SearchSearch 

Are you a real simmer?

Pro Member Chief Captain
hms_endeavour Chief Captain

Real pilots would usually stay with fs9 after seeing what a dissapointment fsx is.
No offense if you like fsx or are getting it, But it seems a bit more like a game.

23 Responses

Pro Member First Officer
Wing-man First Officer

hms_endeavour wrote:

Real pilots would usually stay with fs9 after seeing what a dissapointment fsx is.
No offense if you like fsx or are getting it, But it seems a bit more like a game.

👍 🍻 Everybody to their own.

Pro Member Chief Captain
Greekman72 Chief Captain

I don't know how this conclusion has been taken.

Reals = FS9 ❓
Fakes = FSX ❓

😕

Doesn't make too much sense to me.Of course i cant say too much because i haven't FSX yet so i haven't personal experience... 😞
But i think that its a bit unfair as a poll question.

I'm not offending to you dear hms and you know how much i appreciate you...I don't mean also to dispute opinions from great members like Ken-Tel or Wing-Man(both good friends of mine) ❗

Just put my opinion here... 😉

EDIT:Where did the poll goes ❓



Last edited by Greekman72 on Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:26 pm, edited 2 times in total
Pro Member Chief Captain
CrashGordon Chief Captain

Those with capable computers will choose FSX because it is better.

Actually, real pilots will fly real planes.

So which is better, FSX or FS9 with $1000 worth of addons?

People who don't have something, always claim that it is not worth it.

Pro Member Captain
Bindolaf Captain

People who don't have something, always claim that it is not worth it.

Well said. I will personally wait till I have a (much) better computer, but I will probably buy FSX anyway. What does piss me off though is people who say "FSX is good, it's an excellent platform for add ons"

#$%^ that! I am paying to buy a complete game, a simulator no less, not a starting point for leeches that will have me pay 50 bucks per add on. FSX should be a revolutionary, new concept. It is not.

It is probably "a little" better than FS9, but it offers nothing revolutionary, nothing really new. It *is* a better framework for add-ons and I will get it (and them). But it still sucks - and it says a lot about us as consumers. We will just tolerate anything.

Pro Member Chief Captain
Greekman72 Chief Captain

CrashGordon wrote:

Those with capable computers will choose FSX because it is better.

Actually, real pilots will fly real planes.

So which is better, FSX or FS9 with $1000 worth of addons?

People who don't have something, always claim that it is not worth it.

👍

Pro Member First Officer
Wing-man First Officer

CrashGordon wrote:

Those with capable computers will choose FSX because it is better.

Actually, real pilots will fly real planes.

So which is better, FSX or FS9 with $1000 worth of addons?

People who don't have something, always claim that it is not worth it.

As everyone knows CG, it's very very early doors regarding FSX, as we know it's only just been released. In my case, as I'm sure with many other simmers, that has spent a great deal on payware and add-ons for FS9 in order to improve it's performance and appearance. Looking at FSX as an empty shell so to speak (no add-ons), then it is'nt going to compare with FS9 that has had alot spent and added to it. Obviously in time to come, when FSX is full of payware and is tweaked up, I'm sure it will be and look the mut's nuts, but at the moment, for me anyway, FS9 will take alot of letting go of, if ever at all. 😉

Pro Member Chief Captain
CrashGordon Chief Captain

Bindolaf wrote:

People who don't have something, always claim that it is not worth it.

Well said. I will personally wait till I have a (much) better computer, but I will probably buy FSX anyway. What does piss me off though is people who say "FSX is good, it's an excellent platform for add ons"

#$%^ that! I am paying to buy a complete game, a simulator no less, not a starting point for leeches that will have me pay 50 bucks per add on. FSX should be a revolutionary, new concept. It is not.

It is probably "a little" better than FS9, but it offers nothing revolutionary, nothing really new. It *is* a better framework for add-ons and I will get it (and them). But it still sucks - and it says a lot about us as consumers. We will just tolerate anything.

With decent textures and the ability to tighten the mesh as much as your computer can handle, a lot of addons will be unnecessary, that said, there are aircraft vendors that specialize in providing high quality aircraft. They will always provide something that MS can not provide. There will also be photoreal regional addons for those who fly in certain areas.

Revolutionary would mean a photoreal world. No one has a computer that would handle that...at least until 100 terabyte hard drives are available. 😉

Pro Member Chief Captain
CrashGordon Chief Captain

Wing-man wrote:

CrashGordon wrote:

Those with capable computers will choose FSX because it is better.

Actually, real pilots will fly real planes.

So which is better, FSX or FS9 with $1000 worth of addons?

People who don't have something, always claim that it is not worth it.

