I have seen the dark side.....

Hello. I am running FS9on my AMD 2200+@ 400fsb w/ 2gig of memory. Nvidia 7300gt card w/ 512 megs. Using the Realty Pack textures, the UT series, and HDE clouds. No FSX screenie I have seen will make me change. The horsepower to weight ratio is too high. Never bought Vista either.
 
FWIW, I am working my way through the tutorials and countless help posts in the FSX section of the board, I will get there eventually but just like FS9 one needs to work at getting things just 'right'.
Currently my graphic cards are giving me a pain in the sphincter but that's not unusual.
:173go1:
The ONE thing I really do not like about FSX is the interface, no doubt I'll get over that with time.
When all is said and done we ARE very lucky to have decent building blocks for our Flight Simulation experiences.
Choice is wonderful thing people.
:applause:
 
Hmmmm

I build machines on a weekly basis that fly FSX great...from 800 bucks cost to 1,800 cost....Out the door delivered usually.


The more money spent..the heavier addons it will use.....

All with basic good components...

Socket 775 duo and quad cores....
 
If only I had 800 bucks....would that include a monitor, keyboard, and all the fsx addons i will need to bring my fsx install to where my fs9 install is?
 
If only I had 800 bucks....would that include a monitor, keyboard, and all the fsx addons i will need to bring my fsx install to where my fs9 install is?




I wish...But there are nice monitors to be had around 100 bucks at New Egg with free shipping.. 17 maybe a few 19 inch too...i find them all the time for customers of mine...

Mouse and keyboard are unimportant at this point and can be upgraded anytime..but it won't help FSX at all...LOL
 
Mah... maybe it's only me, I can't deny it, but... :confused:

Have you noticed that NO ONE has dared, up till now, tell I was wrong when telling no remarkable step forward were made from FS9 to FSX... beside slicker graphics. :mixedsmi:

Who says it gets more graphical humpf, who says FS9 looks drab if compared...

...and...???

Shall we talk about something THAT IS NOT ONLY GRAPHICS FOR ONCE, or are you going to admit I am right when I tell FSX is a badly done graphical upgrade of FS9?

Badly done because it doesn't work, but needs WORK on YOUR side to function somewhat well enough to justify its existence.

Or do you prefer... :monkies:

I have seen the Dark Side myself, and I am not going to be its slave, because what it gives you, you already have, it only looks better, but DEMANDS unjustified amounts of CPU/GPU/MEM power more than the light side. :wavey:
 
I struggled with it till i fugured out how to build for it...

Now I build a computer...Adjust the TBM and off it goes..never to be tweaked again...


But you are correct...

Both the engines that drive FS9 and FSX, well, for lack of a better word...Suck..... :icon_lol:



If your computer is put together with odd ball parts, bandwidths that open or shut certain speeds, then it will only ever be a marginal sim for you...
 
What it really gets to me, always did, always will, is that with the old hardware I was UNABLE to make any use of FSX. Honest.

Take the other times we went from a version to the newer. Changes MIGHT have been as minuscule between a version and the other, right like in the FS9-vs-FSX debacle, but the other times (from FS98 to FS2K excluded) it sufficed a little throttling back of the details (until the next upgrade) and you were set with the new sim.

I made a comparison, above. FS98-to-FS2K and FS9-to-FSX. I hoped M$ would repeat the same very path followed back then... but they managed to get on my $hit list with their defeatist behavior... and not only towards FS, but TS2 as well, and since they courageously showed wagon-loads of cowardice, I WILL NOT install their "great NEW sim" on my new hardware, period. :tgun2:

FS9 it is, then. Until the other "X" sim will be mature enough (hopefully with the V10, next year) for a total switch. :frown:
 
Let's NOT turn this into an FSX bashing thread people.
:173go1:

"FS9 it is, then. Until the other "X" sim will be mature enough (hopefully with the V10, next year) for a total switch."

What 'V10' would that be Ashaman???
MS disbanded the Aces team ......:kilroy:
 
IF I had a rig to run FSX smoothly and consistently with the level of detail that I like...I am sure FSX is a great sim. But, with only a P4 3.0 gig, 2 gig RAM system that I am very fortunate to have (was given to me by a fellow site member when my old one...which was also given to me by another site member...died)...

OBIO
Hi OBIO
I have the same system as you with a 7600GT card,I enjoy FSX on this system with most of the sliders maxed out at a smooth 25fps,it takes a bit of tweaking but it was the same for fs9.I dont fly fast jets, I stay away from city's and I fly mainly alone (my perfect world :D )
FSX excels in carrier work and FPS is great far out away from land,also gliding is great fun.The biggest fps hit in fsx is the weather,use a custom weather setup tone down the vis distance from ground level all the way up to the max alt,only use cirrus clouds (they dont use a lot of pollys)
Fsx is better to fs9 in a lot of ways,worse in some but you have to keep at it for a few weeks before these become obvious.From a design point of view fsx is very frustrating but I could only dream of some of the things in fs9 now I can do them :)
cheers
Wozza
 
Let's NOT turn this into an FSX bashing thread people.

