| Author |
FSX - Well I like it!
|
|
| Canuck 2006-10-09, 5:44 am |
| I know it seems to be a radical statement to make, but I like it.
It took about 45 mins to install on my D drive (well away from my C Drive).
That included a defrag of C & D drives before and after the install.
Loading up the program takes less time than FS9 but that is now bloated from
3rd party add-ons, so no surprise there.
The graphics are clearer or not blurried like FS9.
The cockpits are superior and more functional especially in VC mode.
The ATC seems a bit better (no zig-zagging from early tests CYVR-CYYC).
The flight models seem more realistic, though I'm no expert.
The framerates even though they are displaying lower than I got in FS9 are
smoother. I have locked rates at 24 and for the most part get 17-24.
My settings - mainly mediums though I have hiked up the AI to 100% and
replaced the default traffic file and a/c with the WOAI files. There is a
trick to this if anyone wants to know.
I reduced to 0% the cars and boats as to me they are just a bit of wimsy
thrown in by MS to entice a new crowd.
Wx effects at 100%
Autogen to medium - with a tweak I got off the Avsim forums.
The biggest fps killer seem to be the trees and I am investigating reducing
the BMP sizes.
Sure there is stuff which has changed which I have yet to like.
Views will take some getting used to.
There doesn't seem to be any easy way of viewing AI traffic as before.
Upon loading up a flight it site at 82% for ages before the flight starts.
My street is not there anymore.
Sorry for the post which may appear positive but I tire easily of the
constant winging. We must move on.
My PC Dell P4 3.6 Dual Core (I set the latency to only 1 processor and that
seems better as was the case with FS9) ATi Radeon 1900GT PCi-E 256Mb, 2 Gb
Ram, S/blaster Audigy. 2xSATA Drives, 1xATA drive.
| |
| Quilljar 2006-10-09, 5:44 am |
| Many thanks Canuck very interesting and very positive.
--
Quilljar
Experience is as to intensity not as to duration
(Barnes Wallis)
| |
|
|
"Quilljar" <wykehill-flightsim@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FJqdnVVR-55Ql7fYnZ2dnUVZ8qCdnZ2d@bt.com...
quote:
> Many thanks Canuck very interesting and very positive.
>
> --
> Quilljar
>
> Experience is as to intensity not as to duration
> (Barnes Wallis)
>
Yes,thankyou
Looking forward to receiving my copy...
I have used the demo with the autogen fix you mentioned too which works
quite well and certainly improves the frame-rates...
I could live with minimal auto-gen, the ground textures seem to be a lot
better in this version...and as i live in the UK,the new VFR scenery for it
should be great.
regards,
dave
| |
| David Wilson-Okamura 2006-10-09, 7:44 pm |
| Thanks, Canuck -- this is encouraging.
_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!
| |
| FaxCap 2006-10-09, 7:44 pm |
| On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 08:29:43 GMT, "Canuck"
<RichardChaney@secretgovernmentconspiracy.com> wrote:
quote:
>The graphics are clearer or not blurried like FS9.
I'm finding the ground textures strangly "washed out" looking
compared to FS9.
quote:
> ATi Radeon 1900GT PCi-E 256Mb
I wonder if it's the fact I'm running a nVidia 7800GT.
Maybe I'll load up their latest drivers.
As I was telling a friend, after FS2004 came out I deleted FS2002
within a month but this time around I think FS2004 will be staying on
my harddrive for quite a while.
FaxCap
| |
|
| Quilljar wrote:
quote:
> Many thanks Canuck very interesting and very positive.
>
What's "positive" about framerates of 17-24???? That sucks!
Dave
| |
| Quilljar 2006-10-09, 7:44 pm |
| David wrote:
quote:
> Quilljar wrote:
> What's "positive" about framerates of 17-24???? That sucks!
>
> Dave
I don't know how long you have been simming David, but compared to the 60-70
fps needed for a decent 'War Game', 17-24 fps is fine for flying a Flight
Sim. I am very happy with that.
--
Quilljar
Experience is as to intensity not as to duration
(Barnes Wallis)
| |
|
| Quilljar wrote:
quote:
> David wrote:
> I don't know how long you have been simming David, but compared to the 60-70
> fps needed for a decent 'War Game', 17-24 fps is fine for flying a Flight
> Sim. I am very happy with that.
>
Bullcrap! I enjoy FS2004 a lot more when the frame rates are above 35.
17 is subpar and detracts from the smoothness one enjoys from faster
rates. I don't dispute that you are thrilled with 17FPS, but you might
as well save your "breath" in trying to convince the world that 17FPS is
the end-all/be-all for simming! I also don't subscribe to the notion
that any current LCD is superior to a CRT. I'm running a 21" CRT now,
having recently replaced my 19". VERY NICE! When SED or other future
technological improvement over LCD emerges, I'll retire my CRT. Til,
then it's CRT and high frame rates or bust. 
Dave
| |
| Chris G. 2006-10-09, 7:44 pm |
| I don't quite have the same experience as Canuck, but I have enjoyed it.
My FPS has been more arounf 15-17, but has been slowing to 6-8
depending on my views. Part of this is my fault for not being more
careful with my settings and sliders. I'll probably turn them down a
little until I can find the tweaks that work for my system.
