162 replies to this topic

[SwitchFX]

Who knows? I'm sure it's going to be amazing. It would be good to have a much more broader range of aircraft. a md-11 would be nice. And maybe if they brought the concorde back.

[WillMcCaskill]

Airlines818, on Aug 25 2005, 08:19 PM, said:

Who knows? I'm sure it's going to be amazing. It would be good to have a much more broader range of aircraft. a md-11 would be nice. And maybe if they brought the concorde back.

Who cares about the default aircraft?

they need to work on physics and scenery. I would love to see less ###### textures, they should allow for higher resolutions.

Edited by WillMcCaskill, 25 August 2005 - 08:21 PM.

[SwitchFX]

What is it with you and physics in games?


And they should work on the scenery. It's sort of silly when you fly near the strip in Vegas that the plane in huge in comparison to the buildings. When in real life it is the exact opposite. But if they did do that sort of scaling the installation would be over 30 gigs

[AmericanAirFan]

WillMcCaskill, on Aug 25 2005, 08:15 PM, said:

Airlines818, on Aug 25 2005, 08:09 PM, said:

kewlceo, on Aug 25 2005, 06:05 PM, said:

WillMcCaskill, on Aug 25 2005, 05:58 PM, said:

No. Thats normal for a modern sim.

Yep, I agree that the size of the full program plus the need for a DVD player are simply facts of life these days. It will be interesting to see what the requirements for FSX will be, but I don't think the hardware requirements for X-Plane are overly stringent by any means.

I understood the first time Will said it. I do read each and every single post.


In other news I would think the minimum hardware specs for FS10 or whatever they are going to name it would probably require 1.5 GHz and 4 gigs of space. 32mb video card. 512 ram. It seems fair since technology is always evolving.

I hope the minimum requirements are higher than that...

look at the minimum requirements of FS2004    

Quote

# Windows PC
# 2000/XP – 128 MB Ram
# 98/Me – 64 MB Ram
# Processor:450 MHz minimum
# Available hard drive space:1.8 GB
# DirectX 9 or later (included with Microsoft Flight Simulator: A Century of Flight)
# Video card: 8 MB/3D with DirectX 7.0 or later drivers
# Other: mouse, joystick/yoke, sound card, speakers/headphones
# Online/multiplayer: 56.6 kbps modem or LAN

So yes Will those minimums seem likely I think there minimums are on how slow it can go before it crashes or just doesnt run not based on FPS......

[Chief Wiggum]

kewlceo, on Aug 25 2005, 09:47 PM, said:

No, it is NOT free. And after all the hard work Austin has put into it the price is worth every penny. (Hey, just because it isn't my choice doesn't mean I can't appreciate the amount of programming work Austin has done.)

Also, unlike FS9, there is a free demo you can try if you're curious.

What the ...? First you say X-Plane is incomplete, than you say it's worth every penny

I don't like X-Plane and I think that if it were all that good, people wouldn't need to blame or poke jokes at MSFS to promote it - just like Linux fanboys do with Windows ...

[SwitchFX]

Chief Wiggum, on Aug 25 2005, 06:25 PM, said:

kewlceo, on Aug 25 2005, 09:47 PM, said:

No, it is NOT free. And after all the hard work Austin has put into it the price is worth every penny. (Hey, just because it isn't my choice doesn't mean I can't appreciate the amount of programming work Austin has done.)

Also, unlike FS9, there is a free demo you can try if you're curious.

What the ...? First you say X-Plane is incomplete, than you say it's worth every penny

I don't like X-Plane and I think that if it were all that good, people wouldn't need to blame or poke jokes at MSFS to promote it - just like Linux fanboys do with Windows ...

Good point. I don't think x-plane is that good.

[Neil.]

It's strange how some individuals are stating X Plane isn't that good, yet they haven't tried it

Seems like we have too many sheep on here...

Neil.

[SwitchFX]

It's an opinion Neil. Not a biased one. Just what I have seen from x-plane forums or Will's pictures it is not such a special program.

I would rather have the worlds best scenery installed into FS rather than x-plane. But x-plane has a good "physics" engine. Or so we have been told.

---------------------------------------------

It is like Rick's statement. He said it was incomplete yet worth every penny. Now I am not sure if he own's the game, but im sure I would like to hear his insight in his previous statement

[AmericanAirFan]

Neil., on Aug 25 2005, 08:28 PM, said:

It's strange how some individuals are stating X Plane isn't that good, yet they haven't tried it

Seems like we have too many sheep on here...

Neil.

I am willing to try it but havent had the time to download the demo or buy it the download was like 5/KPS which was killing me so I couldnt do it   but I am all up for trying Im on both sides

[SwitchFX]

Also lets try to get back on topic.  The one we were hottly debating?

[Neil.]

Hehe, I find it strange how people can formulate an opinion on something over just screenshots and a few peoples opinions yet haven't tried it themselves.

Meh, it's like talking to a brick wall :/

Neil.

[SwitchFX]

I don't't judge a game by other users opinions Neil. I judge by how it looks, the good and bad aspects of it. How realistic it is. How good the graphics and gameplay is.

[WillMcCaskill]

Airlines818, on Aug 25 2005, 08:33 PM, said:

It's an opinion Neil. Not a biased one. Just what I have seen from x-plane forums or Will's pictures it is not such a special program.

Exactly. The true greatness of X-Plane can't be put into a picture. I'm not sure how to put liquid smooth guages and amazing flight dynamics into a picture.

And to be honest i don't think my shots are all that great.

Quote

Hehe, I find it strange how people can formulate an opinion on something over just screenshots and a few peoples opinions yet haven't tried it themselves.

Meh, it's like talking to a brick wall :/

Neil.

I know.   People should try it before they bash it.

The part that i love is that several people from here and FSZONE have taken the plunge and bought X-Plane, and now the swear by it.

Edited by WillMcCaskill, 25 August 2005 - 08:53 PM.

[Twista90]

Neil., on Aug 25 2005, 08:37 PM, said:

Hehe, I find it strange how people can formulate an opinion on something over just screenshots and a few peoples opinions yet haven't tried it themselves.

Meh, it's like talking to a brick wall :/

Neil.

Ya I kinda agree on that statement I found alot of stuff is better than what the screen shots show.

[SwitchFX]

Alright whatever you like to call it silky smooth or anything. Let's try to get back on subject here about the EULA laws.

[Fsimfan]

Neil., on Aug 25 2005, 08:37 PM, said:

Hehe, I find it strange how people can formulate an opinion on something over just screenshots and a few peoples opinions yet haven't tried it themselves.

Meh, it's like talking to a brick wall :/

Neil.

Neil has a good point, you can't truly justify your opinion on the basis of a few screenshots.  To truly express your opinion on a product, you have to try the product and experience it.

Some who have been sceptical initially have found they were geniunely impressed with X-Plane, while others have found their scepticism confirmed. It is all a matter of personal opinion and we are all free to have one, but when you express it after you have examined the product itself, you will be in a more legitimate position to speak from.

[SwitchFX]

Like they say Freedom of Speech. I said it was my personal opinion. I will not change it based on another member's wording

[AmericanAirFan]

I smell a flame war burning

[Cedhed]

I know the origional topic has been long forgotten.

But I have always been interested in why FS has so much paware associated.

I think it has a lot to do with the difference between the OSS and shareware communities. Shareware people feel an obligation to reward and be rewarded for any effort expended, wheras the OSS guys tend to do it for the good of the community and as an ego boost.

And most of the modern FPS's explicitly allow modding. Most release SDK's for free and Id software always releases their old engine's source code under the GPL.

And X-plane's physics are better.  Not that FS can't feel real and can't get very close with their lookup tables. But at the most basic level the physics engine in X is more accurate and more powerful thatn FS's. That is why the big payware developers spend so much time tweaking the .air file, they are trying to code around the limitations of FS's engine. Most notably the complete lack of spin modeling.

[dolbinau]

There is no debate, Level-D or PMDG don't make Things as simple as Go-Carts or 'Textures' for FS, like 'Mods' for other games.

There arn't even Mods, They are like a completely stand-alone product.

$40 for a Simulation close to the real thing in almost every aspect, which could otherwise cost Hundreds of dollars for a stand alone simulator (Like PS1), Millions (?) For a Full Motion, Or even more for the Real thing, Is pretty ###### good.

Oh, And most Payware companies these days don't use FS SDK's for their aircraft, It just would be unrealistic and too basic to do so!

Edited by dolbinau, 26 August 2005 - 01:48 AM.