creator2003 wrote:QUOTE (creator2003 @ Sep 30 2008, 01:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>i wish this hadent turned into a which sim bla bla like the fs9 -fsx thing ,,each time i read these topics it just makes the FSX sim more solid and a over all diversable simulator in my opinion and i see manly guys who have super PCs complaining that there so called super PC cant handle the jandle ..
to me its like the rich guy on the Harley Davidson who cant ride it and blames it on the bike instead of his lack of experience...
i hope your limbo mode comes to a end soon and you decided on what you want running in your system ,we will still be around designing for FSX and the next sim so you know you will always be able to add something KIWI to your sim if you decided X
I totally get what you are saying, whereas I don't thin kyou get me. I'm not saying FSX is a load of cr@p. It is a very nice simualtor, and with addons it can look jaw dropping - almost real. My only issue here, as I have continually stated, is that its clearly possible to run a flightsim with similar levels of detail at a smoother frame rate. I honestly challenge anyone to say that FSX or even FS9 is well optomized for current PC systems (any for that fact).
And its not that our fast PC's can't "handle the jandle" its just that we know, from other games (not just flight sims) that these "monsters" can push out some seriously nice graphics with ease. I don't really wnat to argue PC vs PC performance, but I'm fairly sure your lower spec PC isn't running FSX as well as mine, but I am sure that you're content with lower settings.
Stuck in Sim-Limbo
60 posts
• Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
by s0cks » Tue Sep 30, 2008 5:21 pm
- s0cks
by Bazza » Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:41 pm
I tend to agree with Alex.
Like many others here, I have been thru all the upgrades, always dragging my heels because of a lack of finance at the time, (kids and shoes etc) or because I was too lazy to change.
I am currently happy with my FS9. I have a very complete New Zealand and do most of my "stuff" here. I have huge frame rates and no problems. No doubt at some time in the future I'll change over but at the moment I am happily reading about the bugs that are being solved, and hey!, what's the hurry.
By the same token I appreciate that some members prefer to stay up with the times, unfortunately there have been some strongly expressed views bordering on "missionary zeal" that I could do without.
Each to his own ?
Like many others here, I have been thru all the upgrades, always dragging my heels because of a lack of finance at the time, (kids and shoes etc) or because I was too lazy to change.
I am currently happy with my FS9. I have a very complete New Zealand and do most of my "stuff" here. I have huge frame rates and no problems. No doubt at some time in the future I'll change over but at the moment I am happily reading about the bugs that are being solved, and hey!, what's the hurry.
By the same token I appreciate that some members prefer to stay up with the times, unfortunately there have been some strongly expressed views bordering on "missionary zeal" that I could do without.
Each to his own ?
-
Bazza - Sim-holic
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 1:44 pm
- Posts: 983
- Location: Tauranga
by SteelBlades » Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:48 pm
creator2003 wrote:QUOTE (creator2003 @ Sep 30 2008, 01:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I suppose if you have to convert fs9 scenery into X plane that tells me something right there ,have you been able to convert FSX scenery into X plane yet ? and im not meaning old rwy12 objects i mean full on scenery photo real spec maps etc ....
I've only converted fs9 scenery so far, but that's ben a mix of types including photoreal ground textures. I understand FSX scenery converts too, but I don't think I've had the opportunity. One thing to bear in mind is that usually scenery requires author's permission before uploading from conversion, so even if I had converted awesome scenry, I may not be able to share it - such is the case with Mt. Cook and Queenstown. They've converted very well - but I can't upload it anywhere (dag-nab-it). The fact that I have to convert scenery to X-Plane format shouldn't tel you much, other than someone somewhere (Snowman) has the time, skill and inclination to create scenery. There are dedicated X-Plane scenery developers too (see above links!), but just not in NZ. Thanks so much Snowman.
QUOTEive never played X plane never heard really of it until you came on the board here and some posting with screenshots of 150 mesh or something ...i guess some are just never happy with the big boy sims like FSX because like big boy toys you are always pouring money into them if you want the best of the best ..something 3/4 of simmers dont do because they are always wanting something for free ..
i have a low end system as ive said and im getting better performance than you guys or i dont have bottle necks that it seems you have with those super machines quad this and that ...
i have loads of games all top of the range high end and they all still run sweet on my low end system ,i even have Orbx /kai tak/and many more addons packs and they run sweet where you say they dont ?"[/quote]
My advice is to download the X-Plane demo. I promise you won't get cootees from it. You wonder why I use X-Plane and not the MS one? Because I choose Mac OS X (for me a very easy decision). Of course, that decision means I can't use the MS flight sim products, but that's a small price to pay.QUOTEFSX and all microsoft sims before this one have always been improved by addons payware freeware ,it makes people want to improve things be it scenery landclass mesh lighting and so on it never ends it can always be built onto and improved ,it just doesnt stop and instead of waiting for ACEs to do something about we can do it without them and make a little cash outta of it if we please ,i like the idea of a raw platform that needs the wider community input ..[/quote]
Like X-Plane, MSFS is more of a platform than a product. As a product, I'd easily choose X-Plane over MSFS because it is so much more capable in the ways that are important to me (more aircraft and better scenery) out of the box. X-PLane comes with ground mesh that is almost as good as Geographix best mesh (a whole let better than 150m), but it covers 80% of the world. That's value for money!QUOTEI dont know why people think FSX should run like mine or many other systems around here right outta the box ,i put cash into my system and flightsim and it has cost me more then my BMW or motorcycle per year or in some case in the past more than my house does each week in payments ..
this week ive got another 100$ to spend on my PC or addons ..the addons that make my sim run sweet as pie ..[/quote]
I thought you said above that you had a low end system and it performed great. Now I'm confused.QUOTEi hope your limbo mode comes to a end soon and you decided on what you want running in your system ,we will still be around designing for FSX and the next sim so you know you will always be able to add something KIWI to your sim if you decided X[/quote]
Well, people may have to decide which MS flight sim to have on your computer, but they don't have to pick between one of them and X-Plane - you can have both. Then they can decide which one performs better. For what it's worth, I've never heard of someone trying X-Plane and thinking it ran anything other than far better than FSX. The flight modelling is far nicer too (and at the end of the day, that is what holds people to X-Plane).
Cheers
- SteelBlades
SteelBlades wrote:QUOTE (SteelBlades @ Sep 30 2008, 07:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I've never heard of someone trying X-Plane and thinking it ran anything other than far better than FSX.
I've said that, in this very thread, I suspect. Setting the X-plane demo to work on my system meant that i had to reduce the visuals to the cartoony look of a late 90s video game.
toprob- NZFF Pro
- Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 4:56 pm
- Posts: 6711
- Location: Upper Hutt
toprob wrote:QUOTE (toprob @ Sep 30 2008, 06:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I've said that, in this very thread, I suspect. Setting the X-plane demo to work on my system meant that i had to reduce the visuals to the cartoony look of a late 90s video game.
You did indeed! I suspect a bug or video driver problem perhaps? From you specs that you quoted it should run extremely well.
- s0cks
SteelBlades wrote:QUOTE (SteelBlades @ Sep 30 2008, 07:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>My advice is to download the X-Plane demo. I promise you won't get cootees from it. You wonder why I use X-Plane and not the MS one? Because I choose Mac OS X (for me a very easy decision). Of course, that decision means I can't use the MS flight sim products, but that's a small price to pay.
Sorry, I assumed that you were talking from experience with FSX.s0cks wrote:QUOTE (s0cks @ Sep 30 2008, 08:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>You did indeed! I suspect a bug or video driver problem perhaps? From you specs that you quoted it should run extremely well.
Could be, but more likely an OpenGL issue.
toprob- NZFF Pro
- Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 4:56 pm
- Posts: 6711
- Location: Upper Hutt
Bazza wrote:QUOTE (Bazza @ Sep 30 2008, 07:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I tend to agree with Alex.
