124 replies to this topic

[Sam Millar]

Rudolph-411, on Jan 16 2010, 09:53 PM, said:

Dr...Watson, on Jan 16 2010, 03:47 PM, said:

Rudolph-411, on Jan 16 2010, 04:41 PM, said:

Dr...Watson, on Jan 16 2010, 03:36 PM, said:

I would never downgrade to FSX even for the 777  

From what? The ancient sim released in 2003?

Yeh...that one that is really unpopular now!

http://www.flightsim...x...902&hl=poll

In otherwords, you guys haven't dished out the cash for a better PC.

The majority of those people might use Fs9, but how many want to use FSX?

There's nothing wrong with liking Fs9, as it's still a good sim, but saying FSX is a "downgrade" is stupid.

Actually. my PC can handle FSX - I just choose not to use it because it is a downgrade. POSKY, pairbus, aerosoft etc are all still developing for FS9, which is still what the majority of users use, and until FSX draws equal in terms of scenery and aircraft with decent systems, I too will stick with FS9.

Don't hit me with "but POSKY and pairbus work with FSX" - they may do, but not natively.

[nw757]

A reason I stick with FS9 is because I make videos but the recording hits my PC hard (I get 60+ FPS in FS9 w/o fraps). Someday I will return to FSX but not on my current system.

[Buziel-411_RED]

Sam Millar, on Jan 16 2010, 04:02 PM, said:

Rudolph-411, on Jan 16 2010, 09:53 PM, said:

Dr...Watson, on Jan 16 2010, 03:47 PM, said:

Rudolph-411, on Jan 16 2010, 04:41 PM, said:

Dr...Watson, on Jan 16 2010, 03:36 PM, said:

I would never downgrade to FSX even for the 777  

From what? The ancient sim released in 2003?

Yeh...that one that is really unpopular now!

http://www.flightsim...x...902&hl=poll

In otherwords, you guys haven't dished out the cash for a better PC.

The majority of those people might use Fs9, but how many want to use FSX?

There's nothing wrong with liking Fs9, as it's still a good sim, but saying FSX is a "downgrade" is stupid.

Actually. my PC can handle FSX - I just choose not to use it because it is a downgrade. POSKY, pairbus, aerosoft etc are all still developing for FS9, which is still what the majority of users use, and until FSX draws equal in terms of scenery and aircraft with decent systems, I too will stick with FS9.

Don't hit me with "but POSKY and pairbus work with FSX" - they may do, but not natively.

The 737NG series and A32X series have FSX native models, and that allows me to use the default 737-800 and default A321 VC with both of them.

Aerosoft is also developed some addons for both sims, and some for only one sim, like their A320. Also, what about Level-D, the Flytampa Grenadines, Orbx, PMDG, A2A...?

I also notice you don't ever picture the ground or water in your screenshots, and I know why. It's ugly in Fs9. You always use the sky or a payware airport as the background.

[Sam Millar]

Rudolph-411, on Jan 16 2010, 10:14 PM, said:

Sam Millar, on Jan 16 2010, 04:02 PM, said:

Rudolph-411, on Jan 16 2010, 09:53 PM, said:

Dr...Watson, on Jan 16 2010, 03:47 PM, said:

Rudolph-411, on Jan 16 2010, 04:41 PM, said:

Dr...Watson, on Jan 16 2010, 03:36 PM, said:

I would never downgrade to FSX even for the 777  

From what? The ancient sim released in 2003?

Yeh...that one that is really unpopular now!

http://www.flightsim...x...902&hl=poll

In otherwords, you guys haven't dished out the cash for a better PC.

The majority of those people might use Fs9, but how many want to use FSX?

There's nothing wrong with liking Fs9, as it's still a good sim, but saying FSX is a "downgrade" is stupid.

Actually. my PC can handle FSX - I just choose not to use it because it is a downgrade. POSKY, pairbus, aerosoft etc are all still developing for FS9, which is still what the majority of users use, and until FSX draws equal in terms of scenery and aircraft with decent systems, I too will stick with FS9.

Don't hit me with "but POSKY and pairbus work with FSX" - they may do, but not natively.

The 737NG series and A32X series have FSX native models, and that allows me to use the default 737-800 and default A321 VC with both of them.

Aerosoft is also developed some addons for both sims, and some for only one sim, like their A320. Also, what about Level-D, the Flytampa Grenadines, Orbx, PMDG, A2A...?

I also notice you don't ever picture the ground or water in your screenshots, and I know why. It's ugly in Fs9. You always use the sky or a payware airport as the background.

You're very wrong actually, I do picture my water and ground and always have done, just not very often as I don't really feel the need to, real photos from the air don't interest me, only spotters photos and thats all I do.

http://www.flightsim...x...01&hl=glory
http://www.flightsim...hl=vfr portland

What A32X series are you talking about? pairbus don't have an A321 and neither to POSKY. FlyTampa and Orbx have done a great job on their Grenadines and Aussie scenery but it's just not somewhere I fly to..