Absolutely not. :wiggle:

...rather a M$ bashing thread, but FSX... cannot really work myself into bashing the child of a sin. Those who want to use it... probably DESERVE it. :monkies:

Don't worry though. I'm stopping it here. :icon29:


What 'V10' would that be Ashaman???
MS disbanded the Aces team ......:kilroy:

The OTHER "X" sim... the one ACES never had any opportunity to devastate (its programmer alone is more than enough to make a mess of things between a lesser version and the other... it only would need ACES hands on it to be over and done) and it's actually at V9 (9.40 actually) and December 2010 (rumors say) SHOULD receive the advancement to V10... ;)

Don't tell me you don't get it... do I have to make it simpler? :confused:
 
Mah... maybe it's only me, I can't deny it, but... :confused:

Have you noticed that NO ONE has dared, up till now, tell I was wrong when telling no remarkable step forward were made from FS9 to FSX... beside slicker graphics. :mixedsmi:

Who says it gets more graphical humpf, who says FS9 looks drab if compared...

...and...???

Shall we talk about something THAT IS NOT ONLY GRAPHICS FOR ONCE, or are you going to admit I am right when I tell FSX is a badly done graphical upgrade of FS9?

Because you are in the FS2004 section of the forum, perhaps ?
 
Because you are in the FS2004 section of the forum, perhaps?

How does this answer my question? Especially seen that EVERYWHERE I go, those who speak well of the M$'s "X" only seem to be fallen in a mystical adoration of the beautiful graphics? :monkies:

On first, there was someone that hypothesized that the removal of the 99.999 feet MAX high ceiling would be the birth of new planes able to enter and navigate the low earth orbit... completely forgetting that the dynamics of FS(whateverthenumber) do NOT contemplate orbital mechanics and/or even speeds needed in that place (max speed reachable in all FS versions, even X, is a little below Mach 5... a laughable limit for a wannabe simulator of orbital flights) ... and in fact the removing of that unobtrusive and rarely reached in flight before ceiling has proved to be a red herring, if I ever saw one. :wiggle:

Then came those who said: "the earth is spherical now"... wow.. at M$ have reached this conclusion after even the Vatican... it's a world's record... :isadizzy:

...and it's a good thing finally that they did admit to reality, but one must weights the advantages and the disadvantages even in these things... :cool:

Had the migration to the "X" been like the migration from FS2002 to FS2004, under the point of view of escalation of CPU/GPU/MEM demands, the news of being able to finally plan a polar flight which would not suffer of strange behaviors would have been nice, but here came the ABSURD power requested to the PC's... even if you manage, manipulating the .CFG files, to make FSX look exactly like FS9 under the point of view of autogen density (or even less populated if for this) and the look of the water, even if you change the 3D clouds with lighter ones (like it was done in FS9 at its starts) you'll see that you'll NOT get the same performances you got in FS9. :frown:

This is not normal... and where does all that power drained in excess go then? :confused:

Mystery. :eek:

...and until that mystery is not revealed, and eventually resolved, FSX is not worth to use. Simple as that. :wavey:

Of course, I am talking about MYSELF. As I said in my previous message, I believe that those who WANT to use FSX, probably DESERVE it. Be my guest and ruin your flight experience at your leisure, only be a pal and NOT ask me to do the same, please. :ernae:
 
Of course, I am talking about MYSELF. As I said in my previous message, I believe that those who WANT to use FSX, probably DESERVE it. Be my guest and ruin your flight experience at your leisure, only be a pal and NOT ask me to do the same, please. :ernae:
its all a matter of who wants
i am certainly not ruining my flight experience

corsair2.jpg


ScreenShot471.jpg


ScreenShot399copy.jpg


what i gain in one i lose in the other
and vice versa
H
 
OH man.... Please tell me we arent going back to that famous argument, is the world round.. arrgh.. I still have some doubt over that.. Perhaps if Satellites had special lenses, you could see how flat(ish) it really is!!!


:d


kidding..


Nice shots H!


Bill
 
I did not mean for this to turn into a FSX bashing thread, or a FS9 is better than FSX thread. I meant only to state that I had seen nothing in FSX, during the short time that I had it installed, that would drive me out to the computer store to buy a system with enough umph to run it at a level that I would find sufficient. I am sure that, on a properly built system, FSX is a superb sim and better in FS9 in many ways. I know that I have seen some screenshots taken in FSX that have made me drool like an idiot all over my keyboard...and I'm talking DROOLING...the kind of drooling a man does when he sneaks a look at the Victoria Secret catalog.

On my system, I doubt I could get the level of detail and the smoothness that I have come to enjoy in FS9....and sometimes FS9 seems to throw a curve ball at my computer, like it has for the last 2 days...frame rates sometimes dip into the near single digits and I can't figure out why.

For those who have the systems to run FSX with high detail and smooth frame rates.....I envy you....but I am not going to run out and spend a grand on a new system just to run FSX. I have been quite happy with FS9, will most likely continue to be quite happy with FS9, and when the time comes that this old system gives up the ghost and I have to buy or build a new one, then I will see what FSX has to offer...but it will have to share a HD with FS9 because I have tons of planes that I have tweaked to my personal taste for FS9. I will be bi-simulator, I suppose. Or would that be tri-simulator since I still fire up CFS2 from time to time just to shoot the wings off of some poor unsuspecting Japanese fighter pilot.

OBIO
 
What's the Victoria Secret catalog?
Do you need to be bi-simulator to enjoy it?
Where can I get one? :d Or two?
 
Back
Top