcome to call anytime.

I mean, a business as BIG as that getting upset at a little dollar sign is quite childish. Pathetic even.

Or do they think they are so BIG they can tell me what I am allowed to type?.

Then again, a recent press release did confirm that microsoft has banned the words 'democracy' and 'freedom' from chinese versions of it's software.

Will I be buying? not bloody likely.

Jasper