People of this forum, please calm down.

Having to use a thing for work doesn't mean having to like it.

Those among you that accuse me that my reviews might be inaccurate for my bias toward FSX, obviously know little about the making of a review.

When a review is made, personal likings MUST be put aside for a clear-headed judgment of the product reviewed. This is what I do. And seen that no one has found my reviews to be bad to date, I think I will continue until a good reason will be found for me to change my ways.

To those who liken the wildlife to the AI I ask, how many deers, elephants and the like are parked in the airport nearest you? Or, how does the traffic in the street relate with what happens in the airport.

I never said that nothing was bettered, I said -- and you should read more accurately before attacking me -- that the betterments that really counted were marginal. A better graphic and animated airports I like, but if to have my airport animated I must activate things I could care less about (see above)... well... bummer. I cry for my poor CPU's cycles lost to animate what I don't find useful.

A lot has been said about the wet runways, taxiways and aprons. And they must look nice. But any and every people I asked about difference of friction between wet and dry asphalt has answered... bummer. What difference?

To those who wonder, FS9 has one thing that is better than FS2002. Thing that alone made me decide to upgrade in spite of the next to absolute similarity of the graphics. Thing without which I would have never gone to FS9. Thing that is important for a better simulation.

I'm talking about the weather engine, friends mine. I don't have to explain, I hope, the differences between this part of the two versions of FS. Suffice to say that FS9's weather engine is quite more advanced and gives a more real-like experience than FS2002.

It was a nice step forward.

A step forward that FSX lacks.

I, like you all, love well done graphics in my games. But well done graphics ARE NOT a game for me.

As stated before, in old my posts, I planned not to go to FSX. It was money I didn't want to fork for something that gave me little more than what I already had. But my boss (who is first a friend, and then a boss) needs my collaboration up to the point of giving me a free copy (a LEGAL copy, let me stress) of the new simulator and I resolved that our friendship was worth more than my ideas about the new version of FS.

All I'll have to do on my side will be to fork some of my money to the princes of hardware, in time. A thing this that I would have done anyway, maybe later, but I would have anyway.

In the end I ask you people not to follow me and my points of view. And please, I ask you not to demand I MUST follow yours.

There's no need to work yourself in a lather because I don't like what our friends in Seattle have done... or better not done about our sim.

My points of view are mine. Like yours are yours. Why don't we respect each other's point of view? I reckon we'll live better.

Quote:


This is the first time I hear anything on the matter. I am interested (and rightfully so), could you elaborate, please?

From all the publicity I've seen about FSX, herds of elephants etc. do seem to have greater importance than other more important things regarding an upgrade to a programme.  One could argue justifiably that having to upgrade one's pc in order to see a herd of elephants is actually a downgrade!!!

As regards wet rwy's - have any of you landed on one??? So, yes they show the graphics of a wet rwy, BUT do they simulate the friction (or rather the lack of) upon touch down? I doubt it!
This for me is far more important than viewing a herd of elephants from 37,000 feet and if I don't fly across Africa or India, what then?
Elephants, birds etc are only what the Americans call "eye candy" and If I have to watch them in order to see moving traffic at an airport  then to me that's a waste of cpu resources. What is more important is the "upgrading" of the flight engine and other peripherals "directly" related to the sim. Here, one includes scenery etc., ATC, flight planning, AI and so on - Elephants? = unecessary!!
Vololiberista

Quote:


Names are irrelevant, here on a third site making names would be hardly polite.

The FSX that will be shipped to me is because I have to work with it, and because I wasn't going to buy it. Hence, if I don't buy it, I can't use it to review.

As already stated, my friend and boss took in stride my unwillingness in forking hard earned Euros for something not so much different to what I had already and offered to ship me a copy to keep my review going.

His choice. I cry the need to allot 14 Gb of HD for naught.


Quote:


Multiplayer, I dont use. New planes, I have already as third part freeware. Updated engine... pray tell?

Graphic engine? It's the same since FS2002. Sim engine... too is untouched since FS2002. What engine are you talking about?

Space flights perhaps, but I want a flight sim, for space I can always download Orbiter. Thermals, with AS6 I have all the thermals I need already...

...updated graphics, that's all FSX is.

As for what reason I bought FS9 on 2002, I've written already and don't see the reason I should rewrite it here.


Quote:


Deja vu. This is the same thing they said about FS9 when it got out, we're still waiting a lot of planes. Maybe they'll be published with FSXI... who knows... hope is the last to die.


In the end, I seek to convert no one. I've listed the reasons I'm cold toward FSX. If you read an attempt in convincing you in any way, shape or form in my writ, you're deluding yourself.


-Ashaman, who still cries on the need of installing a new HD at the very least to install FSX.

Ashaman, you said you went from FS2002 to FS9 just because it had a better weather engine ?
And then you keep saying that FSX is not  a step forward, ignoring the points I have listed in my previous post.

Then I don't understand. FSX has also an improved weather engine, so you should upgrade to FSX as well. Because yes, you get better cloud layouts and rendering, you get better turbulences, you get finally some turbulences made out of the new automatic thermals generator, you get improved visual impression for snow and rain, with actual wet runways that are as much part of the weather improvements as the graphical improvements.

I think the above list compares pretty well with the improvements FS9 has brought over FS2002.

Your remark about "that feature, I don't want it because I have another sim that does it" is simply stupid. You are criticizing the fact that FS gets richer, the fact that it simulates more and more aspects of the flight. I remind you that gliding is fully part of the flying experience, just like space flying is part of the flying experience.

Else, following your way of thinking, I could say: "I don't care if FS simulates liners, I already have my airbus flight simulator for that".

Sorry but I just can't believe that you would be able of making an impartial review after having said things like that. You are criticizing FSX because it gets more features than FS9.

On the other hand, I can understand that you criticize FSX on the fact that its flight model is not improved, or its ATC is not improved (well...bug solving is some kind of improvement anyway), and it would be fully justified to place those two arguments in the list of negative aspects of this sim.

But stating that FSX is not a worth upgrade is simply wrong, because that means you ignore all the new features that makes FSX a new platform that will allow a better experience than in FS9. And your argument "this is useless because I don't use it"... I think this one doesn't need any comments, right ?

I am not trying to convince you that you should buy FSX. As I said before, I can completely understand that you want to keep with FS9, because FS9 offers you just what you need, and FSX does not offer you what you are lacking. Saying such thing is justified, because it is related to your experience and your expectations. But criticizing the features just because YOU don't need them it is not correct, not impartial at all, and I still think this will be visible in your review.

There is such a profusion of appaling ignorance shown in this and a few other messages in the thread that it's difficult to even know where to begin...  

Quote:


Here in the Chicagoland area, nearly every ATIS broadcast for every airport (including KORD) includes the phrase "...advise caution for deer, birds and coyote on the runway..."

Quote:


If it isn't within range, the sim is completely unaware of it, therefore there is ZERO CPU CYCLES being "spent."  Even if an option is enabled, such as AI Watercraft, if there isn't any water in range, there is zero cost involved.  Even the animated ground traffic will cost nothing if your not in range, because the sim automatically unloads all that data and frees up the memory resources.

Quote:


Once again, you base your conclusion on uninformed third-hand anecdotal information.  There's a substantial and very noticable difference in 'ground friction' when on a wet surface.  Those who've told you differently I wouldn't trust to find their own butt with a flashlight.

Quote:


The weather engine in FSX has been vastly updated from FS9.  Not only has the ground visibility issue been fixed, but weather transitions are hugely improved, and the introduction of wake turbulence, shear factor, and thermals has boosted the realism factor by a very significant margin.

Quote:


Yes, you are most assuredly entitled to hold whatever points of view you wish, no matter how ill-founded they might be.

Similarly, I reserve the right to point out that the "Emperor has no clothes..."  

Quote:

Actually, there are lots of deer, and loads of birds in the area of the airport I operate out of.  There have been times when people have had deer run out in front of a landing airplane and they have had to go around (it happend to a friend of mine during training).  There are loads of birds landing and taking off around the airport also, mostly huge flocks of migrating Geese in the fall and spring.  Look at this link to the information of the airport I fly out of - http://www.airnav.com/airport/C29 - and check out the additional remarks section:

-       1 BIRDS ON & INVOF ARPT; ESPECIALLY DURING RAINY PERIODS.
-       AVOID NOISE SENSITIVE AREA 1 MILE SW. CTC AMGR AT 608-836-1711 FOR NOISE ABATEMENT PROCEDURES.
-       135 FT CRANE 1/4 M EAST 1300-2200, 240 FT CRANE 1/2 M FM AER 28 SR/SS, 230 FT CRANE 1 MI SE AER 28 & 240 FT CRANE2.2 MI SW.
-       CRANE 80 AGL 1/4 SM E AER 28, UNLGTD/FLAGGED.

It seems to me like there are a lot of things here for a small, midwestern airport with only one runway that aren't included in the graphical engine of FS9, but have the potential to be in FSX, only through representing these objects with improved graphics.  They are things I have to deal with on every flight, and if improving the graphics engine in FSX will allow me to see those birds I avoid everytime I go flying, I'm all for it.

Quote:

Actually, from my experience, there isn't that much difference.  I had a BFR (biennial flight review) last December, on a day after we had got almost a foot of snow, after which it was plowed and compacted.  I took-off and landed that day with 15kt direct crosswinds and never really noticed a difference between that and a dry runway.  The only differece I noticed was during my runup, the wheels slipped on a patch of ice and once I had landed, the instructor wanted me to clear the runway so another aircraft could take-off, and I jumped on the brakes, and slid a little there, but still didn't really loose traction.  I've landed on wet runways after summer showers, and there isn't really much of a difference there either, but there is a very small difference.  Runways are built with an aggresive surface made of grooves to allow water to clear, and give aircraft better traction, so they don't slide when the conditions are right.  So if I don't skid an extra couple of feet when I land in a rain storm, I could care less, because I know I wouldn't go careening out of control whenever I tried to land in the real world.  There's a reason you don't hear about aircraft skidding off the ends of runways everyday, even though it rains somewhere everyday.

Quote:


I know that you are an experienced real pilot and never said the contrary.
Please re-read my post and you'll eventually find that I'm saying that you are RIGHT to criticize the sim about the fact that it doesn't bring you what you were expecting.
But I was pointing the fact that I'm tired of the people criticizing the other features and try to ridiculize them as you did with the widlife option.
You can complain about missing feature, but complaining about non-mandatory new features and improvement is just unfair.

Remember that some of us think that wildlife is a USEFULL new feature, and that wildlife will just add something more to OUR flying experience. YOU don't need it, that's clear, but some of us are very happy to have it.