I find I like the missions! I'm looking forward to friends having FSX
So I can fly with them online, too.
Chris
David Wilson-Okamura wrote:
quote:
> Thanks, Canuck -- this is encouraging.
| |
|
|
"Canuck" <RichardChaney@secretgovernmentconspiracy.com> ha scritto nel
messaggio news:XLnWg.110888$1T2.48267@pd7urf2no...
quote:
> My settings - mainly mediums though I have hiked up the AI to 100% and
> replaced the default traffic file and a/c with the WOAI files. There is a
> trick to this if anyone wants to know.
Well, I surely want!
Quai
| |
| Simon Robbins 2006-10-09, 7:44 pm |
| DB wrote:
quote:
> I could live with minimal auto-gen, the ground textures seem to be a lot
> better in this version...and as i live in the UK,the new VFR scenery for it
> should be great.
Have you seen the new VFR UK stuff from Just Flight or Horizon? It
looks *phenomenal*!!
Si
| |
|
| "Simon Robbins" <simon@nospam.thanks> wrote in message
news:ege1q9$57$2$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
quote:
> DB wrote:
>
> Have you seen the new VFR UK stuff from Just Flight or Horizon? It looks
> *phenomenal*!!
>
> Si
Hi Si.
I have the orignal Horizon VFR scenery which is good.
I haven't seen the new one yet but it's supposed to have 16x more detail i
think?
I'm holding off for some decent screenshots over towns and such but i'll end
up buying it
regards,
dAVE
| |
| Quilljar 2006-10-09, 7:44 pm |
| > Bullcrap! I enjoy FS2004 a lot more when the frame rates are above
quote:
> 35. 17 is subpar and detracts from the smoothness one enjoys from
> faster rates. I don't dispute that you are thrilled with 17FPS, but
> you might as well save your "breath" in trying to convince the world
> that 17FPS is the end-all/be-all for simming! I also don't
> subscribe to the notion that any current LCD is superior to a CRT. I'm
> running a 21" CRT now, having recently replaced my 19". VERY
> NICE! When SED or other future technological improvement over LCD
> emerges, I'll retire my CRT. Til, then it's CRT and high frame rates
> or bust.
> Dave
I am glad you enjoy your sim. I enjoy mine too, but I don't know where you
read that I am 'thrilled' or that I am 'trying to convince the world' Must
have been another Quilljar!
--
Quilljar
Experience is as to intensity not as to duration
(Barnes Wallis)
| |
| Simon Robbins 2006-10-09, 7:44 pm |
| DB wrote:
quote:
> I have the orignal Horizon VFR scenery which is good.
> I haven't seen the new one yet but it's supposed to have 16x more detail i
> think?
> I'm holding off for some decent screenshots over towns and such but i'll end
> up buying it
Have a look at: http://www.horizonsimulation.com
They have a technology demonstrator demo that shows the quality of the
images, but it's running in a proprietary engine, not FSX. 9(Due to
non-disclosure agreements.) They reckon it looks even better in FSX.
Si
| |
|
| Quilljar wrote:
quote:
>
>
> I am glad you enjoy your sim. I enjoy mine too, but I don't know where you
> read that I am 'thrilled' or that I am 'trying to convince the world' Must
> have been another Quilljar!
>
>
LOL! I stand corrected--you stated you are "quite happy" with 17-24.
Shame on me for characterizing your feelings for that frame rate as
"thrilled". What was I thinking????? And I'm glad your happy with your
dismal frame rates. <g> just kidding. seriously, Q, I shoot for 35+
FPS in FS2004 by dropping a bit of eye candy here and there until I get
the best balance between candy and FR's.
Dave
| |
|
| Chris G. wrote:
quote:
>
> I find I like the missions! I'm looking forward to friends having FSX
> So I can fly with them online, too.
>
> Chris
Like games with missions? Try Call of Duty 2. Very cool.
Dave
| |
| Chris G. 2006-10-09, 7:44 pm |
| It's odd, but I hate super complex games on the PC, such as Rogue Spear,
America's Army, etc. I think you get the kind of game I am referring
to. Halo for the PC is one of my recent favorites because it is soooo
simple. I can't remember CoD2 specifically, but I think I have probably
played it. Funny thing is, I always come back to FS!
Chris
David wrote:
quote:
> Chris G. wrote:
>
>
> Like games with missions? Try Call of Duty 2. Very cool.
>
> Dave
| |
| Simon Robbins 2006-10-09, 7:44 pm |
| Chris G. wrote:
quote:
> It's odd, but I hate super complex games on the PC, such as Rogue Spear,
> America's Army, etc. I think you get the kind of game I am referring
> to. Halo for the PC is one of my recent favorites because it is soooo
> simple. I can't remember CoD2 specifically, but I think I have probably
> played it. Funny thing is, I always come back to FS!
I've been playing CoD2 tonight. I bought it about a year ago and it
wouldn't work in my DVD drive. I played it a bit on a laptop from work,
but never really got into it. Until that is I bought a new DVD-RW drive
last week. It's a nice game, but FPSs are a bit too linear for my
liking, though they provide some good fun for a while.
Si
|
|
|
|