Take a look at Avsim or Flightsim and see...
- Thread starter Roger
- Start date
Brett_Henderson
Charter Member
Once you break the ice and learn the ropes... FSX developent is easier than FS9... it's just different at first.
Once over the hump.. it's easier to get your vision into 3D form.. and the finished product is better, too.
Far as performance goes.. it is, and always has been a hardware (budget) issue. I went through more money and frustration upgrading from FS2002-to-FS9, than I did FS9-to-FSX (mainly because I learned not to skimp like I did going to FS9) .. If you tried go "half-way" and then pick up some slack later.. you learned the hardway... Stick with the current sim, until you can budget for a FULL upgrade..
Once over the hump.. it's easier to get your vision into 3D form.. and the finished product is better, too.
Far as performance goes.. it is, and always has been a hardware (budget) issue. I went through more money and frustration upgrading from FS2002-to-FS9, than I did FS9-to-FSX (mainly because I learned not to skimp like I did going to FS9) .. If you tried go "half-way" and then pick up some slack later.. you learned the hardway... Stick with the current sim, until you can budget for a FULL upgrade..
Chuck_Jodry-VJPL
Charter Member
Pc Gaming is toast
, take a look at shelf space in stores sometime , bring up sales volumes of addons in general and i question the monitary utility of the time spent developing for the platform...
Anybody doing it does it for love and not money , payware or freeware
, take a look at shelf space in stores sometime , bring up sales volumes of addons in general and i question the monitary utility of the time spent developing for the platform...Anybody doing it does it for love and not money , payware or freeware
Now that's an excellent responce!!:costumes:
I still have both FS9 and FSX on my machine. FSX is a sorce of fustration, FS9 is not. I like steps forward but FSX doesn't have me convinced that it's a step in the right direction yet! I hope that it will be someday. I'm still left wondering what MS was thinking with FSX........All the wonderful propaganda has left me feeling like...
I got a wedgie!:costumes: Believe me I understand both sides of the issue!!
FSX has come a long way from the beta (which I was involved in). I have come from 2-4 FPS around Seattle with all at minimum to 20 FPS or so with almost everything at max, with a not expensive Quad "Corps". In less demanding areas, 40 FPS or better is possible.
Because much more is possible, and expected, the pace of addon development is slower.
It IS (Clintonian emphasis) catching on:
T.
Because much more is possible, and expected, the pace of addon development is slower.
It IS (Clintonian emphasis) catching on:
T.
Noticed on one forum ", i bought fsx and it wouldnt run on my pc so its still in the box and using fs9 till fs 11 comes out", i gues then he will buy fs11 find it wont run on his by now 7 yeard old machine, so it will sit in its box and he willll still be using fs9. Love fsx only sim i fly, models are so much better with so much more ssstems simulated, graphics beats fs9 hands down, and it runs no worse then fs9 did when it came out. I guess fs11 wil be the same and we will all have to update again and all the same complaints will resurface.
i think the 2 things which turned alot of people off FSX:
In the begining it really was pc hog, Aces got bit in the butt with that one, i rember Phill saying that when they started to develope FSX clock speed was the way forward. not cores. I bet they where worried when the trend for more cores instead of faster clock speeds happened instead!
Also the defulft scenery, the textures and autogen are fine, its the landclass, the good ol desert look which people dont really like.
As for developing, as people have said, its FAR easier than building for fs9
In the begining it really was pc hog, Aces got bit in the butt with that one, i rember Phill saying that when they started to develope FSX clock speed was the way forward. not cores. I bet they where worried when the trend for more cores instead of faster clock speeds happened instead!
Also the defulft scenery, the textures and autogen are fine, its the landclass, the good ol desert look which people dont really like.
As for developing, as people have said, its FAR easier than building for fs9
You are one of the lucky ones, lol.. I had never seen it run really smooth. Most of it was turned off (zero slider settings here and there) for it to be flyable, (such as AI traffic, water effects, thick weather, autogen, etc).
Yep, very easy on that point, but code for animations and effects is quite 'sophisticated'. (difficult for guys like me.. arrgh
)..I humbly apologise if I seem like a FSX basher. I do not feel that I am. There are aspects of it I really love. Its ability to render in real time is amazing. The planes look like renderings from 3DS Max, the plexi, chrome are amazing... And the new planes (Maule, Goose, Airbus, etc) are flipping awesome. The terrain texture though, to me, (desert everywhere) is to me a bit... well.. enough said.
eeeks.. That is what scares me. Is 'vista' also a 'temporary' OS until MS makes a good OS? Are we taking 1 to 1 1/2 years to learn a new sim platform, and in 3 to 4 years, its all changed again, and will require 'another' year or more to learn? If that is the case... well.. 'eeeks' sums up my thoughts.
