99 replies to this topic

[CaptainG37]

Kaotika, on Sep 14 2011, 11:23 PM, said:

Yes, I have already admitted that, and I'm actually happy to see competition going on, but you are the problem. You just keep posting about the good things X-Plane 10 has and talking negatively about Flight. I've never compared those two, just posting my opinion on them.

I posted a new scenery screenshot showing the new fog and shaders in x plane and you mistook it for just "scenery".  Then you said it was "unimpressive".  Then you find new Flight screenshots of almost identical fog and you say it's "amazing".  You never said one good thing about x plane.  At least Daube and a few others have an open and objective opinion and can post lucid, respectful opinions.  You just keep going on about how bad and unimpressive x plane is and how amazing Flight will be.  How we shouldn't be posting x plane screenshots in the Flight section, yet you say nothing about FSX screenshots being posted in the x plane forum.  The FSX screenshots were posted for comparison.  Guess what?  So were the X Plane screenshots. But even more-so, I posted them to prove that intense processing power is NOT needed to make street lights and head lights.
It honestly doesn't bother me what you think of x plane.  All I'm doing is trying to prove a point.  That you are very one sided, regardless of what is thrown in front of you.
Be objective.  I have posted many positive points on Flight.  The weather and fog is FINALLY looking great!  Some of the scenery objects, although they look impressive to you, I could add them in x plane in about 2 minutes.  And I could model them in less than that.  Lighting looks "better".  It's not on par with X Plane.  And I can safely say cockpit lighting in FSX is not even close to X Plane.  I'm sure you've seen the CRJ cockpit video for x plane.
Anyway, I think I've thread-jacked this thread for long enough.  I feel I have made my point.  All I'm saying is be fair and objective.  Not blindly one sided.  X Plane users put up with FSX people fiercely defending FSX in the x plane forums.  Yet when X plane users defend x plane in an FSX forum, they're considered troublemakers.
I hope you can see my point.
As you were, gentlemen

Edited by CaptainG37, 14 September 2011 - 08:46 AM.

[yimmy149]

These screenshots were probably rushed just to show that things were not put on hold.  I think the big news here really is the fog and clouds touching the ground, which I think they did a good job with!  The glare/bloom coming off the aircraft landing light also looks pretty good.

Looking forward to BrandonF doing some before/after shots if he's got the time, those do an excellent job of highlighting the changes.

-james

[HighFlyin]

Microsoft Flight

X-Plane 10

CaptainG37, I'm going to assume you have insider information. Can you comment on if and when they're planning on releasing X-Plane 10 to mobile devices?

[Fate01_VUSAFS]

I spot the Royal Hawaiian in one shot

I'm still not impressed with Flight. It's just FSX with better graphics, but they aren't super noticeable in difference. I hope they have a few new features...and they better have gotten rid of that GameSpy nonsense and gone back to the old FS9 style multiplayer.

[Brad]

ollyau, on Sep 13 2011, 06:56 PM, said:

They also have some weather comparisons in the news section: http://www.microsoft...s/flight/#news7.

Edit: Just realized the topic starter also mentioned them.   Well, have a convenient link.

Now THAT'S an improvement I'm glad to see.

[Daube]

Fate01_VUSAFS, on Sep 14 2011, 11:20 AM, said:

and they better have gotten rid of that GameSpy nonsense and gone back to the old FS9 style multiplayer.

You mean, with incorrect/imprecise aircraft movements and impossible formation flights, unless using third-party programs like IBNet Player ?
Also, you're not forced to use Gamespy to fly in multiplayer in FSX. Hamachi is your friend.

[ChaoticBeauty]

Microsoft Flight will use LIVE. It says that on the website.

[Fate01_VUSAFS]

Daube, on Sep 14 2011, 12:36 PM, said:

You mean, with incorrect/imprecise aircraft movements and impossible formation flights, unless using third-party programs like IBNet Player ?
Also, you're not forced to use Gamespy to fly in multiplayer in FSX. Hamachi is your friend.

You can't formation fly in FSX much. Even with 3rd party add-ons. FS Host is useless when it comes to formation flights. I haven't used IBNet.

I was actually referring to the fact that Gamespy's login/multiplayer connection just plain sucks. It's totally useless. I don't know why they just didn't use the built-in feature like 2004 had. It worked just about every time and didn't cause any adverse effects in my opinion.

I haven't been able to do a good formation flight since I switched over to FSX. I miss the good old days  

[Daube]

Fate01_VUSAFS, on Sep 14 2011, 11:59 AM, said:

You can't formation fly in FSX much. Even with 3rd party add-ons. FS Host is useless when it comes to formation flights. I haven't used IBNet.

Are you kidding ? I've been flying close formations in FSX with Hamachi (which makes FSX believe it's on a LAN), and the other player's plane position was rock-steady.

Quote

I was actually referring to the fact that Gamespy's login/multiplayer connection just plain sucks. It's totally useless. I don't know why they just didn't use the built-in feature like 2004 had. It worked just about every time and didn't cause any adverse effects in my opinion.

You can still host/join a multiplayer game just like in FS9, and you are not forced to use Gamespy (where I don't have any account). And even in LAN, the native FS9 multiplayer was TERRIBLE, and formation flights were impossible until IBNet Player appeared.

Quote

I haven't been able to do a good formation flight since I switched over to FSX. I miss the good old days  

Perhaps you should try harder....
EDIT: Or is it like the AI planes ? They will jump with you get close to them if the FPS limit is set to unlimited. The solution is to set a reasonnable limit for the FPS in the game settings. But I don't know if this has any influence on multiplayer planes.

Edited by Daube, 14 September 2011 - 01:14 PM.

[Fate01_VUSAFS]

Daube, on Sep 14 2011, 02:10 PM, said:

Are you kidding ? I've been flying close formations in FSX with Hamachi (which makes FSX believe it's on a LAN), and the other player's plane position was rock-steady.

I never used it. I'll have to give it a try.

Quote

You can still host/join a multiplayer game just like in FS9, and you are not forced to use Gamespy (where I don't have any account). And even in LAN, the native FS9 multiplayer was TERRIBLE, and formation flights were impossible until IBNet Player appeared.
Perhaps you should try harder....

I don't use Gamespy. If they had the old multiplayer, I'd use it. I don't see it being terrible in the least. Maybe not the best, but it worked pretty good and I hardly ever had an issue with it. You ran an FS Host server and connected right through the game, not exterior third-party clients. We used to do formation flights all the time. We got pretty close too. Wingtip-to-wingtip and mid-air refuels.

Quote

EDIT: Or is it like the AI planes ? They will jump with you get close to them if the FPS limit is set to unlimited. The solution is to set a reasonnable limit for the FPS in the game settings. But I don't know if this has any influence on multiplayer planes.

I don't really have an issue with AI planes jumping. It's when using the FS Host Connect Client. It treats the other player like third-party AI. Default or software AI still displayed just fine. I've never had AI jump on me. What I do like is that you can change the other player's visible aircraft so you don't have that log on issue where they show up in a Cessna.

For FSX it's just jumpy when you get within a half-mile in multiplayer. We still run FS Host because our VA members use both FS9 and FSX and it's the best product to connect through for both games for relative ease on both the connection/game end and server/control end.

[Daube]

Hmmm I've never used FSHost.
I've read so much good things about Hamachi that it's the only one I've tried. But the fact is that Hamachi will not replace the multiplayer feature of the game like FSHost does, or seems to do. As a consequence, it will not allow you to fly with FS9 pilots (which is quite a cool feature, I have to say) :/

EDIT: you're kind of right: the problem is because of the couple FSHost + FSX.
FSHost + FS9 works well with steady players indeed, but in FSX it's a mess.
I could find some interesting feedback there: http://www.sim-outho...r-Jittery-Jerks
But this is only for FSHost. With Hamachi it will work fine.

Edited by Daube, 14 September 2011 - 04:05 PM.

[BrandonF]

Daube, on Sep 14 2011, 02:10 AM, said:

It is not really default and you know it. The rest of the world will not be as detailled as Hawaii, just like the rest of the world was not as detailled as St.Marteen was in FSX.