[Buziel-411_RED]

Sam Millar, on Jan 16 2010, 04:20 PM, said:

Rudolph-411, on Jan 16 2010, 10:14 PM, said:

Sam Millar, on Jan 16 2010, 04:02 PM, said:

Rudolph-411, on Jan 16 2010, 09:53 PM, said:

Dr...Watson, on Jan 16 2010, 03:47 PM, said:

Rudolph-411, on Jan 16 2010, 04:41 PM, said:

Dr...Watson, on Jan 16 2010, 03:36 PM, said:

I would never downgrade to FSX even for the 777  

From what? The ancient sim released in 2003?

Yeh...that one that is really unpopular now!

http://www.flightsim...x...902&hl=poll

In otherwords, you guys haven't dished out the cash for a better PC.

The majority of those people might use Fs9, but how many want to use FSX?

There's nothing wrong with liking Fs9, as it's still a good sim, but saying FSX is a "downgrade" is stupid.

Actually. my PC can handle FSX - I just choose not to use it because it is a downgrade. POSKY, pairbus, aerosoft etc are all still developing for FS9, which is still what the majority of users use, and until FSX draws equal in terms of scenery and aircraft with decent systems, I too will stick with FS9.

Don't hit me with "but POSKY and pairbus work with FSX" - they may do, but not natively.

The 737NG series and A32X series have FSX native models, and that allows me to use the default 737-800 and default A321 VC with both of them.

Aerosoft is also developed some addons for both sims, and some for only one sim, like their A320. Also, what about Level-D, the Flytampa Grenadines, Orbx, PMDG, A2A...?

I also notice you don't ever picture the ground or water in your screenshots, and I know why. It's ugly in Fs9. You always use the sky or a payware airport as the background.

You're very wrong actually, I do picture my water and ground and always have done, just not very often as I don't really feel the need to, real photos from the air don't interest me, only spotters photos and thats all I do.

http://www.flightsim...x...01&hl=glory
http://www.flightsim...hl=vfr portland

What A32X series are you talking about? pairbus don't have an A321 and neither to POSKY. FlyTampa and Orbx have done a great job on their Grenadines and Aussie scenery but it's just not somewhere I fly to..

The PA A318, A319, and A320. Close enough.

[Orlaam]

They can keep 'em.  Their refusal to fix the bugs in the MD-11 is enough for me to stop buying PMDG, regardless of whether I ever upgrade to FSX or not.  I'm sure all their new planes will have annoying bugs too, just like the 747.

[audiohavoc]

Orlaam, on Jan 16 2010, 03:55 PM, said:

They can keep 'em.  Their refusal to fix the bugs in the MD-11 is enough for me to stop buying PMDG, regardless of whether I ever upgrade to FSX or not.  I'm sure all their new planes will have annoying bugs too, just like the 747.

I have no problems with my MD-11, and my 747 is fine except for autobrakes on landings, which I have got to work in the past.

[Jaggyroad Films]

Dr...Watson, on Jan 16 2010, 04:47 PM, said:

Yeh...that one that is really unpopular now!

http://www.flightsim...x...902&hl=poll

Oh dear Lord, another one of these....

First of all, the poll is in a forum, which also has a sub forum for FSX. Clearly, the priority here is FS2004. Always has been in these parts.

Second, having worked in the industry for going on 3 years now, I can DEFINITELY tell you that FSX sales are higher. Period.

I'm not going to get baited into this further, I want to scream at how childish these comments and polls are.

[VFR_Pierre]

Sam Millar, on Jan 16 2010, 05:20 PM, said:

Rudolph-411, on Jan 16 2010, 10:14 PM, said:

Sam Millar, on Jan 16 2010, 04:02 PM, said:

Rudolph-411, on Jan 16 2010, 09:53 PM, said:

Dr...Watson, on Jan 16 2010, 03:47 PM, said:

Rudolph-411, on Jan 16 2010, 04:41 PM, said:

Dr...Watson, on Jan 16 2010, 03:36 PM, said:

I would never downgrade to FSX even for the 777  

From what? The ancient sim released in 2003?

Yeh...that one that is really unpopular now!

http://www.flightsim...x...902&hl=poll

In otherwords, you guys haven't dished out the cash for a better PC.

The majority of those people might use Fs9, but how many want to use FSX?

There's nothing wrong with liking Fs9, as it's still a good sim, but saying FSX is a "downgrade" is stupid.

Actually. my PC can handle FSX - I just choose not to use it because it is a downgrade. POSKY, pairbus, aerosoft etc are all still developing for FS9, which is still what the majority of users use, and until FSX draws equal in terms of scenery and aircraft with decent systems, I too will stick with FS9.