If there was a directional flow, 'continuity'... for instance... If we keep changing gauge code, we will have to keep relearning.
Having to restart the learning curve each time I think is a bit hard on people.
One of the cool, successful things of iPod Touch and iPhone is the many 'Apps' you can get for them. Perhaps a couple thousand by now. Its easy to design for. Everyone is making them. So now, to get 'Apps', you need an iPhone or iPod Touch. Its just like this with FS. So many planes and scenery available, so you have to get FS to get all these cool planes... (* note below).
If Apple suddenly made it very difficult to make Apps, changing codes, changing graphics formats, having to flip things, get new graphics programs, new code compilers, new this, new that, then all those guys that made Apps originally would disappear except for the hard core dudes with investments in this.. (no longer fun, type of thing).
Then the 'platform' (like iPod Touch, iPhone) would lose interest because the new more sophisticated platform was so sophisticated, that people (devs) left it.
Now... I am not bashing... I am not putting down FSX. Its great for devs after you learn how it works.. I am saying, it runs slow on alot of machines and its difficult to make 'planes' for, (animation codes, materials).
Not bashing.... hey! who threw that! hey... (ducks... )
*note... I have people that find my planes on searches in the internet. They want the plane, but dont know about FS. Totally new to them. So I tell them to go purchase FSX or FS2004 at a local store, and then obtain the plane, and they are good to go.
Sometimes the Apps sell the iPhones and iPods.. Sometimes the planes and scenery sell the Sim Platform. The more planes and scenery, the more need for the platform...
Bill
H
harleyman
Guest
IMHO, the FSX should be relased in Fall 2007, not 2006. The first year was lost because of too high minimum specs. Aces opened many possibilities in the sim which were not possible with 2004 - no texture size limit, ground texture size up to 7cm/pix.
One thing messed the sim and added lots of confusion. It was SP-2 and dx-10 mode. Introducing that created a mess in the addons. The compatibility was lost between FS9 and X. Designers were forced to learn FSX SDK to relase native sceneries and aircrafts. In the first year, the developers were relasing "updated" models and they were working quite nice, except of the prop animation, except of few developers which switched to FSX SDK after the relase in 2006.
What stops most of the tubeliner fans from flying in the X are:
-low fps at huge aerodromes
-still lack of some of the popular models availble for the FS9
-Poor scenery development. There is a website which has a links to the FS9 and FSX sceneries in the alphabetical order. While you can get almost every major airport for the FS9, its still a huge problem to do so in the fsx.
-"The land looks the same in the fs9 and fsx from FL 33"
One thing messed the sim and added lots of confusion. It was SP-2 and dx-10 mode. Introducing that created a mess in the addons. The compatibility was lost between FS9 and X. Designers were forced to learn FSX SDK to relase native sceneries and aircrafts. In the first year, the developers were relasing "updated" models and they were working quite nice, except of the prop animation, except of few developers which switched to FSX SDK after the relase in 2006.
What stops most of the tubeliner fans from flying in the X are:
-low fps at huge aerodromes
-still lack of some of the popular models availble for the FS9
-Poor scenery development. There is a website which has a links to the FS9 and FSX sceneries in the alphabetical order. While you can get almost every major airport for the FS9, its still a huge problem to do so in the fsx.
-"The land looks the same in the fs9 and fsx from FL 33"
G
gajit
Guest
What stops most of the tubeliner fans from flying in the X are: -low fps at huge aerodromes -still lack of some of the popular models availble for the FS9 -Poor scenery development. There is a website which has a links to the FS9 and FSX sceneries in the alphabetical order. While you can get almost every major airport for the FS9 said:Very good summary.
I voted in that poll, but in the end I think the results prove nothing. First of all because the people that have voted aren't representative for the FS-market as a whole. Secondly, it all depends on what type of flyer you are. I can understand the reasons why an "airliner"-style pilot or someone who can't afford to upgrade his/her system doesn't like FSX, but that doesn't mean it is a bad sim. It's just not the right sim for (the flying style of) that particular person.
