Hey,

Has it just been me or am I the only one who has noticed a lack of "major improvements" ?

I noticed:

a) The cockpits were EXCEELENT
b) the handling was more realistic
c) More user friendly
d) updated interface
e) Improved water textures

but also:

a) Same terrain
b) Same token cars, etc
c) Lack of animalia
d) Small amount of air traffic.


A.


P.S for the record I should note it worked perfectly on my Dell 8400.

Quote:


im not sure if it is just the movement of fs9 a/c into fsx, but i placed the opensky crj-900 into it, and it flies like a fighter, handles like one too...

in fact, i could get the beaver to do pretty much the same...

Quote:


Its just you because your wrong about every item on that list.

a. FS9 cannot render terrain at anywhere near the same resolution
b. FS9 has moving cars on the roads? FS9 has default moving AI boats?
c. Demo.. Full version
d. It would be hard to have allot of AI traffic when the only aircraft that came with the FSX demo was a ultralite, a lear jet, a Baron and a Beaver.

One point.....

The  resolution of the ground textures do not seem to be any higher than in FS-9.

Perhaps the texture resolution was purposly kept low to limit the demo size?

Quote:



Its the artwork in the textures themselves. I assume you are running FULL resolution too

FSX is going to be more developer geared than FS9. That means developer add-on textures have the ability to be REAL PHOTOGRAPHS for textures but the ones supplied will be a bit cheezy for marketing reasons.

M$ wants the developers to have more room to work in upgrades for FSX. The ground textures are 1024x1024 where in FS9 they were 256x256

When SLI (and quad) DX10 hits, it will be completely possible to fly in a practially REAL 35mm photo environemnt

Yes, the demo definately does show the potential of FSX and I'm looking foreward to it.

However, it seems that with each release, problems, things that would be basically easy to fix, always seem to find its way into final.

Let's hope this does not happen with FSX.

Quote:


It has been confirmed by some of us that the issue of not being able to see through the windows in the DVC is normally hardware related. For example, I [and a few others] don't have the problem with the non-see-through windows so therefore it is not a demo glitch. However, I do tend to have this problem when testing out certain FS9-based addons in the demo.

What the surprised me the most from this demo is that fact that the demo is more stable than FS9. Of course, the loading time is rediculous [about 5-10 minutes] but the sim remains remarkably stable and frame-rate friendly at certain settings.

For example: I had the display settings set to the following:

1. Autogen and scenery complexity set to "very sparse"

2. Mesh complexity set to 70.

3. AI Traffic turned off [all of them].

4. Terrain resolusion and all other settings related to main scenery textures set to "maximum". That includes the water.

5. Effects detail set to minimum.

At these settings, the frame rates were astounding. In FS9, my computer still struggles even when absolutely "all" settings have been minimized. This is not the case for FSX.

The effects detail setting seems to effect certain aspects of the water's reflections [the higher the setting, the lower the frames] while the autogen and other scenery objects seem to be the main culprits when it comes frame rate loss.

I guess the long loading time was inevitable due to the amount of details that the FS community has demanded just as how higher hardware requirements have become. In FS9, the only reason we had loading times is when we filled up our hard drives with hundreds of addons that reached the GBs.

Quote:



GEzus

30 second load time here... if that long


Your settings are way too high and I suspect your hard drive is fragmented to death if it take that long to load


check my FS9.cfg thread out

It should provide a REASONABLE and realistic base for settings

http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=FSX;action=display;num=115...