More sad news for FS9...

The other side of the coin

1.
Next Alphasim payware offer will be a Sepecat Jaguar GR.1 / GR.3
and it will be FS9 native ( ! ) including all foreing air arms versions.

( my next buy ! )

2.
Vit Storch ( Kyrypust ) of Czech Republic is still working on a freeware
Aero L-39C Albatross that will be FS9 native and will certainly be very
very popular when it will be made available.

3.
Ivan Jurcaga's "Mig Projekty" team of Czech Republic is working on a Full VC freeware Mig-21Bis Fishbed N that will be FS9 native and adapted for FSX too.

4.
GMax Ac Mirage 2000 family and Kirk Olsson's F-16 have been updated
by Eric Marciano with a very good payware "Hud & Radar" suite.

5.
On Flightsim.Com, FS9 repaint files are updated daily with numerous
new offers for both Civil, Military and Scenery chapters.

On comparaison, FlightSim.Com FSX repaint files are almost dead
with some repaint offers only from time to time.

6.
I have both FS9 and FSX installed on a super powerfull PC and I am
on the FS9 application 80 % of my flightsim time.

Why ?

Time to download FSX applications compared to FS9 plus the fact that
FSX have almost none military air bases sceneries contrary to FS9.

7.
I agree that FSX have some real advantages but the FSX disavantages are by far bigger and I really think that FSX real usage among flightsimmers is a myth !
:mixedsmi:
VaporZ
 
" aww why not cees?? some people like to smack their heads against the wall :isadizzy::icon_lol: "

LOL YES!!! :bump: :d :d
 
Cees Donker said:
Caution: we don't want to stir up the old discussion about FS9 versus FSX again!
Cees
Click to expand...
Nope, it's a no-win discussion that has passionate supporters on both sides, each with what they feel are perfectly legitimate reasons why their sim is the best. No one wins and it never serves any real purpose.

No reason to get anyone's blood pressure up. Like Cees said. . .not again!:salute:
 
I'm one of those that just can't decide whether to go with one or the other....so I fly both ! Lots of goodie still left in FS9 and lots of new stuff in FSX! :icon_lol:

In fact I just now transferred my VRS Super Hornet (dang bug!) from my old gaming rig to my new one and will purchase the FSX version as well. Did the same
with the Warbirdsim P-51B/C. Lots of stuff still going strong in FS9...so much that I like, it's still viable.
 
I think the whole thing smacks of a very real problem, world wide: consumerism. We download a new a model and diddle with it long enough until something new comes out. Then we want that! I already have enough FS9 models to last me a long, long time. Did I put in enough time to fully grasp all of the detail of each of these models? Can I "fly" them by the numbers and nail each landing? No! I downloaded another. And played some more.

I believe that modelers like Lionheart, Shupe and Co., and endless others, put more into a given model than most simmers will ever know. Instead, we look to the next release! We do not appreciate what we have. We do not apply ourselves!

So, until one cannot fully appreciate what is before you, please do not rail against those who do not give you more.

Just an observation on my behalf. Nothing personal.
 
dandog said:
I believe that modelers like Lionheart, Shupe and Co., and endless others, put more into a given model than most simmers will ever know.
Click to expand...

Agreed! One of the things I like to do when I get a model with a good virtual interior is to move around inside and expolore - both visually and with the mouse. Samdim's Tu-114 is a perfect example of this - just drop down into the navigator's station during a landing replay! Another good example is Anton Nikolaev's An-14. Move back into the cabin and look for mouse-over hotspots - especially the first aid kit!:isadizzy:

Many of Bill's models have a lot of little "Easter Eggs" too. Just check inside the cooler on the Tailwind!
 
Felixthreeone said:
With all due respect, Michael, there is nothing wrong with having FS9 as your personal favorite...after all....some people still consider fs2002 their personal favorite, and FSX wouldn't exist without fs9 and so on...so for a developer who is as well respected as Bill Ortis to say that he has a soft spot for fs9 isn't in any way telling me that FSX folks will be getting less than 100% from him; He is one of the best fs developers out there today, and a great person to boot. That is the reason I started this thread; That is the reason for my disappointment. Too many developers out there whose hearts AREN'T in it...regardless of the sim they use...and when certian developers produce an addon, you know you are getting something special...something that required heart, soul, and dedication. I envy the FSX crowd that will be able to fire up the Epic VLJ when it is relesed. And i will peruse the FSX forum looking for screenshots and ooohs and aaaahs and how awesome it is....because everything that Bill does is excellent. Sorry I went off ranting again.....
Click to expand...

Just an observation from one of those evil pubishers who (almost) went to the 'dark side'...... and this is firmly tongue-in-cheek, gentlemen: I believe there are passionate developers and publishers making products for BOTH versions of the sim, just like there are many 'also-runs' producing not-so-great products for BOTH versions.

I don't think the choice of production platform has anything to do with that, and I know for sure that the choice more often than not was forced by Microsoft's decisions on how to build FSX and what resources one has than anything else.

Better stay level headed about this ;-)
 
I will just continue with FS9, there are just tons of airplanes availble. I cannot afford a new PC for FSX. I just get alot out of FS9.

Cheers

Casey:applause:
 
I picked up FSX when it first arrived. It sure looked interesting and (yep) you needed a pc with pretty big pipes to get any satisfaction out of it. Have had the new megbox since last summer and still haven't reloaded FSX yet. I've hoarded so many downloads for FS9, it's probably going to take another year before I get through them all. ( Like AH Tiger Moth, bought when released, only installed now.)
Good side of all this? When FSX came out, there was nothing to do but adapt FS9 addons to it. Each day goes by, more developers create native works for X. By the time I get to it, plenty of sussing will have been already done.

Now....what was I doing....? Oh yeah...sinking AI at Alameda. Gotta go.
 
Well I've just listened to episode 50 of FSBreak and in it the guys discuss the future of flightsim in general. One prediction they had was that as a result of more and more people replacing their pc's that support for FS9 would drop off dramatically during 2010.

Now I fly in both sims pretty much on an equal basis, especially after installing REX into FS9. I can't see myself abandoning FS9 altogether any time soon, either. There are simply too many, favourite, aircraft I have that simply don't port well, if at all, into FSX, eg Aeroworx B200.

If I'm honest though I am surprised that support for FS9 has lasted as long as it has. It is after all over 6 1/2 years old. Heck FSX is over 3 years old and a lot of folks haven't even upgraded to that yet.
 
i got FSX, just can't get it above 110-13fps, even on no autogen etc... anyways i can see FS9 being around for a long time yet, on another note anyone heard from kyrypust recently about his L-39? my jaw is still on the floor and starting to get sore from dragging it around :icon_lol:
 
Complement of information.

due to the limitations of the human eye, it is impossible for any of us to differenciate fps settings over 30 fps.

this being said a 45, 55 or even 75 fps is impossible to differenciate from a human point of view.

we are not cats
we are not hawks

we are just humans
:mixedsmi:
VaporZ
 
VaporZ said:
Complement of information.

due to the limitations of the human eye, it is impossible for any of us to differenciate fps settings over 30 fps.

this being said a 45, 55 or even 75 fps is impossible to differenciate from a human point of view.

we are not cats
we are not hawks

we are just humans
:mixedsmi:
VaporZ
Click to expand...

It would be nice if this myth could dissapear once for all.
The human eye makes a sampling of the world at 24 FPS.
To make a good sampling, the original signal must be at least twice as big as the sample frequency, else some parts of the signal may be lost.
That means that it will make a difference if you show to the human eye an animation at 24 FPS or an animation at 48 FPS.
Above 50 FPS, the differences will be very hard to percieve, though.
 
arrowmaker said:
Well I've just listened to episode 50 of FSBreak and in it the guys discuss the future of flightsim in general. One prediction they had was that as a result of more and more people replacing their pc's that support for FS9 would drop off dramatically during 2010.

Now I fly in both sims pretty much on an equal basis, especially after installing REX into FS9. I can't see myself abandoning FS9 altogether any time soon, either. There are simply too many, favourite, aircraft I have that simply don't port well, if at all, into FSX, eg Aeroworx B200.

