143 replies to this topic

[pyruvate]

MikeMann, on Oct 28 2010, 10:00 PM, said:

I use the FSX default Cessna 172 frequently. I enjoy creating scenery with custom objects made with 3ds Max. The only way to judge the frame rate impact of my scenery accurately is to use an aircraft that doesn't strain the system. The default 172 is perfect for that purpose.

The trike is even better

[MikeMann]

pyruvate, on Oct 28 2010, 10:06 AM, said:

The trike is even better

The trike was always too slow for my tastes. I like to fly around an area quick enough to see how things are progressing, yet slow enough to see the detail. Default Cessna seems to be the best at meeting my requirements (in my opinion of coarse).

[Mohammad]

niteye, on Oct 28 2010, 10:53 AM, said:

I think they should still include the unrealistic default aircraft.

Everyone keeps complaining that they need to spend hours configuring it before they find 'the sweet spot'.

Imagine what it would be if the game is completely unusable before you buy or download some extra planes and scenery to go with it.

Excellent point. Very rational and logical in my opinion.

[pyruvate]

MikeMann, on Oct 28 2010, 10:53 PM, said:

The trike was always too slow for my tastes. I like to fly around an area quick enough to see how things are progressing, yet slow enough to see the detail. Default Cessna seems to be the best at meeting my requirements (in my opinion of coarse).

I see, I always slew when checking out stuff though.

[MikeMann]

pyruvate, on Oct 28 2010, 11:37 AM, said:

I see, I always slew when checking out stuff though.

I guess you missed reading my earlier post about using the Cessna to judge the frame rate impact of my scenery accurately. Slew doesn't cut it for judging frame rate impact when flying in various directions around and over a modified scenery area!

[pyruvate]

MikeMann, on Oct 29 2010, 12:23 AM, said:

I guess you missed reading my earlier post about using the Cessna to judge the frame rate impact of my scenery accurately. Slew doesn't cut it for judging frame rate impact when flying in various directions around and over a modified scenery area!

I'm not a developer, but always worked for me when tweaking FS

[Flying_Scotsman]

Water_Boy, on Oct 24 2010, 08:27 PM, said:

That's what you get when you set your expectations to high. Microsoft was never pedantic in the creation of their games, and I didn't see how this one was going to be any different.

That would be like expecting EA to create a realistic football game with the Madden franchise.

My expectations are certainly not too high, however, it's nearly 2011, DX11 is around the corner, CPU's and GPU's in the last 6 months can hand everything thrown at them except FSX, the video looks like FS98  

[Alaska_MD-83]

Why are you judging based on a 50 second video clip?

That's stupid. Wait for the game to come out before you hate.

[-Dexter]

Alaska_MD-83, on Oct 28 2010, 03:46 PM, said:

Why are you judging based on a 50 second video clip?

That's stupid. Wait for the game to come out before you hate.

This entire thread is speculation. Not to be taken seriously.

[ArmChairAviator]

pwn247, on Oct 28 2010, 12:57 PM, said:

This entire thread is speculation.

Exactly.  Why doesn't the Microsoft flight division open up a forum or something like most other developers do, so the FS community can receive actual feedback instead of them just releasing short cryptic videos every three months?

Edited by ArmChairAviator, 28 October 2010 - 08:05 PM.

[-Dexter]

ArmChairAviator, on Oct 28 2010, 08:57 PM, said:

Exactly.  Why doesn't the Microsoft flight division open up a forum or something like most other developers do, so the FS community can receive actual feedback instead of them just releasing short cryptic videos every three months?

Because any questions asked will be answered as:

"People will buy what we sell. That is all. -The Microsoft Team"

[-SE-]

well if it looks just a little bit better than FSX and have way better framerate
and much lower system requirements
and almost no if no crashes then im happy

[niteye]

Yeah even if it still looked like FSX, if it ran much smoother and more stable and "just worked" I'd be happy.

[Mohammad]

ArmChairAviator, on Oct 28 2010, 07:57 PM, said:

Exactly.  Why doesn't the Microsoft flight division open up a forum or something like most other developers do, so the FS community can receive actual feedback instead of them just releasing short cryptic videos every three months?

You know, I'm actually for this. Almost all games have their own official forums, except Flight Sim and perhaps GTA (but at least Rockstar listen to their costumers).

[MikeMann]

pwn247, on Oct 29 2010, 09:29 AM, said:

Because any questions asked will be answered as:

"People will buy what we sell. That is all. -The Microsoft Team"

Agree with this assessment 100%. The sad part of it all is Microsoft would be absolutely correct with this statement.

[_BD6_]

niteye, on Oct 29 2010, 01:06 PM, said:

Yeah even if it still looked like FSX, if it ran much smoother and more stable and "just worked" I'd be happy.

Totally, then our add-on developers can truly go to town on their products rather than sacrificing some things for performance.

[SwitchFX]

Dr...Watson, on Oct 28 2010, 12:44 PM, said:

...The video looks like FS98  

That's a ridiculous comment, Iain. It looks nothing like FS98. Absolutely nothing.

Edited by SwitchFX, 01 November 2010 - 03:26 PM.

[chalbers]

What a pathetic piece of crap !

[wynthorpe]

chalbers, on Nov 5 2010, 06:49 AM, said:

What a pathetic piece of crap !

Thanks for that well informed, educated post!

[flyhalf]

niteye, on Oct 29 2010, 01:06 PM, said:

Yeah even if it still looked like FSX, if it ran much smoother and more stable and "just worked" I'd be happy.

If it wasn't for the Oct 29 2010 up there I'd swear this was a post from two years ago. FSX runs great now what have you been doing?????  It has been smooth, stable and working for ages.