New Scenery Old Scenery or A REAL GOOD FORM FSDT!!!!!!

[Alliano Ricot]

Hi to all how read this, I have just got back into the Flight Simulator cockpit (FS9 that is) and Have to say this on the point not a freak but some one hoping there is some common scene in the industry. I have KJFK and KORD of the FS9 versoin of Flight Sim I will be hitting up the FSX as soon as I can work pass the $10,000 dollar limit. I'm like both and think it time I see some more highly detailed scenery like this, there is also one thing that pisses me off the lack of demand response to the demand of a certain scenery. I know you dont give the costumer or Fans or even a pychopathic nutt job what theyt ask for but this goes down as flattery to me. If I had the free time and knowlegde to do Flight Sim add-on I would love to see such high demand from the people who wish Microsoft just had more faith in its products and just dont sweep it to the side idol and non-caring. We are too demanding for some thing so simple ! NOT!!!! so this is more than a game and like Halo which is milk to the core and then some I feel there is a message needed to be say. Yes I and No there are other simware add-on title form other developers and I can say that I cant more inclined to agree that is there bread and butter but if you Dis the demand and not care two cents to a whole dollar you loose a whole lot more that money people you lose the race. Im going to say this I like Fsdt dedecation flytampa skills and ImagineSims for there attention to suppled detailed a hell Aerosoft is by far the king at European airport design but I need that one company that gives me the good old airport from the USA and Canada with untold level of Details and level of contant updates so FSDT keep the good work and I'm looking forward to KDFW and so on.

[SirIsaac726]

I'm confused...

Are you praising FSDT?

[cmpbllsjc]

I'm confused...

Are you praising FSDT?

Yeah, I didn't know what to make of that either, I assume that English isn't his first language. I wasn't sure what the $10,000 dollars is in reference to.

I think he just wants FSDT to make more great US and Canadian airports. If that's the case he can join the club since a lot of us want that also.

[Alliano Ricot]

Hi again I will get to the point here 1. the $10,000 dallar price point was a bad referance topic but i use it to show my reason for not imgrating to FSX cause i just dont know what real system can give me the desired look at feel of performance I've been seeing all across the net. 2. Im on one part is praising FSDT is ture but Im not to happy with the terms of support for the demand of a simple request(as i see from other FS add-on developers which is maddening) I hope that was right. All people how play FS9/FSX is a good reason to play longer and harder just like point I made with Halo which is milk cause its More marketable to the Masses. I STILL PLAYING FS9 and I just hoping to build a little more incouragement for more airports.

[ckaack]

1) FSX provides more features than FS9, therefore it is required to invest. For sure $10K are not needed but $1K is a reasonable number. At the end it is your decision whether you want to migrate or not.
2) I don't get your point at all.

/Christian

[SirIsaac726]

So you are complaining because of lack of FS9 support??

If so...why?  FSDT still supports FS9.

And as Christian said, even 1K and some common tweaks found on the internet can get you running FSX very nicely.

[bradl]

1) FSX provides more features than FS9, therefore it is required to invest. For sure $10K are not needed but $1K is a reasonable number. At the end it is your decision whether you want to migrate or not.

Required? on the contrary. And just because something is newer or has 'more features' does not mean that it is more economical or better for someone. FSX requires a hell of a lot of tweaking than FS9 (I've heard some stories of people getting less than 25FPS on a $2000 machine that they could get 60+ FPS on with all sliders maxed in FS9).

Not all features that one may need is available for FSX. one big case in point for me, FSNavigator. They closed up shop, and while FSCommander is close, it does not provide what I need, that FSNavigator does. Some aircraft aren't available for FSX that are available for FS9.

So no. A number of reasons can prevent someone from jumping to FSX, so it is definitely not required.

BL.

[ESzczesniak]

...(I've heard some stories of people getting less than 25FPS on a $2000 machine that they could get 60+ FPS on with all sliders maxed in FS9)...

I've heard this argument before and it is just terrible.  True, FS9 will run at 60+ FPS with all sliders to the right while you can get maybe 25-30 fps in FSX with mid to mid-high settings ont he sliders.  However, even at that point default FSX looks a lot better than FS9 with all the sliders to the right.  While add-ons can make FS9 look better, FSX has much better graphic texture handling and there are some add-ons in FSX that are just mind blowing.  I can't tell you whether or not FSX is an efficient code and agree that right now it is a beast to run, I am sure that once hardware becomes readily available for FSX (the way it is for FS9 right now), FSX will be the standard.

