NWADC9 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4902 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 11072 times:
The jetway and GSE. I like them there and the eye candy it provides, but it needs some serious improvement. For example, since when do jetbridges get stored in a position where it looks like a stick out of the building instead of the traditional "L"? It wastes time when I call it up! Also, the baggage loading crew needs some serious work. They only go on the right side, regardless what the aircraft.cfg says about door position (see "CRJ-700").
Flying an aeroplane with only a single propeller to keep you in the air. Can you imagine that? -Capt. Picard
Gunsontheroof From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3537 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 11014 times:
Quoting N231YE (Reply 5): In that regard, I can almost say FS9 provided better graphics.
Given the fact that FS9 is infinitely more developer friendly than FSX, that's pretty much true. My tricked-out FS9 setup (though currently out of order) looks way slicker than anything I've seen from FSX...and I can fly planes in it.
ArniePie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1291 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 10691 times:
If they hadn't tried to focus so much on eye-candy (as in autogen+ very dense landclass possibilities) but more on a leap in AI handling and ATC possibilities I would have switched to FSX in a heartbeat even knowing that I couldn't use many of my favorite addons for a while.
But they decided to invest all their developing time in eye-candy whit the current result being that in the points it should have evolved there is virtually no change with FS9 and the fields that have evolved (graphics) are with current hardware possibilities not usable.
PMDGpilot From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 17 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 10571 times:
I don't like the textures as well. But I still hate the ATC system. I don't get QNH outside the US or Metric Altitudes over Russia and China. I think that the direction Microsoft went in was nice. I just wish they made the change more gradual instead of all at once. That way it wouldn't turn into a nightmare to transition for everyone. They also could've improved the realism (ATC, Weather system, flight dynamics). If you take my current setup and addons, it's really "As Real As It Gets". I thought FSX was supposed to come like that before the addons.
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 14139 posts, RR: 47
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 10168 times:
Quoting PMDGpilot (Reply 14): I don't get QNH outside the US or Metric Altitudes over Russia and China.
Not to mention that the transition altitudes are always the same ones (the US transition altitude of 18000 feet).
In retrospect, I may have bought FSX, messed around with it for a while, and then go back to FS9. I never found it here in Costa Rica, at least not in the major computer stores. What mostly pisses me off about FSX is this constant emphasis on DX10, when they don't even release a version with DX10 or even a version where you can switch from DX9 to DX10, etc. For now, I'm sticking with FS9. It's just the better sim.
Also, I'm pissed off at PMDG and Level-D. Just because FSX is out, doesn't mean everyone will start using it. Granted, Level-D at least was upfront about their intentions no to release the 757 for FS9 but for FSX, but the dirty tactics of PMDG, releasing the MD-11 for FSX only, after over 3 years of development, and along with that jacking up prices by swapping the dollar sign with a Euro sign, has definitely made me think twice about buying any PMDG product in the future.
Fact is: if I get FSX, I'll just mess around with it until there are enough addons to use it with and until I have a decent computer to run it.
Jasond From Australia, joined Jul 2009, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 10158 times:
1) Got it bundled with a recent joystick purchase
2) Installed it
3) Set it up just like my FS9 (everything literally as high as possible)
4) Watched it die horribly at about 6-8 FPS
5) Un-installed it
6) Fired up FS9 (back to 25-30 FPS again everywhere)
Even with the very low frame rate which you tend to expect with any new version (remember going from FS98 - FS2000), graphically FSX with equivalent settings is very poor, I wouldn't even describe this as an 'update' to FS9 nevermind a full blown new product. Moving from 98 to 2000 was forgivable because of the obvious improvements, 2002 to 2004 was also a logical step without too much impact. FSX is quite simply appalling in every respect. I did however locate the new runway and taxiway textures and port them into FS9 so I didn't waste my money too much. They were at least genuinely better. I am going to try and do the same with autogen soon as well as there are a lot more different types of things in FSX.
Bekol From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2001, 44 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 10154 times:
The thing I dislike most in FSX is - I once planned to spend some money on buying a new pc for it but then later I realised that I might had to spend a HUGE amount (some USD1K) but still couldn't fly it as joyful (w/ good graphics, fps, etc..) as in FS9.
Then what I could do is just buying a new pc for FS9 (which can run smoothly and perfectly on the new pc) and wait sometime for some hardware/software upgrades.