As everyone knows CG, it's very very early doors regarding FSX, as we know it's only just been released. In my case, as I'm sure with many other simmers, that has spent a great deal on payware and add-ons for FS9 in order to improve it's performance and appearance. Looking at FSX as an empty shell so to speak (no add-ons), then it is'nt going to compare with FS9 that has had alot spent and added to it. Obviously in time to come, when FSX is full of payware and is tweaked up, I'm sure it will be and look the mut's nuts, but at the moment, for me anyway, FS9 will take alot of letting go of, if ever at all. 😉

I can't argue with that. Well maybe ... there are two "t"s in mutt. 😂

Pro Member Chief Captain
Jonathan (99jolegg) Chief Captain

I agree with a lot of what has been said. Simply put, to me, it seems people are comparing apples with oranges as it were, meaning that they compare as Crash said, their FS9 with thousands of addons, and default FSX.

Try comparing FS9 with £500 / $1000 worth of addons, with FSX with £500 / $1000 worth of addons, and you'll get a true comparison. My money is on FSX being superior in those circumstances.

Just my thoughts 😉

Pro Member First Officer
Faucett First Officer

Bindolaf wrote:

#$%^ that! I am paying to buy a complete game, a simulator no less, not a starting point for leeches that will have me pay 50 bucks per add on. FSX should be a revolutionary, new concept. It is not

Is that not what we have always done with fs9? Taken an excellent base template and enriched with with the genius of the community?

That being said, I would venture to qualify fsX as a revolutionary product since, to my humble eyes, it has taken the best of what the fs community has already modded (mesh, roads, aircraft, cities, etc), incorporated it, and provided an open foundation for future modding.

😎

Pro Member First Officer
Wing-man First Officer

CrashGordon wrote:

I can't argue with that. Well maybe ... there are two "t"s in mutt. 😂

Sir........ you are correct. Yes

Pro Member Chief Captain
Solotwo Chief Captain

FSX is an improvement over FS9, I don't care what anyone says. Compared to a stock FS9 its better. Its called evolution. Is FSX as it stands right now any better then my FS9? Probably not, but close, because FSX IS better and it bridged the gap that I filled with payware with FS9.

But the thing is I don't enjoy using the stock version of FS9, I play, because I enjoy using all my realistic payware products. So personally FSX would be a huge waste of time for as it stands right now. That is why I'm waiting for Vista and what not so I can have a computer built for it. Then I don't have to post all these screens of an FSX that looks like FS98.

Pro Member Chief Captain
CrashGordon Chief Captain

I resent that. Mine look like FS2000. 😂 😂 😂 😂 😉

Still, I am getting closer to an acceptable level. I am even doing my first VA flight in FSX, right now.

Pro Member Chief Captain
Solotwo Chief Captain

Question is does your FS9 look better and preform better at the moment?

I just don't get the point of using fsx just for the fact that it is fsx.

Pro Member First Officer
Faucett First Officer

Solotwo wrote:

Question is does your FS9 look better and preform better at the moment?

I just don't get the point of using fsx just for the fact that it is fsx.

I was only running GEPro2, and yes, fsX is much better as far as ground textures. The only mesh I ran in fs9 was in Australia for VOZ, and I think the default mesh for fsX is better, with the added capability of setting your own resolution.

So yes, it looks better. It may not perform better, but there's not a big drop-off if you set your sliders reasonably - what do you expect with a next-generation title, just released?

😎

Pro Member Chief Captain
CrashGordon Chief Captain

Because I've done just about everything to make FS9 as good as it can be on this computer. I will still use it for a/c that aren't available for FSX, yet.

Since I am still finding ways to get better results out of FSX, I will keep at it. It already has a better global mesh than FS9 and some of the a/c are quite good. I am flying the CRJ 700 right now. Very nice. 😀

Pro Member Chief Captain
hms_endeavour Chief Captain

🙄 I knew I'd get yelled at.
First of all, I think FSX is a bit of a dissapointment, They didn't modify atc, and it's really like the fs with a lot of addons. When I fly in it, It gives me a "game" feeling, not really serious, just somewhta like everythings fluffy in a toy store style. 😂 As said, The default planes are cra*, and so are the panels. Second, I'm not claiming it's not worth it, and I'm just still deciding whether or not to get it.You've all witnessed it:
Post #1:YAY I ordered fsx!!!
Post #2:YAYAYAAYA FSX CAME TODAY!!!
Post #3😀amn I hate it it's a real dissapointment and wouldn't install on Windows xp.
Thirdly, I or nobody else ever decided that fs9 is real and fsx fake,(ok, that's the topic of this thread) but still. Fs9 is a bit more professional, In fsx you'll be-instead of historical long,distance flights-Flying to an oil platform to save some people, or else flying in africa to watch some elephants. Then there are the hardware probs, it'll only work on vista beta for some people, and of course you need a new pc if you want decent frame rates.Most fs9 aircraft aren't compatible without cfg editing, and many of the fs9 bugs are still there. I think microsoft just want non simmers to get used to the fs, and therfore made it more game-like.This leaves the sim communities annoyed. As said, ATC is still trash, and none of that is any better. So I guess some people like it, others don't. Everybody suit themselves. But what i do want to say is, if you already have 500$ or 1000$ worth of addons in fs9, don't got to fsx for the same stuff, apart from losing all your money.