Don't hit me with "but POSKY and pairbus work with FSX" - they may do, but not natively.

The 737NG series and A32X series have FSX native models, and that allows me to use the default 737-800 and default A321 VC with both of them.

Aerosoft is also developed some addons for both sims, and some for only one sim, like their A320. Also, what about Level-D, the Flytampa Grenadines, Orbx, PMDG, A2A...?

I also notice you don't ever picture the ground or water in your screenshots, and I know why. It's ugly in Fs9. You always use the sky or a payware airport as the background.

You're very wrong actually, I do picture my water and ground and always have done, just not very often as I don't really feel the need to, real photos from the air don't interest me, only spotters photos and thats all I do.

http://www.flightsim...x...01&hl=glory
http://www.flightsim...hl=vfr portland

What A32X series are you talking about? pairbus don't have an A321 and neither to POSKY. FlyTampa and Orbx have done a great job on their Grenadines and Aussie scenery but it's just not somewhere I fly to..

That ground and water looks terrible, even in comparison to even default FSX. Sorry to burst your bubble. That autogen sucks too.

[Flying_Scotsman]

Rudolph-411, on Jan 16 2010, 04:53 PM, said:

Dr...Watson, on Jan 16 2010, 03:47 PM, said:

Rudolph-411, on Jan 16 2010, 04:41 PM, said:

Dr...Watson, on Jan 16 2010, 03:36 PM, said:

I would never downgrade to FSX even for the 777  

From what? The ancient sim released in 2003?

Yeh...that one that is really unpopular now!

http://www.flightsim...x...902&hl=poll

In otherwords, you guys haven't dished out the cash for a better PC.

The majority of those people might use Fs9, but how many want to use FSX?

There's nothing wrong with liking Fs9, as it's still a good sim, but saying FSX is a "downgrade" is stupid.

I get good FPS in FSX most of the time,  I built my PC for FSX when it was released, spent hours and hours tweaking since the default release was the biggest joke ever.   I don't like the user interface, the view interface, they whole game seems a lot more arcade to me than FS9.  It doesn't matter what hardware you have, with a 747 VC, flying over Manhatten in a thunderstorm with many AI planes it will drop FSX like a stone where FS9 won't.

and anyway, I just read how much you hated FSX  


FSX is unplayable!, Why?

Rudolph-411, on Jan 15 2010, 11:11 PM, said:

Chief NWA, on Jan 15 2010, 09:16 PM, said:

$2500 and the god game can't even run! It use to be enjoyable!

Exactly how I feel at times.

I buy FSX. I spend hours tweaking it. I spend hundreds on hardware because the engine is awful. I spend time digging up old Vista DLL's because the ones in Windows 7 cause the game to crash when I access the menu.

I buy GRID. I max everything out. It never crashes. I never have to fiddle with DLL's or alter game files to make it work properly. I get a solid 60 FPS.

MSFS is fun, but sometimes it still pisses me off.

Edited by Dr...Watson, 17 January 2010 - 02:25 AM.

[Sam Millar]

Even my FS9 isn't tweaked .. I often get users adding me on MSN and asking me to send them my config and when I tell them it isn't tweaked they often get a bit pissed, don't believe me and then block me

Quote

The PA A318, A319, and A320. Close enough.

Quote

The 737NG series and A32X series have FSX native models,

You're not understanding what I'm getting at. Which developer are you speaking of here when you mention these series of models? Even if POSKYs NG was native in which i'm not sure whether it is or not ~ it's not really an aircraft I fly and I'm not about to start flying it because it's one of the few native models for FSX.

I fly realistically, and realistically is FMC etc.

[THBatMan8]

YAY!!!!! Another pointless FS9 vs FSX debate!!!  

Edited by THBatMan8, 17 January 2010 - 03:57 AM.

[JetBlast]

OH MY GAWD, PMDG 777 SOUNDS HAWT!
^ thats beautiful rhyming right there

[Buziel-411_RED]

Dr...Watson, on Jan 17 2010, 01:23 AM, said:

Rudolph-411, on Jan 16 2010, 04:53 PM, said:

Dr...Watson, on Jan 16 2010, 03:47 PM, said:

Rudolph-411, on Jan 16 2010, 04:41 PM, said:

Dr...Watson, on Jan 16 2010, 03:36 PM, said:

I would never downgrade to FSX even for the 777  

From what? The ancient sim released in 2003?

Yeh...that one that is really unpopular now!

http://www.flightsim...x...902&hl=poll

In otherwords, you guys haven't dished out the cash for a better PC.

The majority of those people might use Fs9, but how many want to use FSX?

There's nothing wrong with liking Fs9, as it's still a good sim, but saying FSX is a "downgrade" is stupid.

