We've heard plenty of adjectives describing how FSX has been  disappointing people both in performance and looks.  As I was deciding on which pics to post in my thread in the Freeware Shots forum (the 747 out of Seattle) it occurred to me that people might not like the shots muc because they weren't extremely defined, and the scenery wasn't "WOW" (though the pacific northwest is an incredible sight).

and then the wheels sarted turning in my head....

while we all love the shots that come from our top screenshot takers, do any of them REALLY look natural?  I'm not talking about "REAL", but natural.

For example:


this picture might not be what people call "stellar", but I'm the type of person that says "wow" to beauty when it's subtle.  At the distance our "camera" is from those mountains in the background, you really won't see much detail...but the main difference between this shot in FSX an the way it would look in FS9 is the fact that you know that detail is there.  It leaves something left to be discovered...it is an outlet for a creative, imaginative mind to visualize what kind of beauty those mountains would display if you were whizzing by them in a Cessna at close proximity.

This where I hink FSX excels.  I find myself taking off from random airports and putting the plane on autopilot an taking in the ambiance.  I consider myself a "dreamer"...always thinking, wondering, imagining-- I think it's safe to say that anyone that has a passion for flight shares those same opinions.

So, to those troubled by FSX, remember that a decent system to run it doesn't cost $2,000.  In total, I've spent MAYBE $1200 on the PC itself and a new vid card (256mb).  It might not be perfect yet, but it is damn good and if you want to compare a default FS9 to the default FSX-- is there really even a contest?

I think not.

It's the subtle beauty in the DEFAULT version of this flight simulator that we really need to be in awe of.  If you can't find it, keep searching.  It's there.