Pro Member Chief Captain
Tailhook Chief Captain

hms_endeavour wrote:

Real pilots would usually stay with fs9 after seeing what a dissapointment fsx is.
No offense if you like fsx or are getting it, But it seems a bit more like a game.

If what you say is true then I'm very fortunate that I'm neither a Real Pilot nor a Real Simmer but a real person instead.
As a real person I have the privilege to approach each situation as it is without being burdened by prejudices.
As a real person I am free to treat FS one moment as a Sim, the next moment as a Game and the next moment as a mind-boggling platform and basis for my hobby on which I can build and let my fantasy roam freely.

I don't have FSX yet, but I have no doubt that it is superior to FS9. I'm talking about the out-of-the-box installation. Microsoft gets bashed a lot and I occasionally partake in this seemingly favorite pastime. This does not mean that I think that the FS developers or those responsible at Microsoft are stupid. Each new release of MSFS has been an improvement over its predecessor.

I find it odd that those who wear the ‘It’s a Sim NOT a Game’ –banner expect FS to be exactly like a game when they unwrap the box: Complete – nothing to add – nothing to tweak – nothing to improve on. No different to an XBOX game. How ironic.

Daydreaming can be done while doing something else. Serious thought on the other hand occupies time for itself. So I gather that a person who is obsessed with making sure that FS is ALWAYS referred to as a Sim and NEVER as a Game and thus is compelled to distinguish between Simmers and Gamers and Serious and Not Serious – spends a lot of time each day just THINKING about something which in the end, objectively is totally irrelevant.
Just think how much time that person is wasting.. time that could be used for the enjoyment of FS.
No matter how much I try to see it from the diehard Simmers point of view whenever the subject arises, the validity of the argument totally eludes me.

I will never understand why some folks start shaking in their boots whenever someone refers to FS as a game.

Amen.

Pro Member Chief Captain
CrashGordon Chief Captain

Speaking for myself, two reasons.

1. It doesn't fit any known definition of game.

game1 (gām)
n.
An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.

A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules: the game of basketball; the game of gin rummy.
A single instance of such an activity: We lost the first game.
games An organized athletic program or contest: track-and-field games; took part in the winter games.
A period of competition or challenge: It was too late in the game to change the schedule of the project.

The total number of points required to win a game: One hundred points is game in bridge.
The score accumulated at any given time in a game: The game is now 14 to 12.
The equipment needed for playing certain games: packed the children's games in the car.
A particular style or manner of playing a game: improved my tennis game with practice.
Informal.
An active interest or pursuit, especially one involving competitive engagement or adherence to rules: “the way the system operates, the access game, the turf game, the image game” (Hedrick Smith).
A business or occupation; a line: the insurance game.
An illegal activity; a racket.
Informal.
Evasive, trifling, or manipulative behavior: wanted a straight answer, not more of their tiresome games.
A calculated strategy or approach; a scheme: I saw through their game from the very beginning.
Mathematics. A model of a competitive situation that identifies interested parties and stipulates rules governing all aspects of the competition, used in game theory to determine the optimal course of action for an interested party.

Wild animals, birds, or fish hunted for food or sport.
The flesh of these animals, eaten as food.

An object of attack, ridicule, or pursuit: The press considered the candidate's indiscretions to be game.
Mockery; sport: The older children teased and made game of the newcomer.

2. If it was a game, it would require play. I don't play, and haven't since I was 12.



Last edited by CrashGordon on Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total
EJ316 Guest

tbh i played FSX for like the whole day yesturday and i can see what people mean about it being game-like rather than a proper sim but it's still an awesome sim.
2 bad my pc is not good enough to get the best out of it -.-

Pro Member Chief Captain
hms_endeavour Chief Captain

🙂
I'm just saying this based on many of the posts people from here have posted.

Pro Member First Officer
Greg West (BashDaBish) First Officer

Try it for yourself then make your own mind up 😛

Pro Member Chief Captain
hms_endeavour Chief Captain

Yeah i got the demo, and I'm torn.

All times are GMT Page 1 of 1

Related Questions