67 replies to this topic

[Daube]

CaptainG37, on Sep 8 2011, 08:17 AM, said:

I have to disagree with you on the terrain.  I like the look of the mountains.  As a matter of fact, I haven't seen smooth, large mountains in photos and books of the real thing.  They always have jagged rocks and edges.

There's a big difference between the edges created by raw rocks in real life, and the edges of a poor resolution 3D object like in those screenshots. Those mountains have a very low mesh resolution, you can almost count the lines and vertexes, they lack some smoothing to look convincing. For that very same reason I didn't like the mountains in XP9.

In FSX/FS9 you might get, on the other hand, a terrain that gets TOO smoothed, but that happens only when you use a poor resolution mesh (76m or less). In the meanwhile, I still prefer the way the terrain is show in FS.

[wynthorpe]

Oh dear god! FSX is better than XP. XP is better than FS!!!!! CaptainG37, i wouldnt bother posting stuff about XP here (Although im very interested in it) as most people seem to think the very old FSX is superior to a in development product.

Edited by wynthorpe, 08 September 2011 - 09:53 AM.

[AirX]

wynthorpe, on Sep 8 2011, 10:53 AM, said:

Oh dear god! FSX is better than XP. XP is better than FS!!!!! CaptainG37, i wouldnt bother posting stuff about XP here (Although im very interested in it) as most people seem to think the very old FSX is superior to a in development product.

, might as well delete this whole sub forum..

[Daube]

wynthorpe, on Sep 8 2011, 09:53 AM, said:

Oh dear god! FSX is better than XP. XP is better than FS!!!!! CaptainG37, i wouldnt bother posting stuff about XP here (Although im very interested in it) as most people seem to think the very old FSX is superior to a in development product.

Great. I understand you don't like the questions/answers and comparisons that are done in this topic.

Edited by Daube, 08 September 2011 - 10:25 AM.

[ChaoticBeauty]

And why is X-Plane 10 compared to FSX? It should be compared to Flight. FSX's competitor was X-Plane 9, and Flight's competitor is X-Plane 10.

[Daube]

XPlane10 gets compared to FSX because at this precise moment, FSX is the reference. Flight is not there yet and the screenshots/videos we've seen so far do not show anything interesting excepted the lighting, so there's not point using it as a reference.

[ChaoticBeauty]

Daube, on Sep 8 2011, 09:49 PM, said:

XPlane10 gets compared to FSX because at this precise moment, FSX is the reference. Flight is not there yet and the screenshots/videos we've seen so far do not show anything interesting excepted the lighting, so there's not point using it as a reference.

X-Plane 10 is still unreleased too. All we get is screenshots.

Also my point is, don't compare 2011 technology with 2006 technology. It's not a fair comparison.

Edited by Kaotika, 08 September 2011 - 03:38 PM.

[Daube]

It's not really a comparison to say "which one is better?".
It's a comparison to say "what has been done ? What is new ? Is it interesting ?".
Of course, in terms of graphical features (usage of OpenGL or DirectX graphical effects), XPlane 10 will beat FSX hands down. The purpose of the comparison is to illustrate the differences, to say "before we had that, now we're getting this and that".
And although XPlane10 is not released, we get precise informations on its features. Even if we don't know all of those features yet, those that have been presented have been presented in a detailled and precise way.

With Flight however, there hasn't been any comments from the devs. We just saw screenshots, and we tried to guess what was to be seen inside. That's why it cannot be used for comparison, we know nothing at all about it yet, contrary to XPlane10.

In XPlane10, we know that the users will get better graphical effects, better lighting shadowing for planes and other objects, better city autogen structure, better weather modelisation, etc...
In flight, so far the only thing we know is that we will get better shadows and better looking trees. That's all. We cannot use that for a comparison.

Edited by Daube, 08 September 2011 - 03:53 PM.

[ChaoticBeauty]

I know, but you're comparing 2011 technology with 2006 technology. Of course X-Plane 10 is going to look better than FSX, but if you want to make a valid comparison, you should wait for more Flight material which is going to be 2011 technology too (or 2012).

Now pointing at a 2011 game and saying "this is so much better than the 2006 game which doesn't even do it" is silly (this is for CaptainG37).

[Daube]

That's what you didn't understand: I'm not trying to say which one is better. I'm just using FSX as a point of referment, that's all.
Like saying "you're 2 miles south of Juneau" instead of just saying "you're in Alaska", kind of.

I could have used XP9 instead, but I don't know it enough.

Edited by Daube, 08 September 2011 - 04:40 PM.

[CaptainG37]

Kaotika, on Sep 9 2011, 07:13 AM, said:

I know, but you're comparing 2011 technology with 2006 technology. Of course X-Plane 10 is going to look better than FSX, but if you want to make a valid comparison, you should wait for more Flight material which is going to be 2011 technology too (or 2012).

Now pointing at a 2011 game and saying "this is so much better than the 2006 game which doesn't even do it" is silly (this is for CaptainG37).

I never said XP10 was a better GAME over FSX.  I said the fog depicted is better than the fog in FSX.  As Daube said, it's the very latest "technology" I can reference it to.  Nothing silly about it.
Considerring X Plane 10 was made by a small handful of people and FSX was made by 283 people, with the backing of a multi billion dollar company, I'd say it's a pretty big accomplishment.

[MikeMann]

Even with all those people and dollars that Microsoft has to throw at a flight simulator; you can find many thousands of posts on the internet from people having problems with FSX.

Regards, Mike Mann

[ChaoticBeauty]

CaptainG37, on Sep 9 2011, 01:24 AM, said:

I never said XP10 was a better GAME over FSX.  I said the fog depicted is better than the fog in FSX.  As Daube said, it's the very latest "technology" I can reference it to.  Nothing silly about it.
Considerring X Plane 10 was made by a small handful of people and FSX was made by 283 people, with the backing of a multi billion dollar company, I'd say it's a pretty big accomplishment.

Considering X-Plane 10 uses 2011 technology and FSX uses 2006 technology, I'd say it's not a big accomplishment.

[CaptainG37]

Kaotika, on Sep 9 2011, 06:32 PM, said:

Considering X-Plane 10 uses 2011 technology and FSX uses 2006 technology, I'd say it's not a big accomplishment.

It's actually 2009-2010 technology.  Development began about 1-2 years ago.
Before I go on with my post, why do you not think it's a big accomplishment?  Besides the technology statement.
X Plane still uses OpenGL and blade element theory.  We're not re-inventing the wheel.  The only elements I see that have changed are the overall graphics.  HDR lighting has been around for YEARS.  Blade element theory has been around ever since Orville and Wilbur decided to go for a spin at Kittyhawk.

Considering X Plane 10 is being made by about 6-10 developers and FSX was made by 283 programmers (none of which are pilots I might add) and several hundred beta testers (some of which ARE pilots), including input from most of the major developers, PLUS had the backing of Microsoft which has billions of dollars in its coffers, as well as FSX being one of the buggiest releases Microsoft has put out (with CTD's and freezes galore with any complex add on), I'd say it is 1 HUGE accomplishment.  
Going by your rationale (technology of the period), "Flight" should be one serious, kick flight simulator that airlines will be knocking down doors to get.  So far, from the webisodes I have seen, it does look impressive with better graphics, but, TBH, it looks like an FSX upgrade.  I could definitely be wrong and I hope I am because it obviously has a large following.  But you can't deny what a handful of programmers and pilot/engineer/programmer (Austin Meyer) have accomplished.  All in 2-3 years.  How long has Flight been in development?  And it still isn't finished.  It's not even in beta.  Let's hope it's worth the wait.

Edited by CaptainG37, 09 September 2011 - 04:17 AM.

[Romario_]

CaptainG37, on Sep 9 2011, 05:12 AM, said:

It's actually 2009-2010 technology.  Development began about 1-2 years ago.
Before I go on with my post, why do you not think it's a big accomplishment?  Besides the technology statement.
X Plane still uses OpenGL and blade element theory.  We're not re-inventing the wheel.  The only elements I see that have changed are the overall graphics.  HDR lighting has been around for YEARS.  Blade element theory has been around ever since Orville and Wilbur decided to go for a spin at Kittyhawk.

Considering X Plane 10 is being made by about 6-10 developers and FSX was made by 283 programmers (none of which are pilots I might add) and several hundred beta testers (some of which ARE pilots), including input from most of the major developers, PLUS had the backing of Microsoft which has billions of dollars in its coffers, as well as FSX being one of the buggiest releases Microsoft has put out (with CTD's and freezes galore with any complex add on), I'd say it is 1 HUGE accomplishment.  
Going by your rationale (technology of the period), "Flight" should be one serious, kick flight simulator that airlines will be knocking down doors to get.  So far, from the webisodes I have seen, it does look impressive with better graphics, but, TBH, it looks like an FSX upgrade.  I could definitely be wrong and I hope I am because it obviously has a large following.  But you can't deny what a handful of programmers and pilot/engineer/programmer (Austin Meyer) have accomplished.  All in 2-3 years.  How long has Flight been in development?  And it still isn't finished.  It's not even in beta.  Let's hope it's worth the wait.

Personally, FSX is not the problem tbh. It's just that Microsoft basically forced users to upgrade their hardware to run FSX. Heck I've learnt more about computers through upgrading to get an FSX sweetspot than ever before. With my recent build, I have not had ONE crash with FSX or any drop in frames below 30. Basically, hardware just needed to catch up to FSX, and I'm sure developers for Flight are well aware, and will be mindful of current hardware.

[_BD6_]

Romario_, on Sep 9 2011, 08:03 AM, said:

Personally, FSX is not the problem tbh. It's just that Microsoft basically forced users to upgrade their hardware to run FSX. Heck I've learnt more about computers through upgrading to get an FSX sweetspot than ever before. With my recent build, I have not had ONE crash with FSX or any drop in frames below 30. Basically, hardware just needed to catch up to FSX, and I'm sure developers for Flight are well aware, and will be mindful of current hardware.

If you had tons of complex addons like me, with REx, GEX, UTX, fsgenesis, activesky, and lots of payware planes including the NGX.. you will definitely experience a few crashes .. I'm on a 2500k at 4.6ghz, gtx460, etc.

Everyone's mentality on flight seems to be "well if it even still looks like FSX, but performs much better and is stable .. im happy"

Which goes to show fsx still has what it takes to compete with any new sim, but of course iit needs addons.

[Romario_]

b0gey_dead_six, on Sep 9 2011, 08:16 AM, said:

If you had tons of complex addons like me, with REx, GEX, UTX, fsgenesis, activesky, and lots of payware planes including the NGX.. you will definitely experience a few crashes .. I'm on a 2500k at 4.6ghz, gtx460, etc.

Everyone's mentality on flight seems to be "well if it even still looks like FSX, but performs much better and is stable .. im happy"

Which goes to show fsx still has what it takes to compete with any new sim, but of course iit needs addons.

I have all of those addons minus FSgenesis and FSX is stable as a rock for me.

[ChaoticBeauty]

Romario_, on Sep 9 2011, 03:03 PM, said:

Personally, FSX is not the problem tbh. It's just that Microsoft basically forced users to upgrade their hardware to run FSX. Heck I've learnt more about computers through upgrading to get an FSX sweetspot than ever before. With my recent build, I have not had ONE crash with FSX or any drop in frames below 30. Basically, hardware just needed to catch up to FSX, and I'm sure developers for Flight are well aware, and will be mindful of current hardware.

Seriously, a high-end system today will run FSX greatly. My current system wasn't even high-end in 2010 (specs in profile, no overclocking), and I run vanilla FSX with High/Ultra High settings and I get 35 FPS and above. Now imagine a Sandy Bridge system with tweaks.

FSX performance was horrible in 2006, but the developers said they aimed for the game to be maxed 5 years later. That makes it 2011. Still not maxed but acceptable performance for high settings. I'm sure Flight will do greatly on that aspect.

[_BD6_]

Romario_, on Sep 9 2011, 08:25 AM, said:

I have all of those addons minus FSgenesis and FSX is stable as a rock for me.

Yep, I probably just multitask too much

FSX still hasn't been tamed though.. even with todays hardware it's hard to get an absolutely stutter free gameplay on the highest settings, AA and AF, etc in payware environments.

[THBatMan8]

Why are you guys comparing a game released 5 years ago to one more modern? Why are you comparing 3rd patry scenery to default?

How did I know that before even opening this thread, it was a flame fest? Come on, this is pathetic.

b0gey_dead_six, on Sep 9 2011, 11:07 AM, said:

Yep, I probably just multitask too much

FSX still hasn't been tamed though.. even with todays hardware it's hard to get an absolutely stutter free gameplay on the highest settings, AA and AF, etc in payware environments.

If you run FSX nothing but default (like the game was designed), it is flawless.

Edited by Richard_Nixon, 09 September 2011 - 12:17 PM.