I get good FPS in FSX most of the time,  I built my PC for FSX when it was released, spent hours and hours tweaking since the default release was the biggest joke ever.   I don't like the user interface, the view interface, they whole game seems a lot more arcade to me than FS9.  It doesn't matter what hardware you have, with a 747 VC, flying over Manhatten in a thunderstorm with many AI planes it will drop FSX like a stone where FS9 won't.

and anyway, I just read how much you hated FSX  


FSX is unplayable!, Why?

Rudolph-411, on Jan 15 2010, 11:11 PM, said:

Chief NWA, on Jan 15 2010, 09:16 PM, said:

$2500 and the god game can't even run! It use to be enjoyable!

Exactly how I feel at times.

I buy FSX. I spend hours tweaking it. I spend hundreds on hardware because the engine is awful. I spend time digging up old Vista DLL's because the ones in Windows 7 cause the game to crash when I access the menu.

I buy GRID. I max everything out. It never crashes. I never have to fiddle with DLL's or alter game files to make it work properly. I get a solid 60 FPS.

MSFS is fun, but sometimes it still pisses me off.

Learn to read, please. I never said it was unplayable, and I never said I hated it. I said it was fun, but it still can piss me off.

Fs9 was the same way. My i5 750 and GTX 275 still can't eliminate the blurries in Fs9, which is pretty pathetic. Scenery is dull and boring, and it isn't any more stable.

Sam Millar, on Jan 17 2010, 02:12 AM, said:

Even my FS9 isn't tweaked .. I often get users adding me on MSN and asking me to send them my config and when I tell them it isn't tweaked they often get a bit pissed, don't believe me and then block me

Quote

The PA A318, A319, and A320. Close enough.

Quote

The 737NG series and A32X series have FSX native models,

You're not understanding what I'm getting at. Which developer are you speaking of here when you mention these series of models? Even if POSKYs NG was native in which i'm not sure whether it is or not ~ it's not really an aircraft I fly and I'm not about to start flying it because it's one of the few native models for FSX.

I fly realistically, and realistically is FMC etc.

You want native payware birds? Fine.

Level-D 767
CaptainSim 767
CaptainSim 757
CaptainSim 727
PMDG 747
PMDG J41
PMDG MD-11

There really isn't many good Airbus aircraft for either sim at the moment. Soon we'll also have the PMDG 777 and Level-D 757.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the QW 757 isn't really something to brag about flying when discussing realism. I fly it, and I like it, but other payware aircraft have more realistic systems... Other than that, you always screenshot POSKY aircraft and talk about PA.

Edited by Rudolph-411, 17 January 2010 - 02:18 PM.

[Buziel-411_RED]

To those whining about performance, I can sit at KSEA in the Level-D 767 and get 40-50 FPS. Sure, I dropped some stuff like the water shader and detail radius, but using FSX's ability to save different configurations and load them up without going to the settings menu, I can make profiles that suit what kind of flying I'm doing; be it taxiing at KJFK, or flying a C172 over mountains.

The QW 757 is a different story... 20-25 FPS with the same settings. Hopefully future SP's will fix this.

[VFR_Pierre]

When you find a good balance of settings, you can make FSX perfect. People just expect full-right settings to work well.

[THBatMan8]

Sam Millar, on Jan 17 2010, 03:12 AM, said:

I fly realistically, and realistically is FMC etc.

I didn't want to say anything but that statement isn't true, and so is the statement about unrealistic planes in FSX.

Sure the default planes suck, but so do the defaults in FS9. Microsoft made both platforms enabling someone with little to no flight experience to fly a 747. Otherwise if people needed to read a 300+ page manual, then the game wouldn't be that popular. Even with that said, not every simmer in the market wants to fly LDS and PMDG planes and learn the complicated procedures.

I can do the same thing with enroute charts, raw data, and dead reckoning that you can do with a FMC/INS. A FMC is nothing more than a computerized version of following airways or navaids which can be done just as easily with raw data. INS's work via dead reckoning. 80% of the battle lies with user knowledge of the aircraft being flown, and the other 20% is good flight planning. I can be just as proficient in the default 747 than I can be with the PMDG 747.

Remember that a aircraft is only as good as it's pilot.

Edited by THBatMan8, 17 January 2010 - 02:48 PM.

[Mohammad]

Rudolph-411, on Jan 16 2010, 04:53 PM, said:

In otherwords, you guys haven't dished out the cash for a better PC.

In other words, not everyone is 14 years old and some of us have to prioritize our spending.

[Buziel-411_RED]

Mohammad, on Jan 17 2010, 06:16 PM, said:

Rudolph-411, on Jan 16 2010, 04:53 PM, said:

In otherwords, you guys haven't dished out the cash for a better PC.

In other words, not everyone is 14 years old and some of us have to prioritize our spending.

That still isn't reason to call FSX a downgrade. It might not be suited for your system, but it still offers better graphics, opens doors for developers, etc.