Just because one default aircraft from FS9 doesn't look well in FSX doesn't mean that Microsoft's claim for backwards compatibility is a lie/trick/suspect/whatever you call it. Have you looked at some of the screenshots of other FS9-based addons that other people have tested? Some of them even looked better in FSX [like the Mig-29, F-14, even the default Robinson, etc.].

Believe me, not every aircraft from FS9 will work.

The FS9 default DC-3 works for me without any modification.



As does every FS9 default & 3rd party aircraft I've tried so far.

Hagar perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us exactly how you imported the DC3?

Jasper

OK give him a little longer than 4 minutes to do it though.

.Mic

I would also stress that all the planes I have tried have been compatable....now I just need to test the PMDG 737 with its FMC

.Mic

Ok smart asses, how about I tell you I write flight dynamics which are as fluid and probably as accurate as MS systems will allow.

I also produce sound files of a very high standard.

..........but neglect to tell anybody anything, other than they work ok for me. Would be very constuctive wouldn't it?

Quote:


What's your problem?

I'm throwing one Ecko, can't you tell?

Because after the release when they all post on here their dismay at poor dynamics and sounds, my advice could be along the lines of: " mine work ok" and nothing else. This would of course be unhelpful.

Now after a stressful day, FSX messing me about I am going to sign off and run an app where I can kill things.

G'night
Jasper

I decided to install my Nissan onto FSX te old fasion way. No edits, no converting textures, nada. Just plane old "drag and drop".

All I have esperienced with the Nissan was improved handling on dirt roads, blurred out textures and no gauges showing up in the DVC even though they worked marvelously in the 2D panel view. Besides the dirt roads, it looks like Microsoft has rearranged the code in FSX in regards to how it handles textures and xml-based gauges.

Jasper sounds like he has some very serious issues. People are trying to help you and you just respond 'smart assess'?? Whats that all about?   

And just because people say that its working fine for them doesnt mean its useless information, its simply a response before you pound Microsoft into the dirt in these forums.

And Id like to echo the point made earlier just incase something isnt quite right with FSX.....

ITS A DEMO!!!!!!!

Aw cmon - make a fuss if you do things right and they don't work but....

If you'd looked down in screenies you'd have seen how I've imported all the default FS2004 aircraft - and how they all actually look much better in FSX because the shine has been improved.

So what you've said isn't annoying.....BUT THIS IS



Here's the Cub from FS2004 flying over Heathrow in FSX 

Nice innit - notice the AI traffic, taxying even. But I can't get any ground textures. Anywhere in the world (except St Martin of course).

See what I mean - that's annoying 

You know the more I sit back and think about this the more I get convinced it's a hardware thing. Nice screenshot, Your Cub looks good. On the other hand I get excellent ground textures and excellent gauges, even ones from FS9.

I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with your GPU or mine, just I rather suspect MS has got this sim coded in a particular way.

I ask myself if I had DX10 and or Vista now and with 'optimised' hardware, would I be seeing these problems?

Personally I think graphic issues with the demo are NOT bugs. It could be that the sim (even the demo) maybe optimised for future hardware. Dumb move on the part of MS, in my view at least. We shall have to see.

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but it looks like there is a trend where those who run x000 series cards get import aircraft textures, but no gauges and no ground textures. Those with other cards like mine..MX series tend to get ground textures and gauges but no import aircraft textures.

AGP / PCI express issue?

Coincidence?

Regards
Jasper

Thanks for the confirmation there.

'Old' being the operative word lol.

Seriously, this old MX has sreved me faithfully for a while. I'd previously burned out two ATI's.

Till now it's been a case of "it works well leave it alone".

On this system at least, it runs CFS3 ok and FS9 to an acceptable degree in all respects.

I intend going MAC later in the year so there's no point in doing anything with this pentium box. I just have to establish that FSX will run via MAC's boot camp. If so there will be some serious power at hand.-------Praying

Thanks Katahu

Your'e partly right there but see last thread entry[Rollerball] it is looking more and more like hardware issues.

General feeling is the final release is most likely going to DEMAND hardware upgrade.

Understandable I suppose, just annoying right now because I cannot evaluate what I cannot see.

Jasper

Quote:


Would you be kind enough to link to this FULL backward compatibility article?

No there doesn't appear to be a problem with backward compatability of aircraft made for FS2004 (GMax and FSDS2). I've also installed default scenery objects and an airport I made some time ago using default objects and textures, using the BGLComp SDK. The scenery objects (small hotel, factory, windmills but no animation) were OK and most of the airport was OK although some textures were missing for various objects (like the tower, one of the fuel trucks). Nevertheless, it looks as though there is reverse compatability or at least a very high degree, with objects that were made for FS2004 based on the BGLComp SDK. So that's good - and more or less what was promised I think.

Quote:

Yep. It's the panel. Open Panel.cfg in Notepad & change the render_3d_window=1 value to 0.

God help me...

Quote:


...only thing I got left now that the No Child Left Behind thing has gone down the drain

Quote:


Since 98% of the textures needed for "the rest of the world" aren't present in the DEMO, I am not particularly surprised by what you see...