Looking forward to FS10?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Having had to wipe my main HD and re-install everything (luckily data and
d/loads are on the other HD so easily recoverable) I started to think about
the next FS - 10 or 2006 or "This'll empty your bank account" or whatever.

Now I haven't got the amount of add-ons that some of you have but it has
still taken a couple of days to get FS9 back to how it was. So then I
wondered if things like the PMDG 737 or Visual Flights VFR terrain or
Project AI a/craft would work in the new version. If they don't do I want
it? I could, after all, upgrade my PC to run FS9 at a reasonable fps with
most features at maximum and gain maximum benefit from my add-ons, whereas
FS10 is likely to need an even better machine.

It will be interesting to read what the MS blurb says about the new version.
I may well not rush into buying it straight away but use you good people as
guinea pigs and see what your experiences are!! But either way I feel it's
something of a dilemma. What do you think? :0))

Iain

 

[canuck]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

I rather think you are getting ahead of yourself here, MS haven't even
announced for sure they are definately going ahead with the sim. I recall a
job ad for a project manager recently but that means squat. MS could just
as easily pull the plug - remember they got well into CFS4 and canned that.
Given that they do not I think we must expect a major change as FS2004 was
more of a refining of FS2002. Likewise FS2000 was an upgrade of FS98 and so
on.
Having seen some of the screens from CFS4 - if they were to be believed, the
graphics looked seriously upgraded indicating that demands on the Processor
would be substantial.
Oh how I wish they would make more use of the Graphics card memory.
But as for a/c they seem committed to GMAX so presumably those designed as
such will be OK but those designed with other programs may well be adversely
affected.
But then what do I know, It's all supposition based on experience gleaned
from following this damnable hobby since FS4.
Regards.

"IAIN SMITH" <iainsmith.rugby@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:d0vnuk$f86$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> Having had to wipe my main HD and re-install everything (luckily data and
> d/loads are on the other HD so easily recoverable) I started to think
> about the next FS - 10 or 2006 or "This'll empty your bank account" or
> whatever.
>
> Now I haven't got the amount of add-ons that some of you have but it has
> still taken a couple of days to get FS9 back to how it was. So then I
> wondered if things like the PMDG 737 or Visual Flights VFR terrain or
> Project AI a/craft would work in the new version. If they don't do I want
> it? I could, after all, upgrade my PC to run FS9 at a reasonable fps with
> most features at maximum and gain maximum benefit from my add-ons, whereas
> FS10 is likely to need an even better machine.
>
> It will be interesting to read what the MS blurb says about the new
> version. I may well not rush into buying it straight away but use you good
> people as guinea pigs and see what your experiences are!! But either way
> I feel it's something of a dilemma. What do you think? :0))
>
> Iain
>

 

[dallas]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Canuck"
> MS could just
> as easily pull the plug - remember they got well into CFS4 and canned
that.

Ya know what?... we would likely be OK if they did sack the FS10 product.

Think about it:

ActiveSky fixed the weather, FSNav fixed the flight planning, FSGenesis
fixed the mesh, RealityXP fixed the GPS, Megascenery fixed the terrain,
USARoads fixed the VFR navigation and a million aircraft modelers have fixed
all the aircraft you could ever need.

What more do you want?


Dallas

 

[DB]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

I want better ATC so that it uses published SIDs and STARs.

And yes I know there is something out there too, and you also have VATSIM
and the like. But, I rather have all those improvements within the program
rather than have to rely on 3rd party to come up with them - and I for one
am extremely grateful of the 3rd party developers out there.

Perhaps FS10 will be the "end of the road" as far as the core program is
concerned.

Damian

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Iain,

Beware the 'upgrade my PC and FS will run better trap'!

I just upgraded from a P4 2.53 400fsb machine to a P4 3.4 800fsb along with
motherboard, memory and hard drives. I was getting 4fps at UK2000 Heathrow
Pro - and I still am.

It appears it's more about settings than hardware. I expect if you could
turn off the ground, the sky, the sea and the plane it would run at a
decent speed....

Jon
"IAIN SMITH" <iainsmith.rugby@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:d0vnuk$f86$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> Having had to wipe my main HD and re-install everything (luckily data and
> d/loads are on the other HD so easily recoverable) I started to think
> about the next FS - 10 or 2006 or "This'll empty your bank account" or
> whatever.
>
> Now I haven't got the amount of add-ons that some of you have but it has
> still taken a couple of days to get FS9 back to how it was. So then I
> wondered if things like the PMDG 737 or Visual Flights VFR terrain or
> Project AI a/craft would work in the new version. If they don't do I want
> it? I could, after all, upgrade my PC to run FS9 at a reasonable fps with
> most features at maximum and gain maximum benefit from my add-ons, whereas
> FS10 is likely to need an even better machine.
>
> It will be interesting to read what the MS blurb says about the new
> version. I may well not rush into buying it straight away but use you good
> people as guinea pigs and see what your experiences are!! But either way
> I feel it's something of a dilemma. What do you think? :0))
>
> Iain
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Jon Silk" <jon@silk.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d128r6$l9t$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Iain,
>
> Beware the 'upgrade my PC and FS will run better trap'!
>
> I just upgraded from a P4 2.53 400fsb machine to a P4 3.4 800fsb along
> with motherboard, memory and hard drives. I was getting 4fps at UK2000
> Heathrow Pro - and I still am.

Jon,

I take your point but a friend of mine has just upgraded his m/board to an
Athlon 64 3000 and a GeForce 5700 and the frame rates he gets are some 40%
better than my Athlon XP2400+ and GeForce 4 Ti4200. However, I have tried
highly detailed add-on airports in the past and found them to give
appallingly low frame rates, so I steer clear of them.

