|
Post by dk8290 on Feb 16, 2007 18:50:31 GMT
Here are some comparison pics I did mainly to see the framerate aspect between FS2004 and FSX. Locations are attempts to show similar areas but in some cases may not be the same spot. I wish I had remembered to set the time in FSX to a similar time of day. ---------------- FS2004... -HJG Convair 990 with sound and panel -using active sky 6 but pretty clear -using MyTraffic set to 75% -using FSGenesis 76m European mesh for FS2004 -Marseille airport & scenery from Aerosoft's 'France 1' set FSX... -HJG Convair 990 with sound and fsx default b747 panel -using 'fair weather' preset weather in FSX -using MyTraffix X set to less than 50% -using FSGenesis 76m European mesh for fs2004 -Marseille airport and scenery is default FSX Please see the rest inside this folder. They are big and I don't want to break the rules even more by posting them directly ;-) www.the-airfield.com/tests/France_LFML_fs9_fsx/Things about FSX I like are the way textures are smoothly displayed to the horizon. The horizon is nicer too. The desert ground textures are a real shame. I have autoen at sparse. Having none just seems like it's too blank out there even though you gain some framerates. It makes me wonder why a nice detailed scenery from Aerosoft can be so much better on framerates than a default FSX scenery with sparse autogen and limited airport objects. I'm finding I'm flying FS2004 more
|
|
|
Post by kiki on Feb 28, 2007 7:40:22 GMT
MS has done simulators bot good and not so good.
T started with FS4, it was all new world for me. Then there was FS5 which I never had ( I didn't have to much time for simming those days...), then there was FS98, which was a great product it it´s time. (I´ve had all simulators since FS98). The next product which was really a step forward was FS9 (I never liked the dark winter sceneries of FS2002, FS 2000 gave us new functionality after FS98 but overall was not such a great product). What about FSX? Well, this is their first product after FS5 which I didn´t buy first day it came out. I might buy it later but not for some time. With all the great add-on sceneries, AI traffic, airplanes and add-on programs I have FS9 is too good to leave behind...
|
|
|
Post by George Carty - HJG on Feb 28, 2007 9:56:58 GMT
I've tried both the 707 panels and my modified DC-8 panels (about to be added to the HJG site) with FSX:
* The 707 1959-era panel sort of worked, but some bitmaps were wrong (there are some 500-apart collisions in bitmap indices, which are not a problem for FS2004 but are for FSX). None of the alternative views (overhead, pedestal, F/E) can be accessed. * The 707 1965-era panel didn't work at all (FSX crashed) * The DC-8 panel loaded, but the only visible gauges were those from my own DC8ENGINES.GAU.
|
|
|
Post by George Carty - HJG on Mar 26, 2007 14:15:32 GMT
I've checked and found that the alternative FixedWindow views (which I used for the F/E panel and overhead on my 707/720 panels) are not supported in FSX - Microsoft has obviously committed itself completely to 3D virtual flight decks (which no HJG aircraft has, AFAIK). For this reason I don't think I'd be able to do much with the 707/720 panels where FSX is concerned. (Those particular panels are also complicated by their custom lighting arrangements).
FSX has also abandoned for support for FS98-style single gauges. On my 707 panel only the windscreen wipers are handled by such a gauge, but there are several such gauges on the DC-8 panel. I still don't know why DC8SW.GAU doesn't seem to work either in FSX...
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Mar 26, 2007 21:20:40 GMT
HMMM .... just as well we remain as FS2004 dedicasted website Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by Tony Madge - HJG on Mar 27, 2007 16:44:22 GMT
I did buy FSX and all the UK VFR scenery. I can say that I tried it did not like it and sold the lot on!!!
|
|
|
Post by kchilds59 on Jun 13, 2007 13:48:31 GMT
Over the last few years, I've thoroughly enjoyed flying the 707 & DC-8 repaints provided here. My thanks to you guys for making FS that much more fun. Unfortunately though, impulsiveness got the best of me and I've thus made 2 expensive mistakes: First, I wanted to try FSX and second, try it on Vista Home Premium. My computer system is fairly robust and Vista is a very stable OS. FSX seems to work OK on Vista with the sliders at 75%. But, while I like Vista, I simply don't like FSX. Using FSX makes me miss FS2004 that much more. And, since FS2004 with HJG and POSKY repaints crashes every time on Vista, I might as well reinstall WinXP with FS2004 and go back to the good ol' days. The only good result from "upgrading" to FSX & Vista is now I spend more time playing with my kids rather than trying to fly DC-8-61 approaches into Kai Tak with 1000 ft ceilings..
|
|
|
Post by Tony Madge - HJG on Jun 13, 2007 14:07:31 GMT
Thats a worry re Vista.... I am sorry to say FS9 and XP will be my bread and butter set up for many years to come ;D
|
|
|
Post by bluestar on Jun 14, 2007 0:42:31 GMT
Tony,
>Thats a worry re Vista.... I am sorry to say FS9 and XP will be my bread and butter set up for many years to come <
I run Vista and FS9 and don't have any problems with the HJG or any other add-ons. FSX has not been a problem either.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Jun 14, 2007 0:51:40 GMT
Due to a recent PC problem, I was talking to a highly competent engineer here of many years experience. We got to talking about VISTA .... and he commented that in his honest oppinion it was a basically good OS, and most problems currently being realised by its users are maybe attributable to (a) lack of personal familiarity with the new system and all its functions .... and (b) the fact that other software/hardware producers (and this may very well apply to FS) simply haven't got up to speed yet in respect of their driver development for VISTA related applications/operations. I guess only time will tell ! Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|