• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

What if FSX....

What type would you fly most ?

  • Tigermoth

    Votes: 13 10.0%

  • Beech Baron

    Votes: 13 10.0%

  • DC-3

    Votes: 22 16.9%

  • Spitfire

    Votes: 12 9.2%

  • P-51

    Votes: 8 6.2%

  • B-17

    Votes: 8 6.2%

  • F-86

    Votes: 11 8.5%

  • F-14

    Votes: 13 10.0%

  • B737

    Votes: 8 6.2%

  • I wouldn't buy FS but go with another flightsim program

    Votes: 22 16.9%
  • Total voters
    130
  • Poll closed .
Javis

Javis

SOH Staff
Staff member
What if FS would NOT have been an open architecture program, no third party add-ons possible. It would've still evolved into what FSX is today with all the REX,FEX,GEX,UTX,FTX,ETCX bells and whistles included. It would have great performance even on mid range systems. Only 9 aircraft types would be available though but they'd come in most variants, all of PMDG/A2A-Accusim quality. Which type would you fly most ?
 
If FSX was not an open architecture program? I would have baught it but it would have gone by the wayside soon. I think what makes FS what it is, is the expandability and the ability for me to tweek it....

David
 
agreed - it would have been good to a degree without being open...but it has the potential to be great by being open

and it is that ongoing potential that keeps us all in....or at least that's my opinion

there is always something new coming along for FSX, and even after that's done with - what we will be left with is a very entertaining simulator with a ton of variety and smooth performance (at some point there just has to be a fast, glassy FSX for all doesn't there?) and that's what I'm staying in for.
 
I agree with pepere. With FS9, before I discovered SOH and other forums, flying the default aircraft in the default sim got old very fast. Once I found and started installing and modifing aircraft and sceneries, flightsim became much more interesting and I have been with since 2005.
Now, with scenery like PNW and aircraft like Accusim and computers with four cores, FSX is just starting to develope. Looking forward to the next five years.
 
FSX and FS2004 are like aircraft and scenery media players. If MS took that out of the FS equasion, it would be like Apple selling an iPhone that was 'just' a phone, no Apps...



Bill
 
Let's see, I want

- to be able to land on rough airfields (bush)

- to have a cruising altitude allowing to enjoy the landscape below

- to be multipurpose : civil and military, passengers and freight

- to have some historical resonance

- to have some system management

- no aerobatic capability would be needed

That leads to the DC 3 ! Actually I left Fly!2 for FS2K long ago because of MAAM's :).

... but the Spitfire and the F86 are strong second :engel016: !
 
When I look at the options I would most probably have not bothered to buy FS, mainly because there are no bad guys aircrafts.

When someone would force me to choose one of the aircrafts listed in this poll, I would most likely fly the Tiger Moth or perhaps I would consider the Spitfire, depending which engine is fitted.

Cheers,
Huub
 
Boeing 737, day in, day out.

But then again...closed architecture...no airport sceneries, no AI traffic...I probably would have left FSX rotting away in the store shelf.
 
Bjoern said:
Boeing 737, day in, day out.

But then again...closed architecture...no airport sceneries, no AI traffic...I probably would have left FSX rotting away in the store shelf.
Click to expand...

Me too. After about 2 weeks, it would start to get less attention, just like that fighter arcade game that came out last year. After several flight missions, its like you know the entire package now and the fun is gone.

Thats whats cool about being able to enhance it. It never gets boring. Always being renewed....




Bill
 
Lionheart said:
Thats whats cool about being able to enhance it. It never gets boring. Always being renewed....
Click to expand...

And you'll also get to complain about engine limitations.

Man, I was peeved off to no extent about the attachpoint bug last night. How could Aces just let that one slip by?
 
If FS was closed architecture, i probably wouldn't by it. I cant do anything that doesn't have a part of my soul in it. So if it was closed architecture, i'd most likely be spending a lot more money on tires shocks and gas while pushing the Jeep into the vertical..
 
I bought FSX because I wanted to make aircrafts too, not only to fly them. FSX with closed architecture = no buy.
 
I'll answer slightly differently Jan.
I think if we were to have the"definitive" sim then the chosen subjects would have to be milestones in aviation for sure. This is so difficult as there are so many but if restricted to 9 then I believe they should be:

DC3/C47
Tiger Moth
Concorde
B707
Spitfire
P51
Lancaster
Cessna (take your pick)
B747

So you see, FS2004 just about got the balance right. The DH Comet was as strange choice and could have been replaced by the Spitfire as an iconic subject. Not sure about the Learjet either.

So I think a "closed shop" would not be a great idea. It is too risky - get the choice of aircraft wrong and you immediately lose sales.

XPlane devotees are developing a LOT of new subjects and the sim itself is beginning to look very good now. Perhaps this will become the new "black" in time?:engel016:
 
bazzar said:
I'll answer slightly differently Jan.
I think if we were to have the"definitive" sim then the chosen subjects would have to be milestones in aviation for sure. This is so difficult as there are so many but if restricted to 9 then I believe they should be:

DC3/C47
Tiger Moth
Concorde
B707
Spitfire
P51
Lancaster
Cessna (take your pick)
B747
Click to expand...

This is going to depend on what part of the world you are from...I'm sure some around here would substitute the Tiger Moth for a Stearman and the Lancaster for a B-17.

For Cessna it would have to be the 172.
 
OK well we'd have to leave bombers out as aviation milestones. So, that leaves room for a helicopter. Forget the Tiger and/or Stearman and there's room for one more milestone...Has to be the Space Shuttle surely?
 
I voted Tigermoth on the Poll list, because that was the only one I really liked.

That said, I have Ant's Tigermoth in FSX and it more than fits the bill for me.

And I have a series of Spitfires that suit my needs.

But I have not purchased a Mustang yet!

I only fly the multi-engines for screenshots and I avoid tubes like the plaque.

But now, say some real nice World War I fighter came along???????????????:ernae:

Caz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top