Simviation Forum - Is FSX worth getting?

Reply #15 - Dec 18^th, 2006 at 1:54pm

Daube Offline
Colonel
Alternative bloomer
Nice (FR)

Gender:
Posts: 5833

Joe_D wrote on Dec 18^th, 2006 at 1:47pm:

I'll just add that the vast majority of improvement listed here are just graphical in nature.

BTW, the flight model has not been changed acording to ACES. What has been done is the flight model of the default ac has been tweaked within the constraints of the old flight model.

Sure, nevertheless now we get better flight dynamics, ground effect, stable helos, and on the graphics "functionnality" we get the moving VCs which make FS9 completely obsolete !

And on the non-graphics side, we get all the multiplayer stuff (tower controller, shared cockpit, smooth flight etc...), the glider experience (finally !!), improved meteo (not just the cloud textures), live airports with all the vehicules, missions, new SDKs for all the new types of addons (the missions once again are good examples), and much more stuff.

Saying that FSX is all about graphics is unfair. Graphics improvements are many, for sure, and they are also those who have the greatest impact on the performance, however even if we put graphics appart, FSX has still a lot to offer.

Got bloom ?
Got mountains ?
Got damage ?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Dec 18^th, 2006 at 2:01pm

Brett_Henderson Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender:
Posts: 3593

Quote:

I'll just add that the vast majority of improvement listed here are just graphical in nature.

BTW, the flight model has not been changed acording to ACES. What has been done is the flight model of the default ac has been tweaked within the constraints of the old flight model.

Even when you try to make a point... you're as pointless and clueless as ever..

The M/P improvements are beyond graphics..
The V/C improvements are beyond graphics..
The tower and new views are beyond graphics..
The sounds and sound rendering are beyond graphics..
The improved models are better, 3D models AND have better texture rendering..
The improved terrain is better graphically, but also better period..
The +100,000ft celing is beyond graphics..
The buildings are better models AND graphically better..
The mission addition has nothig to do with graphics..

And nobody ever professed that the entire flight algorithm had been re-written.. OF COURSE it's just an improvement of the old model.. key word "improvement"..

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Dec 18^th, 2006 at 2:05pm

Brett_Henderson Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender:
Posts: 3593

And all aircraft use THE ONE AND ONLY flight model. There is no "default flight model", as in add-ons use some other algorithm..

Individual aircraft parameters are laid out in the air / aircraft.cfg files.. but that's just data used by THE flight model.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Dec 18^th, 2006 at 2:08pm

Nick N Ex Member

I wish to add something that many may not understand...

If you are pushing your system past what it is able to render in FSX the flight dynamics and many other areas will suffer. MSFS is a simulation, not a game, and as such it has been programmed to eat resources to provide what the user wishes to see based on the settings however if the hardware can not produce what the settings and sliders are set to, the sim will rob from areas in order to compensate, therefore, things like turbulence and flight dynamics may skip calculation cycles and may not appear as impressive.

When FS9 and a system are correctly set up and calibrated, 18 frames are just about as smooth as 24 ... and you can not tell the difference between 24 and 34.. all will give the feeling of 'floating on air' but if a system is not set up correctly or does not have the hardware to do what the user set the sim for, then flight becomes choppy and does not 'feel' like flying... its very ridged and not flowing.

FSX is the same in that respect but it tends to perform even better on lower frames

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Dec 19^th, 2006 at 3:31am

Joe_D Offline
Colonel
"Takeoffs are optional,
landings are mandatory!"
NY state

Gender:
Posts: 839

I'm certainly not going to get into a pissing march with those who say much more than graphics has been upgraded in FSX and then, they begin to list a bunch of graphical improvements and sling insults. Roll Eyes

Of course there have been some other welcomed upgrades new features and but, the vast majority of improvement are graphical.

Home airports are KMGJ and KSWF in Orange County, NY&&Stop by and say hello.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Dec 19^th, 2006 at 4:08am

DizZa Ex Member

Joe_D wrote on Dec 18^th, 2006 at 1:47pm:

I'll just add that the vast majority of improvement listed here are just graphical in nature.

BTW, the flight model has not been changed acording to ACES. What has been done is the flight model of the default ac has been tweaked within the constraints of the old flight model.

I counted two of my list which are graphical.

Also, while the flight dynamics engine is the same old one, it definately IS improved.

Quote:

they begin to list a bunch of graphical improvements

I counted two of my list which are graphical which were:
Default planes are easily payware quality
Head latency effect

What else was graphical?

Oh, and one more thing. Shouldn't a simulation be immersive? Why fly a simulator when you don't think you're there? Graphics add immersion.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #21 - Dec 19^th, 2006 at 5:15am

Joe_D Offline
Colonel
"Takeoffs are optional,
landings are mandatory!"
NY state

Gender:
Posts: 839

Quote:

......Oh, and one more thing. Shouldn't a simulation be immersive? Why fly a simulator when you don't think you're there? Graphics add immersion.

I could not agree more!

Home airports are KMGJ and KSWF in Orange County, NY&&Stop by and say hello.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #22 - Dec 19^th, 2006 at 5:20am

Daube Offline
Colonel
Alternative bloomer
Nice (FR)

Gender:
Posts: 5833

Joe_D wrote on Dec 19^th, 2006 at 3:31am:

I'm certainly not going to get into a pissing march with those who say much more than graphics has been upgraded in FSX and then, they begin to list a bunch of graphical improvements and sling insults. Roll Eyes

Of course there have been some other welcomed upgrades new features and but, the vast majority of improvement are graphical.

Well...
First:
Quote:

FSX is ALL about graphics as this is basically all that has been upgraded in FSX.

Then:
Quote:

Of course there have been some other welcomed upgrades new features and but, the vast majority of improvement are graphical.

That's good, you're evolving. Maybe in a far future you will even be able to argue Wink

It is tempting to say "vast majority of FSX stuff is graphical", of course... but keep in mind, this is just because the graphical stuff is the easiest to notice. FSX is FULL of new stuff that make FS9 obsolete and boring, and I'm not talking about the graphics.

And for the "full range of problems" involved by the full version compared to the demo... what problems ? So far the only real problems I have seen are the activation and the logbook corruption. And because FS9 was just a full bunch of bugs, I am not expecting FSX to be bugs-free, not at all Wink

Got bloom ?
Got mountains ?
Got damage ?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #23 - Dec 19^th, 2006 at 6:59am

Brett_Henderson Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender:
Posts: 3593

Geez.. talk about semantics Roll Eyes

If you wanted to, you could say that EVERYthing about FS-ANYversion is nothing but a graphical display. You "could" say, "Even a better and more complex model still ends up being a graphical presentation".

If you can't appreciate the technical advances, improved features and better everything, as anything more than the complex images that need to be displayed too; as nothing more than "enhanced graphics".. then there's no point in discussing it.

That's like saying that more and better AI is just more stuff to see.. so it's just a graphical improvement. Roll Eyes

So.... If that's your train of thought... oh nevermind...

What else could possibly BE improved.. outside of graphics ?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #24 - Dec 19^th, 2006 at 7:07am

Brett_Henderson Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender:
Posts: 3593

Quote:

Quote:
......Oh, and one more thing. Shouldn't a simulation be immersive? Why fly a simulator when you don't think you're there? Graphics add immersion.

I could not agree more!

Ditto..

And FSX accomplishes this; in a bigger and better way. The best improvement since FS98-to-FS2000.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #25 - Dec 19^th, 2006 at 11:55pm

Al_Fallujah Ex Member

Throwing my PC info in... just to help those on the purchasing bubble. If the PC you are considering is close to or better than mine, you will do just fine with FSX.

I built my PC a year ago. I run with most of the sliders in the middle. I keep car and boat traffic to a minimum though as that one cuts the framerates down a lot if I crank it up. I get smooth play with those settings. The only oddity that I have noticed is that often, my aircrafts shadow is not a shadow, but an image with the same paint scheme that I am flying. I rarely look for my own shadow though ( old song running through my head...)

AMD 2.2 GHz (64bit)
1 Gig Ram (Mushkin, 2x512MB)
Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe (but not using the SLI right now)
eVGA 6800 w/ 256mb PCI-E
DVI output to a Dell 15" monitor , res set at 1024X768, 75hz refresh.
Standard HD, 100 GB, nothing special, running XP (SP2) for now.

Nothing else about my PC is remarkable. I am contemplating Vista, as I have a 64 bit chip that I am not taking full advantage of. I am also considering doubling the RAM, but that depends on the budget.

Highly enjoying FSX. I got it FOR the graphics improvements. The other collective improvements are bonuses to me.

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: