[jhb_airlines] Re: FSX Demo

  • From: "Bones" <bones@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:37:13 +0100

"In FS9 I'm close to being able to get very acceptable performance, with
sliders maxed. I'm affronted by the FSX team's assertion that if you
wish to run with sliders maxed then you will always be disappointed. If
Mazda had published the performance data for my car, then told me it was
unreasonable to expect to have access to that performance, I'd be off to
the Fair Trading Dept!"

I've yet to get FS2004 to work with the sliders anywhere near maxed. It will
be a further computer upgrade before I can turn on 100% Ultimate Traffic
together with the VFGM scenery and the PMDG 747. <vbg>

bones

-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
Sent: 14 August 2006 15:40
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: FSX Demo


I think I'll get more out of the £200 I've just invested in the Matrox
TripleHead device, plus eventual extra monitors, giving me an FS9 wide
view.

If I look at much of what FSX is going to provide then I'm unlikely to
benefit from it to the same extent. My GA flying is over the two
existing European photoscenery areas. If VFR scenery emerges for
Scotland, then that opens up an even wider area to be explored. And in
which to do the odd farm strip. All of which means I won't benefit from
the improved Autogen, provided out of the box. I can't see the VFR Addon
AG team rushing to duplicate their work for FSX.

 If I desert VFR for the heavy metal then I'm definitely going to be hit
by the gauge incompatibillity issue. Since I never fly the disappointing
Default FS9 heavy metal, I can't imagine I'll be eager to do so in FSX.
Moreover most of the work I've put into redesigning panels, to suit my
intrument designated second monitor, will have to be repeated, as and
when acceptable gauges become available

I like the FS9 water effects but get those in FS9 via the Bill Lyons
effects. I never fly in spot view, so won't derive much pleasure from
any additional plane related eye candy.

The flight planning, I already have via FSNav and FSMeteo provides
better clouds than FSX.

In FS9 I'm close to being able to get very acceptable performance, with
sliders maxed. I'm affronted by the FSX team's assertion that if you
wish to run with sliders maxed then you will always be dissapointed. If
Mazda had published the performance data for my car, then told me it was
unreasonable to expect to have access to that performance, I'd be off to
the Fair Trading Dept!

 Of the features I've seen so far, the only one I'll be reluctant to
pass up on, by sticking with FS9, is the wet runway effect. They have
not made much of this feature, in the marketing blurb, which makes me
wonder whether the designers have little time left for flying, as
opposed to designing.

Many people may find themselves backed less into a corner, so there will
be many to whom FSX offers very definite attractions, so it will almost
certainly sell well.

The one fly in the ointment is that as I write this I have a feeling I
said pretty much the same after I'd invested in FS9. Somewhere I've
still got a folder marked FS2003...

Gerry Winskill

Mike Brook wrote:

>Bones -
>
>I couldn't possibly have written a more rational & logical assessment
>of FSX based on the demo than you have just done!
>
>
>
>>I've already made my decision and I will not be buying FSX in the
>>immediate future (...) - so I will stick with FS2004 until I have
>>caught up.
>>
>>
>
>Me too (in Spades...!)
>
>MikeB
>JHB193
>
>
>
>
>
>



Other related posts: