"Rob Pollard"
Usenet Poster
robertapollard@hotmail.com
Posted on:
Nov 11, 2007, 5:44 AM
Post #11 of 15
(69 views)
Shortcut
|
"John Rivers" <first10@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1194733612.619193.217030@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Have spent two days with FSX
>
> How a company with the resources of Microsoft can sell such a cheap
> shoddy product is beyond belief
>
> There is not one redeeming feature
>
> Graphics are terrible
>
> Controls are stupid
>
> Flight models are unrealistic
>
> User Interface is a joke
>
I have to agree. Although I play FSX, I put it on the same podium as FS2000.
Basically a bit of a dog. Some nice ideas, but on the whole, thrown away on
the implementation. FS2002 and FS9 were much more stable and have
performance that would make FSX blush.
> DO NOT BUY THIS RUBBISH
>
> BUY X-PLANE or CONDOR INSTEAD
>
> they are half the price and 10 times as good
>
> www.x-plane.com
> www.condorsoaring.com (gliders only)
>
Condor is superb. I have never been into gliding until I bought it, but when
I did I found it so enjoyable (especially online), that I now love the the
simulated gliding experience.
X-Plane in its current form is also very good and has many advantages over
FSX. However, the one thing that lets X-Plane down badly is its lack of
aircraft systems modelling. Many simmers here like FSX because of the
systems modelling. You only have to look at some of the airliners (and even
some GA planes) to see what I mean.
X-Plane's framerate on my system is super-fluid. This in itself and the
better flight modelling make the feeling of flight much more imersive than
FSX's. The same would apply to Condor too - super high frame rates coupled
with first rate flight dynamics. When I go back to FSX after playing either
of these two it feels like its on rails and the graphics just don't seem as
fluid as they should be.
My biggest moan with FSX (apart from its poor performance) is the way that
all the runways are billiard smooth. I live in a hilly area and my local
airport looks terrible thanks to these huge cliffs that surround it. Here
are some screenies to show you what I mean:
http://www.astroccd.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/FSX-eghd.jpg
In addition, when one is on the runway it again, looks way too flat. Here
are screenies taken from Exeter Airport's runway 26. Note that in X-Plane
and even Elite V8, the runway slopes gently downhill. In FSX's version its
as flat as a billiard table and just like the Plymouth example above,
surrounded by unrealistic sheer cliffs. I find these cliffs very jarring
during final approach, it completely drops the immersion for me. 
Elite V8:
http://www.astroccd.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Elite-egte-026.jpg
X-Plane 8.6
http://www.astroccd.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/X-Plane-egte-026.jpg (This one
should have been widescreen, but X-Plane's screen capture only takes the
centre part?!)
FSX:
http://www.astroccd.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/FSX-egte-026.jpg
For the moment I will keep playing FSX, simply because there isn't another
sim out there that has integrated traffic, ATC and great systems modelling
of the aircraft.
If X-Plane could crack the systems modelling aspect I think MS might start
being very afraid...
Regards
RobP
|