Like many others here, I have been thru all the upgrades, always dragging my heels because of a lack of finance at the time, (kids and shoes etc) or because I was too lazy to change.
I am currently happy with my FS9. I have a very complete New Zealand and do most of my "stuff" here. I have huge frame rates and no problems. No doubt at some time in the future I'll change over but at the moment I am happily reading about the bugs that are being solved, and hey!, what's the hurry.
By the same token I appreciate that some members prefer to stay up with the times, unfortunately there have been some strongly expressed views bordering on "missionary zeal" that I could do without.
Each to his own ?
That sums it up very well for me in the situation I'm in.
Naki- NZFF Pro
- Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:03 pm
- Posts: 7170
- Location: Tauranga
Not owning something doesn't mean not using something
Someone above suggested that if they didn't like what MS had done to FSX they should go door knocking. Well, I'm in regular contact with the authors of X-Plane. Their email addresses (both Austin's and Ben's) are freely available and they love intelligent conversation with end users.
- SteelBlades
QUOTEother than someone somewhere (Snowman) has the time, skill and inclination to create scenery[/quote]
Yeah i know about all that very well as some of the scenerys were my creations that you converted ,nice to know that FSX objects will port over ...
creator2003- NZFF Pro
- Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:08 am
- Posts: 4633
- Location: Cant U C im LOCO
Bazza wrote:QUOTE (Bazza @ Sep 30 2008, 07:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>By the same token I appreciate that some members prefer to stay up with the times, unfortunately there have been some strongly expressed views bordering on "missionary zeal" that I could do without.
Each to his own ?
I do love a good argument, part of me want to get stuck in, part of me wants to moderate, it's a balancing act.
A long time ago (I just checked my passport -- it was 6 years) I was invited to Sydney by Microsoft (this is before I got involved with FS) among other things, to discuss how they would go about making themselves more accessible to the community. I met a number of MS employees and had some long discussions about the pitfalls and benefits of breaking the long-standing no-contact policy. MS has decided that this was to change, all they needed to do was to figure out how.
It took them a while to get organised, but we've seen the results recently with a lot of MS folk taking part in FS forums etc. Well, actually we started seeing a lot of them, then less, and now with Phil Taylor gone it's hard to find someone who is still accessible. The trouble is that people see MS as an all-powerful money making machine, so their representatives much be less than human -- or more than human -- and therefore not subject to the normal rules of conduct. They were abused, vilified and generally treated like scum. That's what gets me fired up -- they are just people who happen to work for MS. FS users have driven them away with their screeching and screaming, and we'll end up going back to the pre-contact days. Oh well.
The love/hate relationship we have with our sims is pretty human, as well. You should see the battles that go on in the photography forums I visit -- Canon vs Nikon is World War III compared to FSX vs X-plane's little skirmish...
toprob- NZFF Pro
- Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 4:56 pm
- Posts: 6711
- Location: Upper Hutt
SteelBlades wrote:QUOTE (SteelBlades @ Oct 4 2008, 10:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>jastheace - you've made a few statements there that beg to be replied to. You say a $1200 computer, "runs FSX with all sliders all the way up" but you, "choose to have some set down to improve my experience". For many folk, that's a bit of a contradiction. One one hand you say it works with all sliders up, then you say it doesn't work well enough (at least for you). How many frames per second are an acceptable minimum? For many simmers, that is 30, but others (certainly in the X-Plane community) it's 60fps.
for me it is 25fps, but then frame rates are not really what it is all about, immersion is a bigger factor, and that is why i reduce some of the settings, it stops little stutters that ruin the immersion, and these sliders don't have a huge effect on frame rates anyway. and as far as add ons i am still not conviced, can you show me a 767 or 737 that has fully simulated systems and looks really good, or a add on that simulates passengers in the back. the graphics remind me a little of fs2002, sure the ground and environment look good, but the aircraft, some of what i have seen i wouldn't touch. but as i have said, there will always be people who prefer x-plane and some who prefer FS, i like the way fsx looks and runs, as far as the demo goes, i have tried it today, and i think i will be sticking to FSX. i
it is good to see a good discussion on this topic, again different horses for different courses, there will always be mine is better than yours, i think it all started with teaspoons and went from thereLast edited by jastheace on Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.In the ongoing battle between objects made of aluminum going hundreds of miles per hour and the ground going zero miles per hour, the ground has yet to lose.
