Next From Skysim!

[stegs]

I now have both sims on my computer and FS9 is still the preferred piece of kit for many reasons
but I was happily surprised at how well my computer handled FSX.
My first download for FSX was DaveGs Beaufighter.
Not exactly my cup of tea but I could see what the future was. And it looked the business.
Rick is doing a Hawk for FSX.
I'll give it a whirl just to see how much better it will be than the default rubbish in FSX.
I have too many addons in FS9 to turn to the darkside completely but I'll support
any top notch addons in FSX because eventually we will all be there.

If this sounds pretentious it's just that I've had so much enjoyment out of Rick's
stuff I don't want him to give up

Steve

[Paul K]

Have to echo Garry's words. FSX is the expanding market, no matter what us FS9-flyers would like to see, and Skysim has to look to the future. 5 years from now, it'll make commercial sense to have a product range for what will be the most widely-used version of FS by that time, than spending time accomodating what is inevitably a shrinking customer base.

The Hawk is not on my sort of thing, ( me and small fast jets don't get along ) but I'm hugely impressed with whats going into it, and what it may presage in terms of future projects. I will be getting FSX without a shadow of a doubt, and it will be thrilling to travel along with this new wave of modelling.

Have at 'em, Rick !

[SkippyBing]

I'm pretty sure I could paint a more realistic paint in FS9 than anything you will see in FSX.

No go on do it, if not STFU.

FSX has a number of options for the devloper that simply aren't available in FS9. For one it can handle a lot more polys than FS9, ergo a more detailed and accurate model.

If you're sticking with FS9 because you've paid s*** loads of money for add ons then fair enough, if your computer can't get decent frame rates then again fair enough, but don't come up with c*** like the above because it shows a complete lack of understanding of basic model making.

Personaly the Hawk is the first piece of payware I've seen that I plan to get on day one, from what I've seen on the forums combined with my vague understanding of what's possible in FSX, it's exploiting the engine to the full for the best possible result.

[Tweek]

Been attacked via E mail too over no FS9 model and that makes me even more determined to never go near FS9 ever again.

And they're the kind of people that don't deserve the addons they want. I'm not sure how you deal with these people, but I'd struggle not to and tell each and every one to go **** themselves.

[tonymadge]

Oh dear Ed has stirred up a row which I am sure he did not intend to
Rick no doubt about it (make a good song title that !) the Hawk is a fine piece of software which is one of the reasons I have been lured back to the dark side.. and if I am lured with my puny system then it must be good
I have and will be a FS9 fan, only yesterday I took out the Varsity in "BEA colours...DaveB know what I am on about ;-) and enjoyed the flight. But I realise that despite my howls of protest at FSX I have had to dip my toe in the water again... especially as everyone says it runs better with the patches.
So dont get wound up by disenters and Beta testers... although I cant understand a Beta tester "slaying you" over the Hawk... in pics it looks stunning!
all the best Tony
ps Ed I know you have done some great paints in the past and I am sure they will stand up against anything but I really doubt if they would better FSX as the bump mapping etc does make things look more "real".....maybe if you painted one in FSX then saw the difference??

[TSR2]

Fair comments Tony... Tony Madge.... the voice of reason! There's a turn up for the books! ;-)

[Garry Russell]

Also the comment about accurate models is wrong as well

it makes a big difference. FS.X allows modelling to go further and be better for it.

I am stuck not due to poly limits but FS.X would enable me to do those last few things I wanted to do.

No doubt about it...... proper FS.X models are better and the finish is better as well if the modeller does it correctly which in this case he has.

But why should anyone bother when all they get is bleating that they want it for another Sim.



Garry

[tonymadge]

Tony Madge.... the voice of reason! There's a turn up for the books!

Dont get spreading that rumour around... I feel misrepresented

[Garry Russell]

Garry

[TSR2]

All of the guys who develope models for Flightsim deserve medals. I remember DM getting continual hasstle to update the Trident from 2002 to 2004... and then folk complaining when the 2004 model didn't work as expected in 2002.

It seems things have got worse. I stupidly though with Rick working for Skysim that it would possibly deflect some of the crap he has to deal with with earlier freeware releases, but from our conversations this definately isn't the case.

It seems that the FS Community at large is now made up of more w@nk3rs than ever. Who is going to develope a commercial model for a sim thats 4 years old.... the economics don't really stand up... especially for a new start business like skysim.

I wish we could go back to the good old days, were people where much more gentlemanly. Nowdays, it seems its I, Me, My.... not much of a comunity spirit that.