Am I FSX Ready?

[speedbird591]

Yay! Sorted out the viewpoint!

I did a google on the subject and found the answer in a forum. MS have changed the command (as Myles thought) in the 2D cockpit view from 'eyepoint (move up)' to 'View (always pan up)'. I can't begin to imagine why! If you're interested it's ctrl+Q (up) and ctrl+shift+Q (down) or program some buttons. No wonder I couldn't find it! Anyway, back on track. We can now land airliners in FSX :roll:

Nigel, thank you for your kind words about my little project. I'm glad you're finding it helpful and I hope others are too. Hopefully it will help people who are undecided whether or not to risk their £50. I'm glad I did it. Not because I have decided which sim I prefer - I haven't done that yet - but because it has answered a lot of questions that I had.

So now that I can fly the VC10 properly, I can do some exploring and find out what FSX can do for me that FS9 can't. Here's one for starters. This is Manchester in real world weather (no, really ) Watch the tug as I press shift+P to pushback.





Is that worth £50? Perhaps not yet but I'll let you know what else I find to justify the expense

Ian

[speedbird591]

I'm going to wrap this thread up, now. I've done some circuits in my favourite aircraft at my favourite airports so I can do a direct comparison between the two sims and I'm going to stick with FS9.

It's not because I don't like FSX, it's simply because my laptop isn't powerful enough to allow me to run enough of it's features in the type of flying that I most enjoy. As Garry suggested, FSX defintely has the potential and a powerful enough PC would release it, but using a modestly powered machine means that to get a smooth performance in my type of simming, I have to turn the detail down so far that the experience is not as good as in FS9.

This comparison only applies to default international airport scenery in both sims, which is always going to put the maximum strain on the resources, but it's where I want to be. I think the scenery and dynamics are better in FSX but once above 5,000 feet there's little difference either way. So if you fly low and stay away from big airports, then FSX is probably better. I tried out some of the 'missions' that I have experienced in real life. A floatplane in Alaska, a microlight in an African Game Park and a light aircraft in the Caribbean and the atmosphere in FSX was quite life-like and the performance reasonably good even on my laptop. So if that was my type of simming I'd have chosen to make the switch. I don't have the time to do that as well as the jetliner stuff, otherwise I'd keep both.

I would have liked to unlock some of the airport features such as the pushback tugs and moving airport vehicles but with all the AI traffic and buildings at the airports, there was no way and they all looked a bit empty compared to my FS9. Especially my beloved 9 Dragons!

So there you go. I hope some of you found this useful or interesting. I did - and learnt a lot from it. Thanks to all of you from the Dark Side who shared your knowledge with me. You're not as evil as you like to make out.

I'm really grateful for the assistance, but the Federation needs my help more .....

Ian

[nigelb]

Ian, thanks for your analysis - well reasoned and interesting. Confirms what I suspected would be the case in my situation. I have an older desktop and I am sure it would not do FSX justice so I am sticking with FS9.

[Rich]

Toying with the idea of re installing FSX, I have the release to manufacture Beta version which I have never installed due to trauma from beta's 1 and 2 but it seems I may have to bite the bullet.

From what I have read in this thread I only need to download Acceleration as the 2 service packs are part of it (a 2.5 gig download) am I correct ?

[TSR2]

I didn't think Acceleration was available as a download? The service packs are a few hundred meg each from memory.

[Rich]

Installed FSX and Accelerator ok with no problems so the Wyvern flies in all it's glory though I will keep the beta for Fs9 to use there, also got the Ark steaming off Gib and made 2 approaches, the first was a disaster, hit to hard and bounced 50 ft back into the air, went around this time although not so hard I did catch a cable and stopped with the left main wheel 6 inches from the deck edge.

Skip I have looked at the hook catch point and it is in the tailwheel well which may explain the need for a hard 3 pointer I have relocated it as I did in the beta version, some brave souls may want to try it.

Back up your aircraft.cfg and replace the tailhook section with this, you will see Skip's origional setting is still there but remmed out so you can go back to the old if this does'nt work for you.

[tailhook]
tailhook_length = 4.500
tailhook_position = -25.35, 0.00, -3.81 //-21.700, 0.000, -1.100

Thing to do now is figure out how to get the Ark steaming north - south from Subic bay it's doing my head in.