Hi all, there's a new demo of FSX to download from Microsoft now, presumably based on final code. It was released on the 29th of September. I'm downloading now, will tell you of any improvements if someone else doesn't get there first.
cheers

Ahem, sorry...here you go...

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=ce12726c-0eba-4653-8270...

My download still has an hour to go. I've got my fingers crossed that I won't be disappointed.

A demo with 800 mb? 

Quote:


I don't know that... 12 gb... it's very much...

OK, I've flown around for a bit and played with the settings. Firstly I couldn't max the sliders and get a playable result, not surprising since my computer is a little off the pace (Celeron 2.93Ghz, 512Mb RAM, GeForce 5700 128Mb). I could get it playable with all the AI settings at 50%, and all the scenery sliders set to around 75-80%. I turned all the water effects off, it may be just me but I think it looks better that way. Flying on St. Maarten with it's photoscenery the blurries were bad, the scenery never resolved. Flying elsewhere the blurries were there but far less than in FS9. I'm disappointed with the supposedly high-definition textures, they look much the same resolution as FS9 to me although they appear to be more varied. The autogen hits the frame rate as you may expect when you multiply it by ten, but it looks a lot more realistic and less cartoon-like now. If there's anyone out there trying it on more cutting edge equipment can you please let me know of your experiences, i.e does extra memory and/or a better graphics card make a big difference to texture resolution etc. etc. I think I may already know the answer to that one but I'll have an idea as to what replacement bits I'll need to save up for.
cheers

FSX will be a major Frame hog. I would expect the textures to resolve themself with the full version, but i agree the new autogen looks much more realistic now. Save up for when visa come out, buy a DX10 video card and you should be ok.

Nice to hear about the autogen being improved.

Quote:


Where did I hear that before...

...

AH, now I remember, it was when FS9 was about to get out.

And we all KNOW how it ended, don't we?

The wheel of time turns and what happens in this very moment, has happened already before and will happen again... time without end...

-freely inspired to "The Wheel of Time", by Robert Jordan

just started to download it, and only 13 min to go...hehe...it's going at 1mb/sec

800mb Shouldnt be too much of a problem
Any wildlife?

its actually quite an improvement, it seems helos fly better, The graphic and camera updates are nicer, ridding out 2d panels and making 3d ones a tad easier, thats a nice improvement, Scenery that reminds me of Megascenery and loads 80% faster than megascenery, thats a plus..... Great water reflections/textures thats neat, Earth curvature and what not..... I'd say its an improvement..... if you dont like it, then why did you agree with the 'boss' to get it eh? if its such a hastle dont do it, quit whining, and enjoy your payware filled FS9 for another 2-4 years!  or at least try it when you get it, and see if you like it...... Damn.... why is FSX causing so many people to go nuts? Cheers, Gunny

Quote:


You're quite inconsistent in your thoughts.
You say that FSX is just a stupid graphical enhancement for FS9, and then you say that you want to stay with FS9 ? But FS9 was just a stupid graphical enhancement for FS2002, so why don't you stay with FS2002 instead?

I also see that once again someone is complaining about the wildlife. Then why don't you complain about the AI as well ? I mean, AI does not bring anything to your realism, just hog some more ressources.

As well, why don't you just disable the textures in FS9 ? Textures are useless you know, they have no influence at all on the realism.

However, as stated just above, I'm a bit scared that some media let such partial guys as you write reviews. You are only able to ignore completely the improvements made to a plateform, and focus only on the very superficial stuff. You're quite professionnal aren't you ?

I almost sure that in your review:

• you will not talk about the overall performance improvement (remember FSX beta runs better than FS9 with the same amount of details ?),
• you will not talk about the new SDKs (yeah, who cares about the new types of addons that were not possible in FS9 anyway),
• you will not talk about the major improvements of the glider experience (sure, a plane without motors must be useless),
• you will not talk about the improved scenery resolution, with much more autogen details allowed and much more precise meshes and textures (sure, this is just graphics, VFR is for n00bs, only FMC is the real thing)
• you will not talk about the tower controller features (this is a flight sim, who cares about the tower ?)
• you will not talk about the new earth and space (flight sim, anything else than a cessna in useless)
• you will not talk about the improved multiplayer experience, new multiplayer engine, shared skies etc...( multipayer is for gamers, nobody cares about the possibility of simulating a real crew, right ?)
• you will not talk about the improved quality of the default airplanes, quality of the VC etc... (yeah, just graphics, and VC is useless, only the 2D panel is for real pilots, right ? Plus, nobody cares about the default aircrafts anyway)
• you will not talk about the new camera system (Who cares about the camera ? Outside view is unrealistic, and no camera is needed for 2D cockpits)
• you will not talk about the new mission engine and mission editor (missions are for gamers, who cares about simulating real life situations anyway ?)
• ...err... damned, it seems that I cannot remember all that list of useless stuff included in FSX and that fortunately FS9 do not have.

If you want to keep with FS9, keep with it and don't bother the people waiting for FSX. And PLEASE, don't write any reviews on this product, nor on its addons. There's already too much subjective reviews everywhere.