I still have FS9 installed and I have tons of add-ons for it, just like a lot of people here have done. However, I have found that for my style of flying (low and slow with photographic scenery), I like FSX far better. In fact, I hardly touch FS9 at all now, despite the huge amount of money I have poured into it. FSX just "feels" better to me. But that is a personal opinion based on what I look for in a flight sim. It doesn't mean FS9 is now a worthless sim. And don't forget that a) FS9 had a lot of time to establish itself and b) when it came out, it was just as much a resource hog as FSX is now (remember when PMDG released the B747?).
I'm afraid these kind of polls will again just lead to a lot of bickering and complaining when a developer makes an add-on for FSX only. Such threads always turn out nasty. I don't mind people asking if there will be an FS9-version of a particular add-on, but when the developer says "no", you should respect that decision. And why should it be of your concern that the developer "loses a lot of money because they don't do an FS9-version"? I think it is partly a psychological thing: if there isn't an FS9-version, people who can't upgrade feel like they belong to the "have-nots".
Another thing that I find amazing (though understandable) is how people only look at matters from their own perspective (read: the customers viewpoint). If you look at it from the viewpoint of MS, IMHO what they have done with FSX makes perfect sense. There has been a long time understanding between MS and third party add-on developers that MS gives them the best possible "base" to expand the sim. Note that I said "best possible" and not "best", because even MS can't pour unlimited funds into the development of FS. Surely they will have a certain set budget for and time frame in which to deliver the next installment. By letting third party developers handle "part of the development and expandability", both parties profit. But that also means that the "base sim" has to be future proof and not be obsolete in one year's time (hence in my opinion the always steep hardware requirements). We must consider the (graphical) impact other (non flightsim) games have on the spending habit of the general public (flightsim is a niche market, the rise of consoles). One thing I have personally done is being far more selective in the (number of) add-ons I buy.
It is always easy to look back in hindsight and say "Oh, MS should have implemented this or done that". With that same hindsight, we can now say that MS should have ended all FS9-compatability right from the start (like Panther has always advocated). IMHO, FSX is another evolution in the FS-series, not a revolution. Maybe FS11 will be that revolution. But one thing I know for sure: it's not gonna run smoothly on the then current hardware.
The bottom line: there is no "right" or "wrong" in this discussion. Stick with the sim that floats your boat (err, shouldn't that be "plane"
?) and enjoy it!!
I still have FS9 installed and I have tons of add-ons for it, just like a lot of people here have done. However, I have found that for my style of flying (low and slow with photographic scenery), I like FSX far better. In fact, I hardly touch FS9 at all now, despite the huge amount of money I have poured into it. FSX just "feels" better to me. But that is a personal opinion based on what I look for in a flight sim. It doesn't mean FS9 is now a worthless sim. And don't forget that a) FS9 had a lot of time to establish itself and b) when it came out, it was just as much a resource hog as FSX is now (remember when PMDG released the B747?).
I'm afraid these kind of polls will again just lead to a lot of bickering and complaining when a developer makes an add-on for FSX only. Such threads always turn out nasty. I don't mind people asking if there will be an FS9-version of a particular add-on, but when the developer says "no", you should respect that decision. And why should it be of your concern that the developer "loses a lot of money because they don't do an FS9-version"? I think it is partly a psychological thing: if there isn't an FS9-version, people who can't upgrade feel like they belong to the "have-nots".
Another thing that I find amazing (though understandable) is how people only look at matters from their own perspective (read: the customers viewpoint). If you look at it from the viewpoint of MS, IMHO what they have done with FSX makes perfect sense. There has been a long time understanding between MS and third party add-on developers that MS gives them the best possible "base" to expand the sim. Note that I said "best possible" and not "best", because even MS can't pour unlimited funds into the development of FS. Surely they will have a certain set budget for and time frame in which to deliver the next installment. By letting third party developers handle "part of the development and expandability", both parties profit. But that also means that the "base sim" has to be future proof and not be obsolete in one year's time (hence in my opinion the always steep hardware requirements). We must consider the (graphical) impact other (non flightsim) games have on the spending habit of the general public (flightsim is a niche market, the rise of consoles). One thing I have personally done is being far more selective in the (number of) add-ons I buy.