I have Project AI aircraft installed (commercial only) and with 100% set I
don't get below 12 fps at the default LHR and this airport looks reasonable
to me. :0))

Iain

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 20:45:55 -0000, Jon Silk wrote:

> I just upgraded from a P4 2.53 400fsb machine to a P4 3.4 800fsb along with
> motherboard, memory and hard drives. I was getting 4fps at UK2000 Heathrow
> Pro - and I still am.

Just out of curiosity, what do you get when you're not in that particular
scenery's area of coverage? That secenery is using the older and now
nearly extinct scenery methods and is likely the cause of your slow
performance.

I'm getting a solid 30 fps even in a heavily customized KORD with up to 70
AI active flights running around the apt. My specs aren't much better than
your "old" system...

Bill

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Hi Iain

I think you are still one upgrade ahead of me as I'm still on the Athlon
1700+ Some of my airports combined with the latest tech planes has turned
simming into a slide show.. a term we often hear now. I went down to a
place yesterday where I can get a home built my specs at quite a very good
price although my son does a great job too.
FS 10?? I would be quite happy with the status quo plus photographic type
scenery or close to. I don't worry about the aircraft as others build
better.

Regards
Don

"IAIN SMITH" <iainsmith.rugby@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:d149f0$5g7$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
>
> "Jon Silk" <jon@silk.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d128r6$l9t$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Iain,
>>
>> Beware the 'upgrade my PC and FS will run better trap'!
>>
>> I just upgraded from a P4 2.53 400fsb machine to a P4 3.4 800fsb along
>> with motherboard, memory and hard drives. I was getting 4fps at UK2000
>> Heathrow Pro - and I still am.
>
> Jon,
>
> I take your point but a friend of mine has just upgraded his m/board to an
> Athlon 64 3000 and a GeForce 5700 and the frame rates he gets are some 40%
> better than my Athlon XP2400+ and GeForce 4 Ti4200. However, I have tried
> highly detailed add-on airports in the past and found them to give
> appallingly low frame rates, so I steer clear of them.
>
> I have Project AI aircraft installed (commercial only) and with 100% set I
> don't get below 12 fps at the default LHR and this airport looks
> reasonable to me. :0))
>
> Iain
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"donbutts" <removethisdonneybutts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fIJZd.9983$1S4.1059722@news.xtra.co.nz...
> FS 10?? I would be quite happy with the status quo plus photographic type
> scenery or close to. I don't worry about the aircraft as others build
> better.

Hi Don,

Yes better default scenery would be good, especially more accurate mesh. I
know there's a lot of good stuff out there but the files are huge and
d/loading on a dial-up takes ages. I can ask my son-in-law hwo's on
broadband but I don't want to become a pain! Even if FS had to cost more
because of more disks, bigger programme, etc I would like global mesh to be
more accurate. Photographic? Maybe asking a bit much and needing expensive
graphics cards!

Iain

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

G'day Damian ,
Could you imagine how many discs an all inclusive
sim like that would have? I have just re-installed FS2002 (3 discs) , SRTM
(2 discs) aircraft (7 discs) scenery addons,mainly for Australia (5 discs)
auxilliary programs (1 disc) and Navdata for the Payware aircraft (1/2
disc).
Thats a total of 18.5 discs ,, and I am sure that many people have a lot
more installed than I do .Installation time , about 6.5 hours.
Even a huge concern like Micro$oft would be hard pressed to release a
program that large .
As for FS10 , I would like it bug free out of the box , on any operating
system .

I can dream can't I?

Ross

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:ay%Yd.8183$oO4.3635@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Canuck"
> > MS could just
> > as easily pull the plug - remember they got well into CFS4 and canned
> that.
>
> Ya know what?... we would likely be OK if they did sack the FS10 product.
>
> Think about it:
>
> ActiveSky fixed the weather, FSNav fixed the flight planning, FSGenesis
> fixed the mesh, RealityXP fixed the GPS, Megascenery fixed the terrain,
> USARoads fixed the VFR navigation and a million aircraft modelers have
fixed
> all the aircraft you could ever need.
>
> What more do you want?
World wide photo realistic scenery in one box.
>
>
> Dallas
>
>

 

[Bob]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

>>Think about it:
>>
>> Megascenery fixed the terrain,
>>USARoads fixed the VFR navigation and a million aircraft modelers have
>
> fixed

uhhh, Megascenery fixed the terrain if you're flying above 2000 feet or
so.

I'm easy.
All I want is correct roads, correct Rail Road tracks, and correct high
voltage power lines. That's all I need to navigate VFR cross country. I
don't remember, nor do I care, if there is a farm house over there.


PS And fire towers. Flying through parts of Missouri that's all you got.

--

boB

U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"IAIN SMITH" <iainsmith.rugby@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:d19prh$2te$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
> "donbutts" <removethisdonneybutts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fIJZd.9983$1S4.1059722@news.xtra.co.nz...
>> FS 10?? I would be quite happy with the status quo plus photographic type
>> scenery or close to. I don't worry about the aircraft as others build
>> better.
>
> Hi Don,
>
> Yes better default scenery would be good, especially more accurate mesh. I
> know there's a lot of good stuff out there but the files are huge and
> d/loading on a dial-up takes ages. I can ask my son-in-law hwo's on
> broadband but I don't want to become a pain! Even if FS had to cost more
> because of more disks, bigger programme, etc I would like global mesh to
> be more accurate. Photographic? Maybe asking a bit much and needing
> expensive graphics cards!
>
> Iain
Hi Iain
Photographic as in appearance not the real thing as I agree it couldnt be
done economically.

Don