Here you go Ashaman, I found the perfect simulator for you (you might want to disable the motion though, it is rather frivolous)...

http://www.linktrainers.com/

...although, you might not be able to use your payware with it, but who needs all that payware anyway? It just makes the whole flight simulator experience more entertaining, with all the nice (but completely stupid and unnecessary) graphics, flight dynamics, "missions" (sorry, pre-setup custom flights), and options available.

Or here, I just made the perfect version of flight simulator...



...perfect!  No stupid animals, frivilous ATC, or unnecessary virtual cockpit.  Nope, just the ground (black) and the sky (white).  We don't want any color in there, no needless wasting of computer resources by rendering color, no sir.



Sorry, did I go overboard? This post is totally unproductive and really not necessary, but I was having too much fun.

Methinks I detect a bit of attention seeking in the above post... 

I dont think M$ is trying to control our lives  and I thought I was the only one who really hated it when people complained about things that arent even out yet... anyways.... We'll see what FSX is when it comes out! Cheers, Gunny

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.

Quote:


Yes, but if it was a choice between a herd of elephants in Africa or simulated acquaplaning then I would choose the latter!!!

So, is there a big difference in big jets?

Quote:


So would I.  And I'd pay a LOT more for the sim if it had those kinds of features....... $150 to $200 would be well worth such seriously heightened realism llevels if there were enough of them.  For ME!  Probably over 90 percent of the current users would say, "Are you out of your MIND!" to that kind of price.

The determines what Microsoft will include in the sim...pure and simple.  tdragger basically said so much here a few weeks ago.  People with real world, multi engine ratings and even REALLY hard-core simmers are NOT the vast amjority of the market.

While I don't KNOW that aquaplaning is not included in the new version........ I am guessing that if it is not included, but elephants are,......... it is because Microsoft studied it and the majority of users want elephants.... not aquaplaning.

It is a business making and selling flight simulator as an entertainment product. 

If someone wants realism to that kind of level... maybe they should go book time somewhere in a real simulator....... and they'll pay for that realism at  a level commensurate with the realism factor.

It's an under a hundred dollar piece of software folks! 

best,

.......................john

Quote:

I assume you are pertaining to acquaplaning.
It's not solely a big jet problem. The minimum initiating acquaplaning speed in knots is approximately nine times the square root of the tyre pressure in pounds per square inch. A typical jet transport with tyre pressures of 170 lbs sq.in will acquaplane at 112 kts gnd speed. A normal dry rwy surface has a braking coefficient of 0.3  a normal wet surface 0.15 and and icy surface 0.05. Acquaplaning equates closely to the latter. The important thing to remember as you listen to ATIS is just how wet is the rwy. If you have full reserve reverse thrust on all engines then you WILL need at least 25% more stopping distance than on a dry rwy.  If you have only moderate reverse thrust then you NEED at least 50% more rwy in order to stop.
No twin engined a/c is likely to qualify unless both engines keep operating and an emergency power is available, because asymetric reverse must not be used under slippery conditions. So now you know why so many a/c have accidents on wet rwys.
If you are in any doubt at all overshoot and go to an alternate.
Vololiberista

Vololiberista, thanks for those infos, I wasn't aware that the effect of aquaplanning was so important on aircrafts.

According to what you said, I would have one question: what happens if a twin-engine plane with engine problems has to land on a wet runway ? In your example, we get an aquaplanning speed of 112 knots. With full flaps and airbrakes, this speed is quite quickly reached on the ground, then the aircraft can brake, right ? But I suppose the needed runway length is much higher...

Quote:

The planes, well, I have third party freeware, and NOTHING comes close to this:

Mind you, I was getting a constant 30fps there, ingame that looked, sounded, and feeled vastly better than fs9, I thought I was there. I took that screenshot just for this thread, and I actually wanted to keep flying when I exited. fs9 could not do this for me.

Yeah, it does have an updated engine. FS9 dosn't support 27cm textures, FS9 dosn't support costom shaders, FS9 dosn't support many types of mapping technique, FS9 dosn't support negative flaps, FS9 dosn't support going into space, FS9 cannot draw the curvature of the earth, FS9 dosn't have 5.1 soround sound, FS9 has a bad view system, FS9 dosn't have missions, FS9 dosn't have failures that actually work, FS9 is hard to directly modify (FSUIPC) compared to fsX. Yeah, looks like a significantly modded version of the fs8 engine to me!

Quote:

Well AS6 is expensive, and the thermals in that aren't even accuratly simulated perfectly. As for the space issue, lots of simmers want to fly the NASP.

Why have thermals when I have to slew to get into the air anyway?  Buy Emma field?
Quote:

That was a new weather engine, yet fsX supports many new things which could build on that.

Hmmm OK, thanks.
So, in FSX we will get some physical effect due to the wet runways... I wonder if those effects can be tweaked, to increase them if needed and make them as problematic as you describe them...

I'm not hopping anything about aquaplanning in FSX, I think it won't be there, unfortunately. But At least we could already work something interesting out of those water drag problems you just described. That would already be an interesting improvement.

hey Kevin

Just a suggestion, but try turning down water effects to low 2.x. It should make the game run allot faster