jastheace- Senior Member
- Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:33 pm
- Posts: 1032
- Location: Hastings
jastheace wrote:QUOTE (jastheace @ Sep 30 2008, 09:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>for me it is 25fps, but then frame rates are not really what it is all about, immersion is a bigger factor, and that is why i reduce some of the settings, it stops little stutters that ruin the immersion, and these sliders don't have a huge effect on frame rates anyway. and as far as add ons i am still not conviced, can you show me a 767 or 737 that has fully simulated systems and looks really good, or a add on that simulates passengers in the back. the graphics remind me a little of fs2002, sure the ground and environment look good, but the aircraft, some of what i have seen i wouldn't touch. but as i have said, there will always be people who prefer x-plane and some who prefer FS, i like the way fsx looks and runs, as far as the demo goes, i have tried it today, and i think i will be sticking to FSX. i
it is good to see a good discussion on this topic, again different horses for different courses, there will always be mine is better than yours, i think it all started with teaspoons and went from there
From what I have read, bump mapping, specular(?) and per-pixel lighting, as well as HDR (better version of "bloom") is just around the corner. So I expect to see better aircraft visuals shortly (but who knows). As for flight dynamics, it "should" be more realistic than the text file based ones of MSFS, but I understand how people get VERY used to flying FS and can find it difficult to change. You are right though, this is X-Plane's downfall, there is a big lack of high-end addons (payware or not). Ironically, sticking with MSFS and "waiting" for it to improve is what slows it down. Which is a shame, but very understandable.
I'm still stuck in sim-limbo. I loved FS9, but after playing XP and FSX it seems so dated. I really like FSX but it bums me out when I can't run it the "way its meant to be played". It always seems like I'm sacraficing one element or another. And X-Plane has a lack of high-end addons, but I am going to try my hand at converting some scenery. I'm waiting for my full copy of X-Plane to arrive ($78) and I plan to give that a thorough workover before I commit to one or the other. I'm too lazy to be jumping between sims
- s0cks
and then there is the matter of feel, you can not compare any sim to the real world flying, as the sim is not moving you around and acting with real winds etc, glad to see you are still happy with what ever you choose, at the end of the day it is your choice, and i support anyone who loves flying, be it in FS or XP!!In the ongoing battle between objects made of aluminum going hundreds of miles per hour and the ground going zero miles per hour, the ground has yet to lose.
jastheace- Senior Member
- Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:33 pm
- Posts: 1032
- Location: Hastings
jastheace wrote:QUOTE (jastheace @ Sep 30 2008, 09:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>for me it is 25fps, but then frame rates are not really what it is all about, immersion is a bigger factor, and that is why i reduce some of the settings, it stops little stutters that ruin the immersion, and these sliders don't have a huge effect on frame rates anyway. and as far as add ons i am still not conviced, can you show me a 767 or 737 that has fully simulated systems and looks really good, or a add on that simulates passengers in the back. the graphics remind me a little of fs2002, sure the ground and environment look good, but the aircraft, some of what i have seen i wouldn't touch. but as i have said, there will always be people who prefer x-plane and some who prefer FS, i like the way fsx looks and runs, as far as the demo goes, i have tried it today, and i think i will be sticking to FSX. i
it is good to see a good discussion on this topic, again different horses for different courses, there will always be mine is better than yours, i think it all started with teaspoons and went from there
I'm very pleased to see the discussion has been handled with maturity. It's unfortunate the some folk see the debate and confuse it with something personal, or worse. Robust discussion is healthy and I applaud the moderators on NZFF. Let's remember, this is the New Zealand Fight-sim Forum, not the New Zealand Microsoft Flight-sim Forum, and if my hunch is right, there will be a lot more X-Plane users in the near future participating (though still a minority no doubt).
