Good FSX Teachings?

On another random note, I love what FSX has done to me. Now anytime I fly, when we get ready to land I am talking to myself wahts happening in my head. (Okay now theyre lining up with the localizer, we've hit the glideslope, touchdown and speedbreakes in 3, 2, 1) lol

I find it funny.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by USNSRCaseySmith

I had FS 1998 but 2004 was in a engineering class where we learned to do different engineering systems like flying and such, that was the first time i saw the beauty of the mountains and was like ,its gorgeous :P

Nice

When I was little, Dad came home with FS2002 Pro edition and I fell in love with flying right then, right there. I spent hours with it....then FS2004....and now....Modded FS2004

Should upgrade to FSX.

Originally Posted by Red October1984

Nice

When I was little, Dad came home with FS2002 Pro edition and I fell in love with flying right then, right there. I spent hours with it....then FS2004....and now....Modded FS2004

Should upgrade to FSX.

Be sure your computer can handle it.. it taxes a computer bad.

So I just had a flight from LAX to Tijuana, and all was good, had the autopilot line up the localizer and capture the glideslope, disengaged and dropped my speed (I had it coming in at 180) and slammed into the ground and crashed ) I have some training to do.. poop.

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

It's painted in big white letters at the start of each runway.

I thought you were messing with me but now I remember, the numbers are your course heading.. haha thanks for the reply. Sorry for being a douche.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by USNSRCaseySmith

Be sure your computer can handle it.. it taxes a computer bad.

I could run the demo just fine...but I hear all the time about how demanding it is...

Originally Posted by Red October1984

I could run the demo just fine...but I hear all the time about how demanding it is...

Same with my old computer. The Demo is way easier on the computer. Id estimate youd probably have to play medium or low settings for really good frames throughout. I play on some Med/Higher settings and I get stutters at LAX mostly. In the air above 10k ft im usually good and smooth

[CCIP]

Also I'm not sure how much of it is an "upgrade". FS9 can do almost everything that FSX can, the only serious difference is some eye candy and compatibility with more modern add-ons - but considering those add-ons are expensive and require a computer miles better than what you have, I don't see why you'd go to FSX anyway. FS9, meanwhile, is more stable and efficient than FSX ever was or will be. If you're "upgrading", you may as well be going right to Prepar3D.

Originally Posted by CCIP

Also I'm not sure how much of it is an "upgrade". FS9 can do almost everything that FSX can, the only serious difference is some eye candy and compatibility with more modern add-ons - but considering those add-ons are expensive and require a computer miles better than what you have, I don't see why you'd go to FSX anyway. FS9, meanwhile, is more stable and efficient than FSX ever was or will be. If you're "upgrading", you may as well be going right to Prepar3D.

Do you have Prepar3D?? I'm trying to find someone with a firsthand experience on an upgrade from FSX to Prepar3D and can notice any performance or quality increases??

I mean theres youtube vids but I would really like some first hand accounts.

EDIT: It also seems there is an Aerofly Flight Simulator now as well, looks pretty nice, but I wonder how good it is.

[Skybird]

Sorry I'm late to the party. Haven't flown since many months, I'm all Assetto Corsa currently.

Updating to P3D: I caution that step, altho9gh I had high hopes for it. See here:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=210030

If your FSX is stable and you do not run into any problems, I see no urgent need to move to P3D 2.0, or 1.0. Once thought so, but no longer.

The ILS landing course: the white number on the runway is rounded and can deviate form real course up to 4°. Even 1° deviation can lead to last minute disaster. Open the map, and check the airport for the precise runway data there: course, length, altitude.

Thanks for having nominated me in those once-a-year votings!

Aerofly is looking good, but offers little variation, also it is not the ost realistic. I used it and described it here:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...hlight=Aerofly
You use it for a couple of days, maybe return for some aerobatics with simplified physics occasionally - and then forget about it.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by USNSRCaseySmith

Same with my old computer. The Demo is way easier on the computer. Id estimate youd probably have to play medium or low settings for really good frames throughout. I play on some Med/Higher settings and I get stutters at LAX mostly. In the air above 10k ft im usually good and smooth

I have to run a lot of games at med/low so that wouldn't be a big deal to me.

Originally Posted by CCIP

Also I'm not sure how much of it is an "upgrade". FS9 can do almost everything that FSX can, the only serious difference is some eye candy and compatibility with more modern add-ons - but considering those add-ons are expensive and require a computer miles better than what you have, I don't see why you'd go to FSX anyway. FS9, meanwhile, is more stable and efficient than FSX ever was or will be. If you're "upgrading", you may as well be going right to Prepar3D.

Seems like there's also JUST as many or more addons for FS9 than there is for X.

[Skybird]

Complexity of FSX addons, both scenery and cockpits, has gone much higher now than in FS9, with the new PMDG 777 apparently being the new king on the hill (I have not tried it so far). In the early years, FS9 had the edge over FSX in IFR, with FSX being superior in VFR. But that gap in IFR has reversed, FSX now has the lead in that field. For that reaosn, the really complex aircraft addons no longer are done for FS9, it just cannot support their needs in software preconditions (not to mention hardware demands).

Regarding flight physics and simulation of the air and how especially small planes behave in it, FSX is better. FS9 is too undynamic there. I don't say FSX does it fully realistically, but it is much better than FS9.

If hardware sets limits, there is nothing wrong in staying with FS9 if it is stable, I did the change from 9 to X years late myself. Once the hardware is there that can support FSX, there is no argument anymore to install FS9. If one does not plan many addons and stuff, I would maybe go with P3D 2.0 (maybe one wins stability and some frames, at worse you gain nothing, but also do not get hurt). If addons, especially PMDG and aircraft stuff, is a must, I would stay with FSX currently.

Too bad that bringing P3D to 64Bit (no memory limit then anymore) is so extremely stellar a project (all addons would need to be made compatible if they should run in it), and unlikely to happen. Of course true multicore support would be welcomed, too. But also, currently no plans for that, it seems. Too bad. As PMDG indicated, the legal licensing issues also are anything but minor. I once had higher hopes for P3D.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Complexity of FSX addons, both scenery and cockpits, has gone much higher now than in FS9, with the new PMDG 777 apparently being the new king on the hill (I have not tried it so far). In the early years, FS9 had the edge over FSX in IFR, with FSX being superior in VFR. But that gap in IFR has reversed, FSX now has the lead in that field. For that reaosn, the really complex aircraft addons no longer are done for FS9, it just cannot support their needs in software preconditions (not to mention hardware demands).

Regarding flight physics and simulation of the air and how especially small planes behave in it, FSX is better. FS9 is too undynamic there. I don't say FSX does it fully realistically, but it is much better than FS9.

If hardware sets limits, there is nothing wrong in staying with FS9 if it is stable, I did the change from 9 to X years late myself. Once the hardware is there that can support FSX, there is no argument anymore to install FS9. If one does not plan many addons and stuff, I would maybe go with P3D 2.0 (maybe one wins stability and some frames, at worse you gain nothing, but also do not get hurt). If addons, especially PMDG and aircraft stuff, is a must, I would stay with FSX currently.

Too bad that bringing P3D to 64Bit (no memory limit then anymore) is so extremely stellar a project (all addons would need to be made compatible if they should run in it), and unlikely to happen. Of course true multicore support would be welcomed, too. But also, currently no plans for that, it seems. Too bad. As PMDG indicated, the legal licensing issues also are anything but minor. I once had higher hopes for P3D.

Soooo its confirmed then?? Thats a bummer, still beingi.. V2.0 looks like its solved alot of problems and made alot of optimizations that FSX does not have. After comparing side by side videos, as well as watching the framerates in said videos, with Identical settings, P3D has managed to pull out better frame rates sometimes far better in instances. That and the fact that LM is currently supporting it and still working on it. Still makes me want to give it a shot, granted I will probably wait until I get a proper desktop rig running.

EDIT: And no problem for the nomination, you deserved it with the length of posts you wrote up for me.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by USNSRCaseySmith

EDIT: And no problem for the nomination, you deserved it with the length of posts you wrote up for me.

For me that's difficult a statement to come to terms with. You see since 15 years everybody is complaining about the length of my posts, you must be the first one saying thanks for their lengths. Feels like being warped into an alternate reality.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by Skybird

For me that's difficult a statement to come to terms with. You see since 15 years everybody is complaining about the length of my posts, you must be the first one saying thanks for their lengths. Feels like being warped into an alternate reality.

I'll be honest and say I enjoy long posts in a thread if it's actually got a point and there's no arguing and bickering going on.

So about a quarter of long posts are worth reading. That doesn't just go for you.

Originally Posted by Skybird

For me that's difficult a statement to come to terms with. You see since 15 years everybody is complaining about the length of my posts, you must be the first one saying thanks for their lengths. Feels like being warped into an alternate reality.

Yours in here I usually find insightful, and very informational.