If I'm honest though I am surprised that support for FS9 has lasted as long as it has. It is after all over 6 1/2 years old. Heck FSX is over 3 years old and a lot of folks haven't even upgraded to that yet.
Click to expand...


I cant see putting away my FS9 pack for a couple of more years yet, maybe even longer.

Some sims fall short, and some are just exactly what most people want. I have shelved Rise of Flight and X-Plane. ROF was so difficult, I was never able to shoot down another plane in the several months I had it going. XP9 was just to difficult to convert to and its controls system was a bit antiquated. FS9 though... Boots up so fast, runs sooo smooth...

I just wish I could get high detail models into FS9.. That is my one single stumbling block presently with it. Well, I wish I could increase texture sizes to 2048, and also increase ground texture resolutions... arrgh.


Bill
 
Hi Bill,

I'd just like to make a comment or two here if that's OK.

To have a new compiler for FS9 that can output large models would be great admittedly. However, do you not run into a problem if the FS9 engine simply can't render them?

We "broke the bank"(probably by accident rather than design!) once and got a 90,000 poly + exterior model out through the compiler.

What appeared in FS9 was remarkable for that sim. However a frame rate of 1.5 fps would not have pleased the majority of our market!

Now for those that need clarification.

Most commercial developers do not use GMax but use the pro "father" of it called 3DS Max. This beautiful thing has a huge bunch of extra tools, abilities and tricks to aid devs in producing what they want, faster. The output process for example, takes a few seconds rather than several minutes, so testing a new creation is much more pleasurable and faster.

Apart from the initial cost of the software, there are, however some drawbacks. 3DSMax is updated every year, with a new version.

The output modules for FS for 3DSMax (Gmax has its own setup) are third party additions and are reliant on being updated themselves. Currently, 3DSMax9 is experiencing probs in outputting for FS9, as it is , quite naturally, configured to work for FSX or the new generation of other games.

To produce for FS9 therefore, one really needs to go back to Max7 or 8 which means carrying a separate install on the graphics machine.

Also, none of the protocols for FSX are retro-reversable for FS9 so the models have to be re-built with new animations, materials and more. It is not simply a matter of re-importing the FSX model and modifying it.

Going the other way- FS9 built converted to FSX is also a nightmare as the model is relatively low poly for FS9 and unless one wants a lot of FSX people complaining about the lack of detail, one has to add a lot more polys or start again, to build for that sim.

I won't go into the mess that MS has left us with in terms of SDKs and compatability, that is a subject for another forum.

I have mentioned only some of the frustrations of building for both sims so perhaps you can now see why most commercial devs will move, as in other games, to the latest generation. It is simply commercially unviable to build for two.

I wish Bill luck with his quest but I can't help thinking that it may be a LOT of work for a sim with ultimately a limited lifespan. As computers get better and devs get smarter, things will improve for FSX and the next gen sims.

I wonder how many of us will fly FS9 (even out of curiosity) in say, two years time? It is likely to take that long to crack a new output engine.

How many fly FS8 these days?

Party on dudes.:icon29:
 
From flightsim.com (13 years young, another landmark sim, like FS9) :

FS98 - FS98
FS98 Adventure--Mayday Out Of Gas
[ Download | View ]

Name: nogasch1.zip Size: 3,368,716 Date: 01-10-2009 Downloads: 33
FS98 Adventure--Mayday Out Of Gas. You are making a normal flight to Willard, Illinois then you run out of gas in the middle of nowhere. There are three or four close airports you can try for. By Tonyzo/Javier Lee.

Go for it, you guys!
 
Daube said:
It would be nice if this myth could dissapear once for all.
The human eye makes a sampling of the world at 24 FPS.
To make a good sampling, the original signal must be at least twice as big as the sample frequency, else some parts of the signal may be lost.
That means that it will make a difference if you show to the human eye an animation at 24 FPS or an animation at 48 FPS.
Above 50 FPS, the differences will be very hard to percieve, though.
Click to expand...

First I've heard.
What are your sources for this?
The world's TV and cinema industries are converging on 24 fps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top