View Full Version : FS X - Disappointment etc...
10-12-2006, 06:03 AM
Just bought FS X and installed it on a new machine...
I don't intend to be negative or pessimistic but one has to see
the facts :
- As mentionned by other people, every new version generates expenses to buy new machines. Mine is new and powerful but I guarantee that the sliders are not to the maximum ! Set at the middle for exemple in Seattle I get a 8 FPS without addons...
- Moreover, we need to buy many addons to make it intersting (we are feeding thousands of people to enjoy the program supposed to be a finished product from the beginning !)
- The flight dynamics and panels are awfull as usual and far from reality (I'm a pilot in real life).
- The graphics of the different windows do not give a professionnal look but more of a cartoon look, (look at ATC window for instance)
- Be sure FS X is a "base product". You will need to buy many addons to make it interesting. You'll start from scrach and buy and buy...hoping all will merge smoothly.
- Like everyone, I was looking for it but this version does not give a general sense of "reality" as you could expect. Yes a few things have been added and improved but the program lag behind all the developpement that have been done for FS 2004. So now we will have to wait for the patches and new developpment from other people for FS X. What a joke. Microsoft should be ahead and not provide a "base" for developpers. The real geniuses are the developpers with their beautiful products and addons.
- Makes me wonder. Does it really takes 3 years of development for this achievement ? When you see the quality of many addons which come out in a few months, you wonder how could microsoft make such a lousy job. As previously said, it's a "base" pack and you'll need to pay probably 300$ or 400$ for addons to make it look the way you want, not to mention the hardware !
- Like many others, I don't feel ready yet to go over the long process of configurating and adding addons, aircrafts, scenery to finally come up with a satisfactory product. Of course, I might go over the first impression and catch up with the ever moving wheel of "progress". Are you not tired of this electronic race yet ?
- Oh, by the way, I tried to put my "old" aircrafts from FS 2004 in FS X but could not find the aircraft folder... ? Anybody knows how to do that ?
- Time to go flying now. If you can, go for it. The energetic presence of the sky and the amazing sensations of flight will erase all the frustrations generated by this crazy computer thing called FS X. And if you cannot do it, go for a walk in nature. It's not exciting but very fulfilling...
- Love to all
(sorry for my bad english, my mother tongue is french !)
10-12-2006, 06:16 AM
you say "new and powerful" machine, what are your specs??
10-12-2006, 06:33 AM
I was sorry to read such a negative post.
I only have the latest demo version but I am seeing a very pleasant improvement in most areas over FS9.My PC specs are only a few months old but my graphics card is pretty middle of the road (Geforce 7600GT)and I like what I see.
I get a very fluid flight at medium settings and as a real life PPL I find the flight model more realistic than FS9
I am nervously wondering what I will find in the full sim(tomorrow here in UK?)over KSEA.KLAX,KSFO EGLL etc especially when I have 100% Ultimate Traffic running.In FS9 I use 22 FPS and find all is pretty good with highish settings.
What will I see with FSX? AMD64 3.2 Dual,2Gb RAM,Geforce 7600GT,280Gb hard disc.
10-12-2006, 08:33 AM
The aircraf folder is now in the simobjects folder. There is an option within windows called "Search", try it sometime, you might find it handy ;-)
The panels are awful? Wow, I find that hard to believe, I think the panels are far better than what was in FS9.
Have you tried any of the fixes that have been mentioned in the forum?
10-12-2006, 09:43 AM
"you'll need to pay probably 300$ or 400$ for addons to make it look the way you want"
Actually.... no... i won't.
I'm sorry to see such a post too. Unfortunantly (sp?) some of us don't have the time to be real-world pilots and can't make such generalizations about programs. It would in fact be like me telling you NHL 07 for XBOX360 isn't like playing real hockey. Its not comparable. But for those of us whose only touch of real life comes from FSX I'm here to say this is the best one yet. I have bought them all the way from the first simulator on RBG and a PS1 to now. And yes it seems that all versions get better with add-ons. But thats the point, I love the attempt to feel like I'm flying, and I love my passion for aviation. I don't mind the hours reconfiguring and adding stuff it's what some of us love to do. It's our hobby, or our escape, especially when we can't get in a real plane. For the first time ever, I haven't been dissapointed by what could of been. I think this so far is MS best work yet.
10-12-2006, 10:49 AM
I'm not a pilot, I have flown though when I was up with a friend in his plane. FSX is more realistic than FS9 in flight dynamics, accuracy of everything in general. It's hard to compare because its a video game compared to the real thing. If your trying to compare how close it is to the real thing FSX is better. Actual flying is definately a bit harder, but if it was so real then I can gurantee you half the people wouldn't buy it because they aren't realworld pilots.
10-12-2006, 11:15 AM
I agree. FSX's dynamics are far better than FS9's are. I spent most of my FSX Beta time in the GA aircraft, and they are a joy to fly, especially the Beaver.
