Classic British Flight Sim

I take your point, but if you take the hawk as an example, I flew in in DX10 for a week, which was great, but went back to normal after verified thatit wasn't broken.

To be honest, I know a few developers developing full FSX models and getting someone else with a Vista box to make sure it works in DX10.... notice I say works rather than optomised.

Given that the gaming sector is still all DX9, I don't think the DX10 / Vista issue is a big one, as long as someone has tested it prior to release.

Horses for courses I guess.

:brick:

Only reason why I went back to DX9 is that I had a strange runway texture shimmering problem and the lack of DX10 AI packages.

Michael (as always) has given me much scope for thought, can developers make the profit they require with FSX only sales, given the extra work required? Maybe Rick's Hawk will be the first real test, along with the RealAir Spit. Alphasim is still making for both sims, but look what has happened to their output! Even with Dan working full time, the gestation periods are getting huge! They used to make all their business by 'knocking them out cheap (10 quid) and a 2 new models a month', now we get one model every two months and the prices are sky high to cover this fact! Maybe there is still a market for FS2004 stuff alone from them?

As far as good freeware, MS has seen their FS product continue to sell on the back of all this free stuff for years. I think that this was not properly thought through.....or perhaps we 'dedicated users' do not really count. Who knows how many FS packages are bought at Woolies, Walmart or similar and only ever used in 'vanilla' mode.

We keep going on about the "gestation period" for FSX.

People seem to be forgeting how long some of our (the royal our) stuff took to get out. I'm pretty sure that if Rick or DM had something out within 9 months that was quick. And I distinctly remember the Argosy taking well over a year.

Captain Sim (only mentioning because they where one of the obvious ones) took years to bring out new models.

If we're using AS as a bench mark, yes, maybe it has affected the way they develope models, for the better I'd say, in that the quality of some of the new stuff is very high.

Or maybe all those who spent the first year birating FSX without trying to make it better are now on the back foot as its now a great sim, with more and more people realising that since SP2 at least, a lot of the ranting about it was just that, ranting. The past few months have seen several of our number buy it and be quite happy with it, on very modest PC's.

There were always a hardcore of developers who took the plunge first, when the sim changed versions. I remember many of us on here waiting patiently for DM's VC10 and Trident updates from 2002 to 2004. The differences between 2002 - 2004 where less in the visual side, but more in the FDE / panel, so many where more forgiving of 2004 as the aircraft still "looked" great, even though some of their characteristics where far from it.

The one thing we are all forgetting, is that we (the users) have become much more decerning, not just in FSX, but what the developers can now do in FS9 is much more advanced than in the early days. If you compair DM's VC10 with the Comet for example, many of us would expect a new VC10 to be as complext as the Comet (VC etc) (Personally I'd just be happy with an FSX VC10 and the old panel... hint hint )

Anyway, in short, its natural evolution, and once you learn the tools and have a consistant FSX platform (i.e. SP2) I don't think it takes that much longer to build an FSX model, certainly not by compairing Ricks Argosy or 748 with the Hawk, they all had similar development periods.

:brick:

:think:

Hmm..
The very thing that made FS9 a 'Great' sim was the amount of support it got across the fsim world and this in no small part due to the amount of addons that hit the market in pretty short order. Addons are what make any sim of this type worth having as straight out of the box, they're all rather bland. It is without doubt the support from both freeware and payware (freeware in particular) that has kept FlightSim going over the years and without it.. it'd probably have died the death a long time ago. The support certainly doesn't seem to be there with FSX.. for whatever reason and this is it's problem :think:

ATB

DaveB :tab:

XR219 wrote:Given that the gaming sector is still all DX9, I don't think the DX10 / Vista issue is a big one, as long as someone has tested it prior to release.

Slight major sidetrack now!

Crysis, Halo 4 (When they get their arse in gear and release it), Call of Duty 4 and Portal are all DX10.0 native, but work in backwards compatability mode (Which for COD4 is the default?!)......Not flight sim games, but just thought it better to bring it up



As for the actual question....I'm 17.....I have pretty much no money, freeware developers are all I can look forward to.....I'm also not a serious simmer, so if it's a FS9 port-over...SO WHAT?! My FSX SP1 equipped laptop runs with 10-15FPS, which is fine for me. (That's with Vista btw). As FS9 doesn't work on my laptop, I've only ever used FSX, so I can't really say I've "moved over" but I still don't understand all the negativity invloved.....if you want to upgrade, do so. Otherwise spend the money on a holiday somewhere! (And I mean a real one!)

Hi Michael

your posts are a bit complex for simple answers for me.
My attempt ;-)

FSX "for me" is the better sim or game or whatever you want to call it.

Going FSX native was an extreamely frustrating experience but in my view afterwards was worth the struggle.
(but no way would i have said it was worth the effort on the way!).
yes it was a far more

Hawk took 9 to 10 months but i had years of data gathered beforehand which still was not enough.(Felixtowe Bookshop Raid needed)
and a full day at RAF Scampton climbing all over 2 partly dismantled Red Arrows and all the flight and maint manuals
I also in this time had to learn XML programming to a reasonable level (basic)

I am a very slow modeller anyway and FSDS3.5 is a much slower process than Max or GMAX as it's manual in every way.

I think the difference is i love making models in Wood ,Plastic ,paper or on the computer
it's been my hobby since i was about 5 with an Airfix Bag kit every week if i could earn enough pocket money.

all I hope is to make a few hundred people enjoy my efforts and feel thay have not been ripped off.

like you say you don't like FSX so i don't see your going to be comfortable making models for it.
lucky for me Dave Nunez stepped in and built a Materials toolset (FSDSxTweak) that allows me to make FSX native models with everything working except Bone/Skin Animation.

Regards
Rick

:brick: