123 replies to this topic

[Chris728]

Im trying to download it but when i click download it goes to a new page and then a half second later goes to a server not found page.. Is this happening to anybody else?

[zanth91]

Mango, on Oct 1 2006, 10:50 AM, said:

Boy boy, i hope this isn't the final setup... No difference inside the Windows partition. Well, it is loading slower.
With the same settings i get half frames now. Reducing autogen, traffic, mesh, ect. doesn't improve it much. What a bug...

I'm worried now !  

It is taking longer to load...

[Mango]

Back to 'normal'... Well, almost. I noticed that clouds have now a huge FPS impact with anisotropic filtering. Even 'Fair Weather' which was never a problem since the first days of FS9. What's the problem - cloud textures or the graphic engine !?
With reduced mesh, no light bloom, trilinear filtering and low traffic i can lock now at 25. Not same like before with the first demo...

[Tamiami Pilot]

And the trees are still Jolly Green Giant size... FS9 remains superior.

[franz]

Tamiami Pilot, on Oct 1 2006, 03:13 PM, said:

FSX sucks lmao

...we appreciate your constructive feedback, full of useful information.
Any other details you may wish to share with us?

[Mango]

Tamiami Pilot, on Oct 2 2006, 12:38 AM, said:

And the trees are still Jolly Green Giant size... FS9 remains superior.

Not for all of us. And i doubt you are talking about default FS9, do you.

[RPharazon]

batista_the_animal, on Oct 1 2006, 04:58 AM, said:

Just waiting one more year here before purchasing FSX

Thank you.

By then it'll have its bugs sorted out (hopefully), DX10 will come out, and the addon developers will be in full gear.

Can't wait!

[Mango]

RPharazon, on Oct 2 2006, 12:44 AM, said:

batista_the_animal, on Oct 1 2006, 04:58 AM, said:

Just waiting one more year here before purchasing FSX

Thank you.

By then it'll have its bugs sorted out (hopefully), DX10 will come out, and the addon developers will be in full gear.

Can't wait!

What, can't wait one year ?  

[Grale]

Looks better graphics wise, no glitches atall.

but worse fps for me also, drops probably by 10fps. and i made sure all the settings matched the beta ...

Not happy  

[Speedbird_one]

I got it all on max settings running at 8X AA and 8XAntrisopic locked at 20, last demo was 25.

Edited by Speedbird_one, 01 October 2006 - 12:49 PM.

[pyruvate]

OMG, why don't we all just send a big huge e-mail to M$, and give them a link of this site

[Mango]

Grale, on Oct 2 2006, 12:48 AM, said:

Looks better graphics wise, no glitches atall.

but worse fps for me also, drops probably by 10fps. and i made sure all the settings matched the beta ...

Not happy  

Yeah, how much is your FPS difference between clear skys and fair weather ? Can you check out the drop from trilinear to anisotropic as well ? Thanks !


I visited some other forums. Same same...

[Grale]

Ok Mango here ya go...

Princess INTL sat at start of runway in a Robinson Beta

Time and Season set to today, daytime

Clear skies

Anistropic= 22fps    steady
Trilinear= 22/18/15 fps   jumped around between those numbers for me!!

Fair weather= 21.2 steady

oops forgot trilinear for fair weather, will test again if you need it.

this is way down on the beta v3 performance for me, is it the same for you??

[Katahu]

Quote

And the trees are still Jolly Green Giant size... FS9 remains superior.

Can FS9 do any of the following [default wise and without the use of addons]?

1. Bump mapping
2. Light Blooms
3. Water that reflects both terrain and current weather
4. Skin and bones using inverse kenetics and can be affected by the wind
5. Drivable bridges with car AI driving over them
6. Improved water physics
7. Landable carriers that move
8. Mission Editor
9. Runways and tarmacs that reflect when wet
10. Head movement as you turn, accelerate and decelerate
11. Space flight
12. Round globe that finally allows us to reach the poles
13. Reflective buildings
14. Naturally moving water [not like the ugly pulsing water effects in FS9]
15. No more X-shaped trees when seeing the trees from above

Obviously, you would say no to all of the above. So therefore FS9 is not superior to FSX just because FSX has slight bigger trees.

Even with addons, FS9 will only be able to support only one of the items in the list above: which is drivable bridges. That's it.

Edited by Katahu, 01 October 2006 - 01:22 PM.