10-12-2006, 11:42 AM
D'apres mom experience, "You can please some of the people some of the time,most of the people most of the time,but you can never please all the people all the time"
( sorry for my very bad French,my father tounge is American ;) )
10-12-2006, 12:52 PM
I fully endorse the gripes that sim fans are facing regarding FSX,
Companies like Eidos Interactive, Terminal Relaity, Looking Glass Technologies were providing better and more fluid scenery as far back as 1998,even with the outdated and early technology,
Abysmal frame rates on current systems, systems the likes of which I presume were used by MS to develop FSX, is an inexcusable error,
keeping in mind that MS had conducted such a massive survey in 2004/2005 regarding input concerning development of future products, I reckon that the feedack was not really very helpful,
i am still evaluating the product, and in time, i reckon i may upgrade to enjoy it fully, but it would be an unfair strain on my wallet,
Also, one more thing, any frame rate less than 25, is unreal, real time passge of time is 25 rames per second, so those fans who are feeling ecastatic at seeing 20 FPS on FSX are actually experiencing events in slower time space,
>Just bought FS X and installed it on a new machine...
>I don't intend to be negative or pessimistic but one has to
>the facts :
10-12-2006, 12:59 PM
I must be spoilt with addons.
I get the feeling it's going backwards when you don't have the addons anymore ! I never flew with the original panels which I found poor. In FS X nothing has changed except the 737 and caravan which are good (ah, a positive comment from me !)Some positive stuff ? Mesh, elevation, colours...well anyone would expect some improvement when buying a new version but as previously said, it's a base on which the real thing is to come...by the way all the scenery addons and aircrafts from FS 9 do not work any more...at least for me...it's a waste. Oh, I'm becoming negative again, I probably need to go to my psychiatrist very soon !
Oh by the way, thanks for the tip for adjusting the seat view (ctrl - shift - q) The problem is when I change the view in flight and come back to the cockpit view, my adjustments do not stay and everytime you must press the keys... any suggestions ?
10-12-2006, 01:31 PM
"keeping in mind that MS had conducted such a massive survey in 2004/2005 regarding input concerning development of future products, I reckon that the feedack was not really very helpful"
It's so right ! It's like when your boss ask you about your vision and don't take it in consideration anyway. Folks, never forget, the whole thing has become a money thing and I'm sure many people can sense that. Do you know any other software that "forces" you to change your whole computer every 2-3 years ???
P.S it's a take it or leave it. Since we all love to fly, we will eventually come to buy new hardware and addons... an they KNOW that ! Don't blame me for being rebellious but I feel we get manipulated from all sides...
"Do you know any other software that "forces" you to change your whole computer every 2-3 years ???"
Yep. Just about every top game that comes out. Half Life 2, Far Cry, Doom3, FEAR and Oblivion among many others. Microsoft isn't alone in this.
10-12-2006, 01:50 PM
Just coming over from FS2004, and was waiting rather impatiently for release of FSX here in the UK, until...............
Until I read these posts.
SR747 says that his FS9 aircraft won't work in FSX. Is this a fact? Or is it just with SR's set-up for some reason?
Ye gods, I have 1400 aircraft, including AI aircraft, and I was rather hoping it was going to be case of cut and paste.
And what about programs such as Ttools, Afcad, AIsmooth, etc., etc?
Can some-one be absolutely definitive about this?
10-12-2006, 01:52 PM
"Do you know any other software that "forces" you to change your whole computer every 2-3 years ???"
This seems to be indicative of the whole PC gaming genre in general.
For example, 3 years ago, when I built my current rig, Call of Duty was the benchmark by which everyone measured their PC performance. The PC I built at the time handled it well, being a P4 3.2, 1 GB RAM and a Radeon 9800 Pro. Now, games like F.E.A.R. and Oblivion are the benchmarks, and I have to turn my settings down quite a bit to get acceptable FPS in those games. Even people who don't sim complain about the 2-3 year hardware cycle. It's nothing new.
10-12-2006, 01:56 PM
Some FS9 aircraft do work out of the box with FSX. Most of the complex payware ones won't. They will require updates, but it was the same way with FS2002-FS2004 transition.
Traffic Tools works, AFCAD doesn't. Lee Swordy seemed to indicate a few years ago that he wouldn't support any further development with AFCAD. I don't know about AI smooth, but so far, the AI engine of FSX seems to do a much better job with spacing. I haven't seen a need for it yet, and the default traffic.bgl file that ships with FSX includes a robust amount of traffic.
10-12-2006, 02:11 PM
Thanks for the swift reply.
But how many are some?
Most of the aircraft I use for AI come from Aardvark and FsPainter. Does anyone know about these?
And if Afcad won't work does that mean we're stuck with the number of gates provided by MS which, in FS9, was woefully inadequate?
Seems like for mere mortals like myself it may be better to hold fire on buying this product which seems to have already divided the community, and see how it pans out.
10-12-2006, 02:52 PM
Yes, it's my truth,
Some of them work, for instance the PA-28 Archer or the Piper Seneca but some gauges do not work and leave some blanks in the panel. Most of the other aircrafts seem to have some FS 98 gauges in their panels (as indicated when you try to load them) and won't work at all. Try them one by one but be prepared to restart FS X many times !
We have to start all over again and wait for patches and new products... Yes, it may be a bit frustrating especially for the brillant independant developpers whose contribution made our flightsim so much better and easier. I thank them all here for their work and for making my flying a much better experience. In the same line, I'm happy we have forums and much more competent people than me to help us make the best out of FS. They are at the heart of the whole thing !
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.