Skywatcher12

I have explained everything more than once. One final time: To view the overhead, my eyes and my head are looking/pointed directly at the overhead panel as would be the case in real life. With TrackIR, your eyes are pointed at your screen while your head goes up. Please find me a video where a pilot is working the overhead while his head is pointed to the overhead and his eyes are looking out the front of the aircraft. To achieve a correct zoom level you need independent control of VC and external zoom. FS doesn't have that. You will either have an unrealistic wide view outside and a loss of the confines of a cockpit inside or a tunnel vision VC view inside with accurate view outside depending on what zoom setting you select.

I can only show real life videos, explain how 2D panels and the real life video are connected and TrackIR is not. There is nothing else I can argue with you. Maybe if they had some AC/DC playing in the cockpit of that video, then the head bopping up and down as with TrackIR would be more realistic? To enhance "simulation" using TrackIR, maybe best to contact the developer and suggest they include some MP3's with the product??? I'll just stick with my 2D panels, keep my head still and use my eyes to do the same thing as the guy in the vid. I'm happy with that even if I'm not correctly "simulating." lol

Look at the clip! 17,000hrs and you are still learning! lol Watch at 33:35. Watch carefully. Watch and see how he checks the instruments. A TrackIR user sits there in the same situation nodding his head saying yes, yes, yes! Yes sir, that's EXACTLY how it works Real Life vs TrackIR! lol With my 2D panel, my head stays still, my eyes glance down to the 2D panel, just like the joker in the video is doing.

Sorry, you are telling me natural human movement no longer takes place once you enter a cockpit? lol

People will argue anything. Try this, let's really simplify it. Sit in front of whatever screen you are on and read your post. Alternatively, watch someone read a text on their phone or watch someone read a book. You will find the eyes are the primary movement. The eyes move from one word to the next NOT the head. When something is beyond the reach of the eye, then the head becomes the "secondary" movement. When you use TrackIR, your primary movement is your head because that's how it works. You need to move your head for TrackIR to register movement. Your eyes remain fixated to the screen directly in front of you and do not move. It's nothing like real life. If you ever watch a pilot or take note of yourself, you will notice you tend to glance down at your instruments in flight with your eyes while your head remains facing relatively straight forward. Yes, TIR term was used by the other poster and I am assuming he did mean TrackIR. Again, I'm trying to keep things simple to avoid debate and respond in a language already used so I stuck with TIR as the reference.

TIR your primary movement is your head. In real life, your primary movement are your eyes. I spent a day using TIR, brings no extra realism for me. VR, my god, when it's proven it will be a useful technology in the years to come I will look at it. VR crowd is no different or less loud then the 3D TV crowd. The 3D TV crowd are all gone now as are 3D TV's.

In regard to FS9 v FSX, I made two comments in the post you quoted and I answered reasons to both of them. Yes, I have sat in a cockpit. You can't look outside and view the panel at the same time. You can't do that using a 2D panel either. You either focus on the panel or external view. It's as real life but when you do look at the 2D panel, it's a much closer representation than a VC. What flight sims need is an independent zoom setting for VC and outside view. It's the only way to improve reality but then you still have the issue of accessing switches. In real life you quickly and easily select any switch. It is much the same with 2D panels. In VC's you need to hunt around with a hat switch to first find the right area and then the actual flicking of the switch can be a task in itself. I stand by everything I say. Visually and operationally, a 2D panel is much closer to real life than a VC. Each to their own.

There are many including myself who don't think much of AVSIM. I think you will find traffic here is higher leading to more people using your download. In saying this, someone from AVSIM will probably sit there and download your file 200 times so my comment appears wrong. lol Edit: Just checking KJAX, Flightsim 501 downloads, AVSIM 267 downloads. Files I had up showed an even bigger difference favoring Flightsim.

FS9 v FSX: Incredibly little difference. They are both old and same generation. Visuals are almost identical if running equivalent add-ons. FS9 runs brilliantly, never crashes and is completely problem and fuss free. FSX needs a 6 GHz processor to run without limitations. When I have one of those, I might very well switch. FS9 you can fully max everything out and run absolutely anything without headaches. FS9 from my experience needs a 3.5 GHz processor to have incredibly few or literally no limitations. With FSX, if using less than a 6GHz CPU you will always need to compromise to get a workable sim despite what anyone may claim. Any FSX gains over FS9 are simply not worth it at this point in time and then there is also VAS to deal with. When you can run FSX with a 6 GHz processor then the balance might shift enough that FSX would be preferred over FS9. Right now I know my FS9 easily looks and performs better than most users FSX. Regarding VC v 2D:

I only know one real world A320 captain and he uses FS9 and 2D panels for the same reasons I do.

