|
|
Post by Falcon on Sept 4, 2011 16:33:14 GMT
Being somewhat new to FS, it appears to me there are more options in and for FS9 than FSX. Is that a correct assumption, since I only have FSX. The grass looks greener over on FS9 side. If so is there any way to obtain FS9 now?
|
|
|
|
Post by Herman on Sept 4, 2011 16:53:57 GMT
Try Amazon.
Herman
|
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Sept 4, 2011 19:20:00 GMT
You have to remember that FS9 has been out for 6 years now versus the 3 years of FSX. In addition, many of the FS9 offerings are nearly direct port-overs from FS2002, which did not require the substantial reworking of the model that FSX does for an FS9 model. This is the main reason why you seem to see less options for FSX.
Nothing against HJG, but most of their models (the DC-8, the 707, and the Convairs) are FS2002/FS2004 models that are quite "aged" in the computer-timeline sense and the fact that they even work in FSX is a small miracle because of that.
FSX also suffered at the hands of M$ and its decision to push out FSX even though DX10 wasn't ready and thus FSX is, in many ways, the red-headed stepchild of the FS series because it promised a lot in DX10 but because of M$'s decision, came out as a DX9 product trying to do DX10 things. This resulted in a very CPU-intensive program that is reminiscent of FS2000 which also didn't see as much development as compared to FS98 and FS2002 and FS2004 because of its demand for performance.
Additionally, with the coming of Microsoft Flight and the still questionable requirements (i.e. what really will be portable) many developers, both payware and freeware are "holding off" their long-term projects until they know what they'll need to do for their products to be Flight ready (pun fully intended). I think you'll see a renewal of full-scale development once Flight is out because it looks to be able to run on a low-end FSX platform much better, so many whom couldn't upgrade their computers to run FSX may be able to run Flight without any major investment (maybe a new video card, but not a whole new computer).
|
|
|
|
Post by hornit - HJG on Sept 4, 2011 21:58:09 GMT
chris,
No offense but Ill believe that last sentence when I see it! I am in the process right now of building a Core I5 2500K with a cutting edge mobo/ram/video so I can play sims like Flight/Rise of Flight/ and DCS-A10 well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan K. Hansen on Sept 5, 2011 8:44:17 GMT
I think that Chris is right ... I believe that MS will now go "all the way" this time, and not trying to drag old code into this new version, and I think it is very good move, to actually use the newest technologies fully, and not trying to still hang on to some old technologies, as the case was with DX10/DX9 and the shadermodel the latter being actually the solely most responsible for the very fps-hungry things we've seen here and there.
|
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Sept 6, 2011 1:40:25 GMT
Jim, I'm not telling people not to upgrade, I'm just saying that all indications from those who've seen the product so far are saying that if you can run FSX decently (like I can) then you'll get as good or better performance out of Flight without the need for a lot of tweaking.
For example, this machine (AMD Athlon X64 3700+) is just barely enough to run FSX at a reasonable performance level (10-12 FPS in cruise, as low at 5 in heavily populated areas). However, I can run 2 examples of EVE online with moderately-high settings without any lag at 20+ FPS. I can run games like Battlefield 2 and Ghost Recon:Advanced Warrior without any lag at 30+ FPS. These programs, even though DX9 based, have much higher minimum requirements than FSX and much more complex visuals. I have 1 DX11-based program on my computer right now, Starcraft II. I can play it with up to about 800 units on screen before I start getting warnings about performance and FPS never drops below 20. From what the guys have said on other sites, I'm thinking I'll probably average about 12-15 FPS with Flight. That'll be good enough for me until I upgrade my CPU and motherboard in a year or two.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Madge - HJG on Sept 6, 2011 10:37:05 GMT
When is Flight due out? Does this mean FS2004/FSX add ons will NOT work with it? I only ask as most folk have heavy investment into FS9/FSX and as freeware seems to be in demise (thanks to FSX) It will make this hobby really expensive.... I think I may use it as stock only for VFR flying if I go to it, but keep FS9 for my airline enjoyment. Be interesting to see what it is like though beyond all the hype, I recall FS2000 and whata bag of pooh that was compared to the promises they gave, FS2002 was the real successor to fs98 so maybe Flight is the real successor to FS9??
|
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Sept 6, 2011 18:38:55 GMT
I don't know that M$ has set a release date yet for Flight. However, my understanding is that only GMAX models will be able to be ported and then will require some work to make the animations fully compatible as it will be using some of the more advanced animation techniques that are available in MAX that were not included in the FSX version of GMAX. The gauges should be pretty much 100% compatible as long as they're made to FSX standards (i.e. C/C* or XML) and I believe the scenery will be portable, but as they're removing all the legacy code and going 100% clean slate with Flight, there's a lot that won't be compatible, something that in reality most users have been asking for since FS2002.
As for Freeware "dying", I think that it's slowed down some, but there are still plenty of releases coming out for FS9 and FSX from freeware developers. I think a lot of the slowdown though has come from developers gearing up for FSX and then hearing about Flight and deciding to hold off on any major projects until Flight is better defined for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Falcon on Sept 6, 2011 19:13:36 GMT
OK! Thanks for the info from all! I guess I'll stay with FSX as I have a ball with it. By the way HJG's aeroplanes work great in my FSX. Not an elaborate computer, a HP off the shelf 3 years ago, just added a GPU, less that $100.00 USA, clock it out and am getting high FPS in cruise- 30 to 50, and down in the 20's in high traffic. Of course I've tweaked the FSX settings for each aircraft and area, and increase the GPU Core, Shader, and Memory clock a bit. Thanks to all and keep the blue side up!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan K. Hansen on Sept 6, 2011 19:49:03 GMT
Well we are all eager to see the SDK...! It would be nice to see just the preliminaries, and hopefully the SDK will be released together with the product itself...
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 6, 2011 21:55:04 GMT
I imagine that "IF" FS freeware is "slowing down" at all .... then that's possibly a reflection of the fact that some of the better developers/groups are probably unwilling to spend the huge amounts of time necessary, now, in order to develop more complex/quality products for FS with FLIGHT "supposedly" not being too far away .... until the new product is publicly available, and it then becomes apparent how whatever they're develioping might be implicated by it, and .... as Dan implies .... the SDK's for this next FS version are all publicly available for them to further manipulate/improve whatever it is they might currently be planning. As I recall .... FS FREEWARE followed a similar trend (slowing down somewhat) immediately prior to the release of FS2002, and again also prior to the release of FS2004 too. I likely won't be going to FLIGHT (I never went to FSX either for that matter) .... as I currently re-assess/re-evaluate precisely what I want to do and where I'll go from here .... "IF" I want to go anywhere further at all !  Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 10, 2011 7:22:05 GMT
Mein bruder/My brother is right into those 2 simulations at the moment Jim ! Drop him query "HERE" regarding either sim Jim .... and I'm sure he'll be happy to oblige He's just yelling at me from across the room now .... so .... I'll let him him take over the key board as follows since he has both RISE OF FLIGHT and DCS A10C installed Mark C AKL/NZ Heya Jim I've run into a problem trying to update the programe itself. On install (which runs fine) I have version 1.01 but cannot download the updates to V1.09. If I go step by step from the website - the download links start at V1.05?? And I cant update. I have bitten the bullet and gone now straight to the the top and am downloading V1.9 (over a gig!) hope it sorts me out. It certainly does look like a striking Sim as I have and thorougly enjoyed DCS Black Shark. I'm eagerly awaiting the release of the F-16. Both my brother and I spend many Hours flying "DI's" F-16 Fighting Falcon. Otherwise from the "fresh" install - everything does run A-OK James C aka "VON DRINKOFTEN" P.S You WILL LOVE Rise Of Flight!! So long as you have a good stick/rudder combo. |
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 10, 2011 7:50:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by +mrfaosfx on Oct 2, 2011 13:47:27 GMT
I remember FS2000 and what garbage it was, it was so bad I stuck to FS98 and then when they announced FS2002, I was excited and FS2002 really was a great sim! FS2004 [FS9] was a pretty good release as well and it is what I use the most today [FS9 was heavy and I mean heavily criticized when it came out and it took people a while to switch over]
When I saw FSX, I was excited as well, eager waiting for the release. At that time, I started planning for a high end system, I would always save money for future releases, this time I had saved up $4,000+ and built the most powerful machine I could ... CrossFireX, Quad-Core, 12Gb of RAM, 1TB hard-drives ... when I installed FSX on this system and moved the sliders to the right...I was heart struck to find I could only achieve a minimum of 12 fps ... what was even more of a joke was how MS locked the simulator at 20 fps ... 20 fps makes a really bad jerky simulation but apparently Microsoft understood that some how the flight sim community was more into eye candy than performance ... many developers took advantage of this fact, CaptainSim and others, pump in so much detail into their aircraft that its what drives their sales ... and people like it, they don't care if they get 10 fps with their shiny new add-on ... all people do is take pictures these days, not everyone is making flights ... well since MS killed massively multiplayer people can't socialize they way they used and this has killed things off.
Part of why FS2002 was so successful was because of its viral marketing that occured in the MSN Gaming Zone. When I came from work, I would log in and I could find tons of people who liked flight simulator, I could sit and chat with them and if I wanted to, gather a group of peeps and plan a flight ... the current multiplayer design that FSX offers does not let you do this...its sort of random.
We all know Windows VISTA was a commercial failure, it was so bad that Microsoft cut support for it when Windows 7 came out and Windows XP is still going strong ... we can all assume that FSX is another Windows VISTA and hopefully FLIGHT will be its Windows7.
So far based on the pictures, it appears that they are taking the eye-candy route ... I have not really seen any videos showing real-time performance doing some bush flying ... I bush fly more than anything myself because it is more exciting.
I have my fingers crossed, the only thing I miss from the old FS days is multiplayer and lots of friends. I remember in FS2002 once, I was doing some bush flying with almost 16 people, I was the last one in and had the priviledge to watch 15 people some guys even girls!! waiting to watch me coming in to land ... thats a very cool experience and nicer when every says "nice landing faos!" they need to invest more in multiplayer, I also helped a lot of people out in multiplayer, even taught some to fly ... we had a group called the GOD team, I think everybody remembers them, lol...I was known as GOD_OF_JUMBOS oh man the memories see thats what I'm talking about, you can't build memories flying alone ... you need friends man ... I hope FLIGHT can change all of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Oct 2, 2011 18:32:47 GMT
I'm not sure how back in the FS history you go, but there's another thing going on with MS Flight, and that's the release cycle. Microsoft had, prior to FS2004, been in a cycle of "Push too far then get it right". FS5 was a bit far for its time. FS5.1 fixed it. FS95 was a bit far, FS98 fixed it. FS2000 was mediocre (the odd man out), FS2002 was a hog, FS2004 was great. FSX was too far, Flight (will supposedly) be the "fix" to all the ills of FSX. One thing most people forget is that Flight is a full departure from the legacy FS code. Thus, there's nothing left of the old flight dynamics and graphics engines, especially the parts of the graphics engine that rely so heavily on the CPU. The graphics with Flight don't look particularly "over the top" compared to other games out there right now, suggesting that they're not trying to blow us away, just get caught up to the "state of the art" which I can run fine on my old Athlon 64+ due to having a kick-butt graphics card. So, as long as they really have moved the graphics over to the GPU where they've been trying to move them for the better part of 8 years, then we'll have a good release.
|
|
