Lastordu From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 367 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3513 times:
As some of you might know I like to talk. They don't like me doing it on the screenshot thread so that is what this is for. You can talk about any thing. If you don't like something about Flight Sim this is the place to say what you don't like and why. If you like something go ahead and say it. If you have a question I will have to say go to that thread, but if you have something to ask about something that someone has said go ahead and ask. If you have a screenshot yet aegean I will have to day go to that third, but yet aegean you want to put one up to show something that you don't like then that is ok with me. Also if there is something that you wish that they would do different say something about it.
Now with all that said I gess I will get this started. I have to say that I like FS9 ALOT and I like how real it can be at times. One of the thing that I like most when I just want to fly around is get in the DC-3. The only thing I don't like is that in the 172 they auto pilot. It's not at the top like in say the 737 but it is in the radio thing on the bottom. Now if what I know the trainer 172 (witches the one in the game) doesn't have auto pilot. Now if they can put it in the 172 I wish that they would put it in the DC-3. I know or at least I think that I know that the DC-3 or C-47s didn't have auto pilot but I don't care, I think if you put it in a little 172 you can out it in something like a DC-3. You could say just trim it and it will be fine. But I'm to lazy to read that thing in the teaching center and if you just do the lessen it doesn't tell you eveything. So all I'm saying in this hole thing is that I wish that they would have put auto pilot in the DC-3 too. If I am wrong about anything here let me know. Now I could be wrong about everything I just said if so let me know.
PS I'm sorry that this has been so long.
"Remember, Remember the 5th of November" from V for Vendetta
AirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3501 times:
Actually I was disappointed with FS9. It's basically FS2002 that requires more graphics power and frame rates. FS2004 is not graphics friendly at all like FS02 was. Granted the airport surfaces are improved and you can do a few more things such as individual runway approaches and select the runways you want to land on. The AI planes and traffic are just as stupid and unintelligent. The only thing that I like about the AI planes in FS04 is that they taxi fast now. To this day I have never flown with the vintage aircraft and probably never will, I really don't care for them. I really hope that Microsoft would focus more on developing a better AI system and stop trying to improve weather. I would much better like a realistic AI world then realistic weather.
I completely agree with you, but Microsoft has to appeal to a wide range of people. Some people want realistic weather and vintage planes. While others (like us here at A.net) want accurate ATC, more realistic AI traffic, better planes (Airbus, McDonnell-Douglas, Embraer, etc.), and just a better, more realistic aviation experience. That is why I which FS2K4 had a professional edition.
All in all. FSim has come a long way in the last ten years. Some years were better than others.
Komododx From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks ago) and read 3485 times:
Here we go again. Although the idea of this thread in theory is good, I see that eveyone is going to start whining about the usual stuff that can be fixed by spending some time downloading freeware or payware add-ons.
As far as the intelligence of AI traffic, ok, it could be vastly improved. BUT... asking MS for a greater variety in AI planes is dumb. For one, their models suck! All you need to do is go to Aardvark, MRAI, FSP, or PAI's website (and PAI's should be visited last).
As far as my opinions on FS9, I love it. The only few complaints I might have are the terrains. Sometimes I'll see mountains flatter or higher than the real ones. If they're gonna spend time on that, just do it right. Other than that I think the game is perfect. Sure, they could improve water and sky textures, but it would be a strain on my PC. I am just happy with FS, with Ultimate Traffic, with replacing all the AI a/c models, and with over 100 freeware scenery packages I've downloaded.
Ouch! How come? I know the aardvark models are great but I would recommend PAI as the first port of call because of the complete packages they offer, and then if you wish you can just replace the aircraft individually if you wish.
Komododx From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3476 times:
Quoting ZSOFN (Reply 5): Ouch! How come? I know the aardvark models are great but I would recommend PAI as the first port of call because of the complete packages they offer, and then if you wish you can just replace the aircraft individually if you wish.
Isn't the FSP website now part of Project AI?
Well for all those dedicated PAI modeleres/developers, sorry, but that's my opinion.
Yes, Aardvark has a limited model variety, but they are expanding, and the models and repaints resemble those of flyable non-AI models such as POSKY, FFX/SGA, etc. FSP might be part of PAI now, but their airbus models are closer in quality to Aardvark models than to PAI.
I will give PAI credit for having the largest selection of models as well as paint schemes. But they really need to work on the quality. Nonetheless, great job on the variety and quantity of a/c. Keep it up!