[SuperCar1000]

Katahu, on Oct 1 2006, 01:18 PM, said:

1. Bump mapping
2. Light Blooms
3. Water that reflects both terrain and current weather
4. Skin and bones using inverse kenetics and can be affected by the wind
5. Drivable bridges with car AI driving over them
6. Improved water physics
7. Landable carriers that move
8. Mission Editor
9. Runways and tarmacs that reflect when wet
10. Head movement as you turn, accelerate and decelerate
11. Space flight
12. Round globe that finally allows us to reach the poles
13. Reflective buildings
14. Naturally moving water [not like the ugly pulsing water effects in FS9]
15. No more X-shaped trees when seeing the trees from above

Greal found !

[Tamiami Pilot]

Katahu, on Oct 1 2006, 01:18 PM, said:

1. Bump mapping
2. Light Blooms
3. Water that reflects both terrain and current weather
4. Skin and bones using inverse kenetics and can be affected by the wind
5. Drivable bridges with car AI driving over them
6. Improved water physics
7. Landable carriers that move
8. Mission Editor
9. Runways and tarmacs that reflect when wet
10. Head movement as you turn, accelerate and decelerate
11. Space flight
12. Round globe that finally allows us to reach the poles
13. Reflective buildings
14. Naturally moving water [not like the ugly pulsing water effects in FS9]
15. No more X-shaped trees when seeing the trees from above

Obviously, you would say no to all of the above. So therefore FS9 is not superior to FSX just because FSX has slight bigger trees.

Even with addons, FS9 will only be able to support only one of the items in the list above: which is drivable bridges. That's it.

Now can you tell me any real world pilot that would want any of these features ?

Obviously, not. FSX  is a game with corny missions and crap textures. So therfore FS9 is superior to FSX in a pilots eyes. The end.

For the record I would have liked to see this in FSX.

1-Improved physics
2-Ground Effect
3-Inop Gauges
4-Left Turning Tendencies

etc...

[james_macnair]

Tamiami Pilot, on Oct 1 2006, 02:21 PM, said:

Katahu, on Oct 1 2006, 01:18 PM, said:

1. Bump mapping
2. Light Blooms
3. Water that reflects both terrain and current weather
4. Skin and bones using inverse kenetics and can be affected by the wind
5. Drivable bridges with car AI driving over them
6. Improved water physics
7. Landable carriers that move
8. Mission Editor
9. Runways and tarmacs that reflect when wet
10. Head movement as you turn, accelerate and decelerate
11. Space flight
12. Round globe that finally allows us to reach the poles
13. Reflective buildings
14. Naturally moving water [not like the ugly pulsing water effects in FS9]
15. No more X-shaped trees when seeing the trees from above

Obviously, you would say no to all of the above. So therefore FS9 is not superior to FSX just because FSX has slight bigger trees.

Even with addons, FS9 will only be able to support only one of the items in the list above: which is drivable bridges. That's it.

Now can you tell me any real world pilot that would want any of these features ?

Obviously, not. FSX  is a game with corny missions and crap textures. So therfore FS9 is superior to FSX in a pilots eyes. The end.

For the record I would have liked to see this in FSX.

1-Improved physics
2-Ground Effect
3-Inop Gauges
4-Left Turning Tendencies

etc...

how on earth do you know these won't be included in the final release.... or at least developed by third party companies.

FS9 was a shell at the beginning, desgined to be improved upon, and FSX is that also. you sooo narrow minded its laughable.

[Andydigital]

I would have liked "Coolie Hat" (trim for cyclic) and "Anti Torque" trim support for the heli's, gives the old wrist a break on the force-feedback sticks. I really cant believe its not supported.

[DaveWick]

Aside from space travel, which I don't really have any interest in, and the mission editor, I think that a real world GA pilot would enjoy each and every one of those features.  The goal is to make the sim look as close to the real thing as possible.

FSX's default textures are far superior to the default textures in FS9.  How much more can you ask?  Are you looking for photorealistic satellite shots of the whole world?  Of course, those who are flying the big heavies care more about scenery right next to big airports and how the clouds look from above.  I for one however like at least the attempt at detail that they are making in FSX.

Who says physics aren't improved?  And would you really be able to tell?  I think they've got a pretty darn good physics model as is.  How do you know there is no ground effect?  Or can you just not feel it in the same way you do in a real plane?  Hasn't FS had inop gauges since at least version 4.0?

Oh but back on topic, I probably won't bother to dl the new demo because I figure the real thing will be here in a couple of weeks...

[Corky Buchek]

THIS VERSION OWNS!!!

The textures are NEVER blurry11!!!!  

If FSX is going to be like this i am very very pleased.