Default = comes with the sim, included with. Thought you knew that.  

[CaptainG37]

HighFlyin, on Sep 15 2011, 01:46 AM, said:

Microsoft Flight

X-Plane 10

CaptainG37, I'm going to assume you have insider information. Can you comment on if and when they're planning on releasing X-Plane 10 to mobile devices?

There's no word on it yet, but considering X Plane 9 for the iPhone was a huge success, it only stands to reason it will happen for xp10 as well.
(For any other disclosed XP10 info, let's keep it in the X Plane forums before we get yelled at)

[SwitchFX]

Who here even uses default textures? Everyone whines and complains about default textures - I've seen it with FS9 and FSX. No one keeps default textures or uses the default planes. It's puzzling to me why there are complaints about them.

[ollyau]

SwitchFX, on Sep 14 2011, 07:45 PM, said:

Who here even uses default textures? Everyone whines and complains about default textures - I've seen it with FS9 and FSX. No one keeps default textures or uses the default planes. It's puzzling to me why there are complaints about them.

Me.

I find many of the textures in REX and FEX too dramatic, and it takes quite some time to sift through them all.  I usually wind up sticking with default, just because it's the simplest thing to do after having reinstalled Windows.

Edited by ollyau, 14 September 2011 - 11:09 PM.

[Daube]

SwitchFX, on Sep 14 2011, 09:45 PM, said:

Who here even uses default textures? Everyone whines and complains about default textures - I've seen it with FS9 and FSX. No one keeps default textures or uses the default planes. It's puzzling to me why there are complaints about them.

Despite all the payware planes that I have, I still use some of the default planes quite a lot, even with defaut textures.
Same for the ground, I'm quite satisfied with the default ground textures.
I'm not satisfied by the default landclasses and meshes though, so those get replaced as fast as possible.

[Fate01_VUSAFS]

SwitchFX, on Sep 14 2011, 10:45 PM, said:

Who here even uses default textures? Everyone whines and complains about default textures - I've seen it with FS9 and FSX. No one keeps default textures or uses the default planes. It's puzzling to me why there are complaints about them.

That's a horrible assumption and entirely inaccurate.

[ChaoticBeauty]

SwitchFX, on Sep 15 2011, 05:45 AM, said:

Who here even uses default textures? Everyone whines and complains about default textures - I've seen it with FS9 and FSX. No one keeps default textures or uses the default planes. It's puzzling to me why there are complaints about them.

I do. Can't afford add-ons.

[SwitchFX]

ollyau, on Sep 14 2011, 09:08 PM, said:

Me.

I find many of the textures in REX and FEX too dramatic, and it takes quite some time to sift through them all.  I usually wind up sticking with default, just because it's the simplest thing to do after having reinstalled Windows.

File them under categories. That's a poor excuse if we're being honest.

Fate01_VUSAFS, on Sep 14 2011, 11:47 PM, said:

That's a horrible assumption and entirely inaccurate.

Which part? The majority would disagree with your post. How often do you see posters with default everything in videos and or screenshots? Not very often, and when you do it's usually because there system is ancient.

Kaotika, on Sep 15 2011, 05:02 AM, said:

I do. Can't afford add-ons.

You've never heard of AVSim or the dozens of other repositories that have hundreds of textures for every part of the sim? Or how companies like FTX offer some of their scenery for free? Bad simmer!

[Daube]

The majority uses addons but that same majority doesn't use "addons-only".
And my computer, even if it's far from the top-level hardware, is nothing old.
Sure I use OrbX PNW, but that doesn't prevent me from flying in the Alps (with a good freeware mesh and freeware landlcass) or flying in Scandinavia (same) all with default ground textures (which can be beautiful, when you use the correct landclass).
Sure I use all of the A2A Accusim aircrafts, but that doesn't prevent me from using the default planes for some kind of flights, for example the Maule, the Goose, the Beaver, the Baron etc... But ok, I don't use the Cub anymore, since I replaced it with the Accusim one.