VC is a given just as much as MSFS will have planes. Unfortunately, 2D panels will likely continue to be ignored if not by MS, certainly by other add-on developers. I will personally never touch a flight sim or add-on aircraft without 2D panels. Hope MS and developers understand there is still a market for 2D panels. There are quite a few of us who won't just "accept" a VC because there is no other choice. Any serious flight sim should contain 2D panels.

They have done nothing new other than fix a few bugs and allowed the real world weather to connect again. It's all the same. https://store.steampowered.com/news/?appids=314160

Totally agree with you. I've brought this up in the past suggesting there should be an add-on that can make failures more random in current sims so there is actual purpose for the user to be monitoring something beyond take off and landing. All the sim would need to do is log hours spent flying an aircraft (default FS aircraft already do this) and then throw in some random failures after a realistic amount of hours. Ideally, you could also fine tune failure rate so failures could occur at say 2x or 4x a realistic rate but they would still be totally random. I fly jets mostly. I re-write every checklist and remove all the mundane tasks like checking warning lights etc because I know there is no need to sit there doing this step. The lights will ALWAYS function 100% correctly. Switch positions are also always the same, another random element that could be added. It's another step I remove from my checklists as I don't need to check switches when I already know for certain the position they will be in. Proper random failures would give purpose to all stages of flight simming and especially at cruise. Once you set the autopilot at cruise, you can go watch tv or whatever and your plane will still be flying when you get back. With random failures, you couldn't leave without an element of risk and there would always be need and purpose for monitoring instruments. All this can certainly can be incorporated, it just isn't. I can't believe it isn't one of the most requested features as without it, there is no purpose at all to many elements of flight simming. I haven't seen it requested anywhere for MSFS and I have little faith MS will add it themselves in a realistic/random sense so not expecting anything to be different when MSFS is released.

VirtualBox will be completely useless for FS so no loss there.

Happy New Year Bert!

Yeah, ok, that's fine. From all the updates over the months I have learned MSFS will have photo scenery and things like the new weather/aircraft features will give me some extra bumps while I fly along. That's it. I better stop posting on MSFS as I am not seeing all these things others are. lol

OMG, I just want to see ONE thing that makes me question my opinion from day one of the announcement of MSFS. More of the same. This also very definitely does not mean seasons and if anything, indicates there are no seasons. Clouds still blurry and water is FSX. Call me Mr Negative that's fine. I want to see random areas up close. I want to see some menu screenshots showing features of what this sim will actually contain. I want to see some jets and some features they will have. I want to see anything that is more than just a carefully selected pretty view. I want to see a jet at jet speeds flying low through the valley between 2 mountains. I want to see something that shows me this is a simulator as in the past. I want to see the world has detail beyond featured areas at specific distances and speeds. I want to see something that shows me a non NASA PC can run this game. Going to have to wait for release I think. lol

I have one and can assure you it is a very good card and for FSX, it barely needs to idle. If a 1660Ti isn't enough, I don't know how people managed to run anything in FSX in 2006.

That is a quality description. Worthy of the time spent reading it. lol

I think Luke just did that. lol

1660Ti is plenty. CPU you want 6 GHz. Why I use FS9 that needs 3.5 GHz. This is a rough guide if you want to max things out and run pretty much any add-on.

Yes, but I think they are not expecting to the degree they will need to pay. It's a real money making market these days and certainly a company like Microsoft won't be looking to provide any charity. Subscription and official DLC's are the norm. Developers are closing games to modding. I will be fascinated to see what can really be produced to a decent level for MSFS by freeware developers in particular.

I think you will find you will be paying for everything just like you did in past sims and more. Ground scenery, we really need to see the "entire world" and "up close" and then understand what options will be there for add-on developers to enhance poorer areas. We are only seeing select areas from select distances till now with select aircraft. Don't rule out ground scenery like Orbx just yet.

Now this is highly possible or at least I would think so.

People are expecting this sim to be pay once, fly away, no more to pay be it add-ons or anything else as MSFS will have it all and offer it all. Watch this space imo.