It is always easy to look back in hindsight and say "Oh, MS should have implemented this or done that". With that same hindsight, we can now say that MS should have ended all FS9-compatability right from the start (like Panther has always advocated). IMHO, FSX is another evolution in the FS-series, not a revolution. Maybe FS11 will be that revolution. But one thing I know for sure: it's not gonna run smoothly on the then current hardware.
The bottom line: there is no "right" or "wrong" in this discussion. Stick with the sim that floats your boat (err, shouldn't that be "plane"
?) and enjoy it!!Alexraptor
Charter Member
FSX wins hands down, though i still keep good ol FS9 and its 20+ gigs worth of addons for sentimental reasons.
While tricky to get to run right i find that FSX gives me the ultimate flight simulator experience.
It supports shaders to give it the more realistic effects of reflections, bumpmapping, bloom. It also has the best potential and has the best scenery since it allows for amazing terrain and texture resolutions.
While tricky to get to run right i find that FSX gives me the ultimate flight simulator experience.
It supports shaders to give it the more realistic effects of reflections, bumpmapping, bloom. It also has the best potential and has the best scenery since it allows for amazing terrain and texture resolutions.
I don't think there's any question at all that FS9 is going to be the "Golden Child", as Bill described it and we're never going to see the likes of it again. The sheer amount of development done for it was astonishing but, unfortunately, it built expectations that with the reality of ever more complex development cycles will never be matched.
Speaking from my own experience, FSX is far easier to develop scenery for than FS9, but most of the aircraft developers I know love what FSX can do while bemoaning the amount of time and effort involved in doing it. The things that are being done now for FSX aircraft simply couldn't be done in FS9, regardless of how much tweaking and twiddling you did, but the downside is that it takes a larger team longer to develop it.
Personally, right now, I'd say that FS9 is still best for airliner nuts, FSX is better for military and low'n'slow nuts.
Ian P.
Speaking from my own experience, FSX is far easier to develop scenery for than FS9, but most of the aircraft developers I know love what FSX can do while bemoaning the amount of time and effort involved in doing it. The things that are being done now for FSX aircraft simply couldn't be done in FS9, regardless of how much tweaking and twiddling you did, but the downside is that it takes a larger team longer to develop it.
Personally, right now, I'd say that FS9 is still best for airliner nuts, FSX is better for military and low'n'slow nuts.
Ian P.
I have both FS9 and FSX installed. The only reason FS9 is still installed is that I'm pretty regularly asked "How do I .....?" by friends who develop for FS9 only. It's the same reason I keep FSDS installed. I find more and more of my answers for FS9 questions are "I don't remember," and "Gee, I'll have to look through my notes for that one."
I stick with developing for FSX only basically because (as mentioned before) FSX does not have nearly the scenery base as FS9. That's also the reason I put out the scenery object libraries.
Jim
I stick with developing for FSX only basically because (as mentioned before) FSX does not have nearly the scenery base as FS9. That's also the reason I put out the scenery object libraries.
Jim
Roger
Senior Administrator
So you don't think it was "post and run":costumes: I'll re-address the reason for the post.
I visit the libraries of Avsim and Flightsim regularly and have done so for about eight years. within a year of Fs2004 being released most downloads were for Fs2004. The same thing had occured with Fs2000 and even quicker for Fs2002. Whether we like FsX or not (and I love it and my system handles it pretty well) the fact remains that the community has not embraced it. Apart from a very few freeware plane makers, if you want to add significant new aircraft you have to pay and on a global level to make significant changes to the look of your FsX again you have to pay.
So those that can afford to pay tend to be the older members of society and it precludes those that cannot afford to buy or build a rig to handle it and then the payware to make it look good. So fewer freeware builders than ever before can afford to make the jump to FsX and as I understand it the legitimate 3d modelling tools are expensive too.
I visit the libraries of Avsim and Flightsim regularly and have done so for about eight years. within a year of Fs2004 being released most downloads were for Fs2004. The same thing had occured with Fs2000 and even quicker for Fs2002. Whether we like FsX or not (and I love it and my system handles it pretty well) the fact remains that the community has not embraced it. Apart from a very few freeware plane makers, if you want to add significant new aircraft you have to pay and on a global level to make significant changes to the look of your FsX again you have to pay.
So those that can afford to pay tend to be the older members of society and it precludes those that cannot afford to buy or build a rig to handle it and then the payware to make it look good. So fewer freeware builders than ever before can afford to make the jump to FsX and as I understand it the legitimate 3d modelling tools are expensive too.