[SirIsaac726]

Yet another FS9 vs. FSX argument.

Seriously, we know some people prefer one over the other, but what is the point of arguing over it?  What sim another person decides to use doesn't directly affect you in any way.

[Alliano Ricot]

Wow I must rough up the topic a little to much?
1. this is not a whinning session I plan just a topic about why I think it not about going over one developers back and just a term of sjills on creating a better brand of FS9/FSX add-on scenery.

2.My $10,000 price range goal is a figure of speech.

3.Im just giving FSDT I little more incentive to pushing there already limited time on development a positive push in the right direction Like how I said Aerosoft was the King of European Airport creation. I was hoping FSDT lean A littel more on The USA and Canada side but I I see that this a bad way of going about it(FSDT KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK).

4.I was trying to spur up some debate as to why I see so much help me about just finding a way to make the FS9/FSX alot more than the out of the Box hand out that Microsoft made with so little support.

But In all Im just talking (a bad To do on the Internet) to see if Im the only one how feels if a demand for a certain level of support should arise that Good FS addware developers will answer the need. Keep On fly the Virtual skies Simmers!

[bradl]

...(I've heard some stories of people getting less than 25FPS on a $2000 machine that they could get 60+ FPS on with all sliders maxed in FS9)...

I've heard this argument before and it is just terrible.  True, FS9 will run at 60+ FPS with all sliders to the right while you can get maybe 25-30 fps in FSX with mid to mid-high settings ont he sliders.  However, even at that point default FSX looks a lot better than FS9 with all the sliders to the right.  While add-ons can make FS9 look better, FSX has much better graphic texture handling and there are some add-ons in FSX that are just mind blowing.  I can't tell you whether or not FSX is an efficient code and agree that right now it is a beast to run, I am sure that once hardware becomes readily available for FSX (the way it is for FS9 right now), FSX will be the standard.

And that is my entire point. Why go from something that works and smoothly, to something that leaves you half crippled for the sake of 'better features'? If something 'just works', don't break it. When FSX came out, you were already looking at a $2000 price jump just to get the hardware to make it work nicely. Why spend that much money when FS9 gets you what you need. 'better/more features'? I'd rather wait until prices come down to where they can be afforded than spend more money for something that you'll be replacing in 2 - 3 years time anyway.

If I can build myself a box for less than $500 that can get me those 60FPS versus $1500 for 25-30 FPS.. let's see.. which is more affordable and gets you better Return on Investment? I wonder..   

Besides.. I could put that extra $1000 towards something better... I dunno.. like a PPL.

BL.

[ESzczesniak]

And that is my entire point. Why go from something that works and smoothly, to something that leaves you half crippled for the sake of 'better features'? If something 'just works', don't break it. When FSX came out, you were already looking at a $2000 price jump just to get the hardware to make it work nicely. Why spend that much money when FS9 gets you what you need. 'better/more features'? I'd rather wait until prices come down to where they can be afforded than spend more money for something that you'll be replacing in 2 - 3 years time anyway.

If I can build myself a box for less than $500 that can get me those 60FPS versus $1500 for 25-30 FPS.. let's see.. which is more affordable and gets you better Return on Investment? I wonder..   

Besides.. I could put that extra $1000 towards something better... I dunno.. like a PPL.

BL.

This is logical in today's state.  I have chosen FSX personally (although I still use FS9 as well).  However, I can understand saying that FS9 is best for you currently.  What I don't understand is the people who use this argument that they get 60+ fps in FS9 and only 20 fps in FSX to state that FSX will never be a good simulator and they will never ever upgrade from FS9.  It'll have it's day, it just may not be there quite yet.  Of course, the investment in FS9 add-ons takes some to over come too, but that is why I have focused on buying add-ons that are dual FS9/FSX licenses.

[felixthreeone]

...I don't see how this turned into FSX/FS9 at all??? If I read it correctly, It looks as though he is pointing his finger at microsoft with disdain....not FSX. I see a complaint about the discontinuation of flightsim. Nothing more, nothing less.