jastheace - you're apparently interested top notch heavies in X-Plane. Look no further than Bennidickt Stratann's 737x. His 737NGs have; full 3D cockpits, fully simulated systems including authentic autopilot, flexible wings, thrust reversers, very high quality body detailing and textures and extensive data I/Os for integration with home-built (or commercial) cockpits: http://www.eadt.eu/index.php?aircraft
There are other great heavies as well, a full 3D detailed 777 by XP Jets is nearing completion: http://www.xpjets.com/ (the currently downloadable version is less visual detail), not to mention XPFW's 757-200: http://www.xplanefreeware.net/forums/index...?showtopic=1809
If you're curious about smaller aircraft check out this: http://myvirtualhanger.com/index.html Heinz's DC-3, Spitfire and P-51 are as good as they get with current computer technology (his other craft are very good too though). Then there's the Pilatus Porter PC-6 that was a collaborative effort between a Swiss chap and myself: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?autoco...p;showfile=2751 (there are other versions of this also available). Then there's C74's whole fleet - so good they're used in commercial simulators: http://www.c74.net/xplane/ .
As it's quite straight forward to build aircraft for X-Plane, many less talented painters build great craft, and leave better paints for others to do (a flourishing business). There are loads of very realistic looking aircraft, but more that are less so. Because building aircraft for MSFS is mostly a commercial thing, you can (should) expect them to look top notch every time.
Bare in mind that the bulk of work in X-Plane aircraft has traditionally been in accuracy of flight modelling, but the 3D modelling has really taken off in the last year or so. For more examples of good looking aircraft, checkout these:
http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?autoco...p;showfile=2905
http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?autoco...p;showfile=1475
http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?autoco...p;showfile=2817
http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?autoco...p;showfile=5114
http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?autoco...p;showfile=3921
http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?autoco...p;showfile=2829
http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?autoco...p;showfile=2756
How's that?
- SteelBlades
SteelBlades wrote:QUOTE (SteelBlades @ Oct 1 2008, 09:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>For more examples of good looking aircraft, checkout these:
...
http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?autoco...p;showfile=2817
...
How's that?
That A340 looks very cool, what an awesome livery.
AlexLast edited by Alex on Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Alex
- NZFF Pro
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:39 pm
- Posts: 3620
do the version 8 models work with version 9 or future versions? or are they only for the version they are designed for??In the ongoing battle between objects made of aluminum going hundreds of miles per hour and the ground going zero miles per hour, the ground has yet to lose.
jastheace- Senior Member
- Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:33 pm
- Posts: 1032
- Location: Hastings
X-Plane is good with regard to backwards compatibility. X-Plane 9 supports some aircraft from even X-Plane 6 (replaced in about 2002), quite a few in X-Plane 7, and the majority from X-Plane 8. It depends on whether the aircraft breaks any rules for the later X-Plane version. From X-Plane 8.60, X-Plane 9 supports 100% (and a huge number of 8.6 aircraft have been produced).
- SteelBlades
SteelBlades wrote:QUOTE (SteelBlades @ Oct 1 2008, 10:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>X-Plane is good with regard to backwards compatibility. X-Plane 9 supports some aircraft from even X-Plane 6 (replaced in about 2002), quite a few in X-Plane 7, and the majority from X-Plane 8. It depends on whether the aircraft breaks any rules for the later X-Plane version. From X-Plane 8.60, X-Plane 9 supports 100% (and a huge number of 8.6 aircraft have been produced).
Hi Peter,
I flew your PC-6 last night. Very nice plane! One of the best exterior models/texturing I've seen so far! I also tried the Final Frontier demo. Great scenery. I intend to buy it when I get the game.
- s0cks
And of course, the nicest thing is the cost - all the PC-6s are free. I should add that the interior was my colleague's work, while I did the texturing and added additional 3D detailing on my two Mt. Cook aircraft.Last edited by SteelBlades on Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
- SteelBlades
60 posts • Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
