MS Flight Sim X

[John Theune]

First let me say I don't live in France.

I just loaded up the newest version of MSFS ( X ) and I must saw I've
very impressed. The graphics are tremendous and the plane handling is
much better then I remember from before. I must say I've improved my
computer significantly since I last used FS 2004 but still I think this
new one is very good.

Jay - I recommend you upgrade your system at the hotel to this version
if you have not already. I think you'll be impressed.

John

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> Jay - I recommend you upgrade your system at the hotel to this version
> if you have not already. I think you'll be impressed.

Make sure you have enough hardware to support it; it uses a lot more
resources than its predecessor (FS 2004). Most of the improvements
are eye candy, although that might make it more fun for many people.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

John Theune wrote:
> Jay - I recommend you upgrade your system at the hotel to this version
> if you have not already. I think you'll be impressed.

Other than the fact that it requires XP or Vista... And is picky about
video cards -- the *one* machine that I have that has the misfortune to
have come with XP installed upon it will not run MS FS X because of the
onboard video not being supposedly compatible... Luckily I found this
out by downloaded the demo instead of paying for the actual software...

[gpsman]

Mxsmanic wrote: <courtesy snip/total>

IIRC you never bothered to complete the flight lessons in MSFS and
haven't yet achieved the proficiency to climb to altitude and level off
without porpoising... and have never flown a real aircraft for a single
second Therefore, any opinions you might have of MSFS X are moot.

AFAICT you simply fond of masturbating your keyboard with the end
result being projectile diarrhea. I don't believe I have ever had the
misfortune of meeting a person more intellectually lazy than yourself,
to wit: "In a true glider, you can stay up indefinitely by taking
advantage of things like thermals."

You seem to be an exceptionally ignorant idiot sans any power of
deduction/search skills/restraint toward forwarding any and every
idiotic question/premise that pops into your "mind".
-----

- gpsman

[Thomas Borchert]

John,

it requires 15 GB disk space to start with and is a resource hog - but
man, those graphics sure have improved. More importantly, the flight
modelling has been much improved, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> John Theune wrote:
>> Jay - I recommend you upgrade your system at the hotel to this version if
>> you have not already. I think you'll be impressed.
>
> Other than the fact that it requires XP or Vista... And is picky about
> video cards -- the *one* machine that I have that has the misfortune to
> have come with XP installed upon it will not run MS FS X because of the
> onboard video not being supposedly compatible... Luckily I found this out
> by downloaded the demo instead of paying for the actual software...

If you are considering any new game here is a neat little website called
System Requirement Lab. Id does require that you allow Active-X but I have
used it with no problems or malware as a result. It will check your computer
against a number of games and see if you have the system needed to run them.
It's not perfect but it works.

http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srl

[Ron Snipes[_1_]]

Where can you get Microsoft Flight Simulator X?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Thomas Borchert]

Ron,

> Where can you get Microsoft Flight Simulator X?
>

Uhm, in a shop? Try Circuit City, Amazon, Avshop.com or anything else
that will take your money.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[John Theune]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Ron,
>
>> Where can you get Microsoft Flight Simulator X?
>>
>
> Uhm, in a shop? Try Circuit City, Amazon, Avshop.com or anything else
> that will take your money.
>
I happened to get my copy yesterday at Circuit City and it was 59.99 for
the deluxe package vs 69.99 retail.

[gatt]

"gpsman" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> IIRC you never bothered to complete the flight lessons in MSFS and
> haven't yet achieved the proficiency to climb to altitude and level off
> without porpoising... and have never flown a real aircraft for a single
> second Therefore, any opinions you might have of MSFS X are moot.

That seems a little harsh.

Do I have to have stormed Omaha Beach to know whether Battlefield 1942 is a
good first-person shooter? Do I have to have flown combat missions over
Germany to know whether I liked the movie Memphis Belle?

His comment about having enough system resources to run it compared to 2004
is useful in my decision whether to upgrade.

[gatt]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> John Theune wrote:
>> Jay - I recommend you upgrade your system at the hotel to this version if
>> you have not already. I think you'll be impressed.
>
> Other than the fact that it requires XP or Vista... And is picky about
> video cards -- the *one* machine that I have that has the misfortune to
> have come with XP installed upon it will not run MS FS X because of the
> onboard video not being supposedly compatible... Luckily I found this out
> by downloaded the demo instead of paying for the actual software...

For any kind of graphics-intense simulation such as this you should expect
to require a graphics card update, and, above all, make sure you've updated
your machine to the latest video drivers because the stuff that comes
bundled with the computer usually isn't current. I have having to upgrade
hardware to keep up with software, but that's the way things tend to go.

-c

[gatt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...

> http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srl

COOL! Thanks for the link!

-c

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John Theune > wrote:
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Ron,
>>
>>> Where can you get Microsoft Flight Simulator X?
>>>
>>
>> Uhm, in a shop? Try Circuit City, Amazon, Avshop.com or anything else
>> that will take your money.
>>
> I happened to get my copy yesterday at Circuit City and it was 59.99 for
> the deluxe package vs 69.99 retail.

Fry's and Outpost.com (Fry's online) has it for approx. $20 USD
cheaper than the retail prices atm. Not sure on how the shipping is.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFPkgnyBkZmuMZ8L8RAqQFAKCC/DgTN0TqWGnn8ADxDFsR7e+41wCePy0w
QOWZZqxue7bAUfCYennNf3A=
=ubK7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Ben Jackson]

On 2006-10-24, John Theune > wrote:
> First let me say I don't live in France.

Yes, but can you control an airplane using only cowl flaps?

> I just loaded up the newest version of MSFS ( X ) and I must saw I've
> very impressed. The graphics are tremendous

I've had a few people recommend it over FS2004 based on the graphics.
I use it as an instrument procedure training, so I'm expecting big
improvements in the 1" tall gray stripe at the top of the screen!

--
Ben Jackson AD7GD
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Robert M. Gary]

gpsman wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote: <courtesy snip/total>
>
> IIRC you never bothered to complete the flight lessons in MSFS and
> haven't yet achieved the proficiency to climb to altitude and level off
> without porpoising

I still have problems with that in MSFS too. I also can't land on the
runway (or at least stay on the runway) and can't even line up with the
runway w/o a 10 mile final and an ILS.

-Robert, CFII

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
> I have having to upgrade hardware to keep up with
> software, but that's the way things tend to go.

I still have machines that I have Office-95 installed upon and they do more
than I need for that sort of work... XP takes more resources and does not
provide any benefits to me... Even though I own a copy of Visual Studio
..NET, I use Visual Studio v6 for program development since it does
everything that I *need* it to do... I do not like the idea of upgrading my
hardware just because some MS developer decided to make the O/S a but more
bloated... I buy new hardware when it gets down to the price where it is in
the pocket change range... For example, I bought a new Seagate 400G HD the
other day because it was $90 at Fry's... It's only ATA-100, but it's fast
enough for things that are not being accessed constantly...

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"John Theune" > wrote in message
news:Yuq%g.80668$073.70352@trnddc01...
> I happened to get my copy yesterday at Circuit City and it was 59.99 for
> the deluxe package vs 69.99 retail.

Fry's had it for around $37, the other day...

[gpsman]

Robert M. Gary wrote: <brevity snip>
>
> I still have problems with that in MSFS too. I also can't land on the
> runway (or at least stay on the runway) and can't even line up with the
> runway w/o a 10 mile final and an ILS.
>

Then why use it?

If you see Falcon 4.0 for sale, just keep walkin'...
-----

- gpsman

[gpsman]

gatt wrote: <brevity snip>
>
> His comment about having enough system resources to run it compared to 2004
> is useful in my decision whether to upgrade.

Then this comment may save your life: Don't fly into a thunderstorm.

You're welcome.
-----

- gpsman

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I still have problems with that in MSFS too. I also can't land on the
> runway (or at least stay on the runway) and can't even line up with the
> runway w/o a 10 mile final and an ILS.

I suspect that it is either it is the lack of depth perception without a
true 3D view or we're relying the G-forces that are produced when we're in a
turn to tell us how much to bank as compared to just reading the gauges...

[gatt]

"gpsman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> gatt wrote: <brevity snip>
>>
>> His comment about having enough system resources to run it compared to
>> 2004
>> is useful in my decision whether to upgrade.
>
> Then this comment may save your life: Don't fly into a thunderstorm.
>
> You're welcome.

*plonk*

[gatt]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...

>> I hate having to upgrade hardware to keep up with software, but that's
>> the way things tend to go.
>
> I still have machines that I have Office-95 installed upon and they do
> more
> than I need for that sort of work... XP

Office-95 =/= Windows 95.

>do not like the idea of upgrading my hardware just because some MS
>developer decided to make the O/S a but more
> bloated...

Just make sure your Win95 has a working firewall, wireless networking
comparable to the one bundled with XP if you're going to require those
services. Your OS decision is definately dependent upon the applications
you intend to use. If you just want a word processor and a spreadsheet, for
example, a 486 with MS Word 1.0 and Lotus 1-2-3 would be plenty sufficient.
I use a Linux system at work that won't run MS applications and found a
server downstairs that hadn't even been rebooted in five years. (!!!) It's
so old the admin team is afraid to reboot it because it might not start up.
But if you want to run FS-X, you're not going to be able to run it on
Office-95.

It torques me too...the consumer economy is full of people who drop $300 on
the new I-Pod model even though the other two they have work just fine, or
who drop $300 they can't afford on a new video card so they can play the new
version of Halflife...and then upgrade again a year later. Guys like this
would probably choke on the idea that I fly a 1974 Arrow.

> For example, I bought a new Seagate 400G HD the other day because it was
> $90 at Fry's...

Really? That's definately a score. They'll probably be coming down
approaching Xma$, but that's less than half what they were selling for
earlier this year.

-c

[Gary Drescher]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
> His comment about having enough system resources to run it compared to
> 2004 is useful in my decision whether to upgrade.

Doesn't his comment's usefulness depend on whether it's true? He doesn't say
how he reached his conclusion; he has not mentioned trying FSX himself. I
have, and it works fine on my three-year-old PC. Other reports are mixed.
But why not find out for yourself? There's a free demo you can download to
see how it runs on your hardware:
http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorx/downloads.html

--Gary

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

gatt wrote:
> Office-95 =/= Windows 95.

Nope... I run it on Win2K... I didn't like Win95... WinNT 3.1 was
acceptable one it had the Win95 looking interface, but when it still had
the old Windows 3x interface, it sucked...

> I use a Linux system at work that won't run MS applications and found a
> server downstairs that hadn't even been rebooted in five years. (!!!) It's
> so old the admin team is afraid to reboot it because it might not start up.
> But if you want to run FS-X, you're not going to be able to run it on
> Office-95.

Yeah, UNIX is an entirely different beast -- it's reliable!!!

Most of the systems that I develop have a UNIX portion to them...
Usually, I have at least one Linux machine at home...

> Really? That's definately a score. They'll probably be coming down
> approaching Xma$, but that's less than half what they were selling for
> earlier this year.

It was a special that Fry's had and I was over there looking for
something else and the price was too tempting... I use it on a machine
that I have configured to just store video that I capture off of
satellite... Eventually, I get around to moving the shows off to DVD...
At VCD resolution, that's over 600 hours of shows... Actually, come to
think of it, that HD is cheaper on a per GB basis than the actual DVDs
even though I get them for $0.19 each...

[gatt]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..

> But why not find out for yourself? There's a free demo you can download to
> see how it runs on your hardware:
> http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorx/downloads.html

Excellent! Thanks for the link.

-c

[soxinbox]

Does it handle forward slips correctly, The 2004 with default Cessna
could be put in a full forward slip and would still be wings level (at
least on my setup). This drove me nuts so I bought X-plane, but that had
such bad ATC voice synthesis that I stopped using it also.

[Mxsmanic]

gpsman writes:

> IIRC you never bothered to complete the flight lessons in MSFS and
> haven't yet achieved the proficiency to climb to altitude and level off
> without porpoising... and have never flown a real aircraft for a single
> second

If flying normally in the simulator is no good with respect to flying
for real, then the lessons aren't, either.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> I still have problems with that in MSFS too. I also can't land on the
> runway (or at least stay on the runway) and can't even line up with the
> runway w/o a 10 mile final and an ILS.

What type of joystick/yoke/throttle combination and model are you
using (if any)?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

"Grumman-581" > writes:

> I suspect that it is either it is the lack of depth perception without a
> true 3D view or we're relying the G-forces that are produced when we're in a
> turn to tell us how much to bank as compared to just reading the gauges...

Plus a limited field of vision, since it is difficult to "turn one's
head" in MSFS.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[drclive]

I'm a pilot (PPL) low hours. I have been reluctant to use Flight
Simulator 2004 for flight training for very long time, amount other
things because the landings and the flare moment never really felt
nowhere near of the real thing. Now I'm studying and preparing myself
to take the IMC rating and I have to tell you that for instrument
spanning is great.
One big problem I have encounter so far, when using my laptop the
controls (using a yokestick or keyboard) were very heavy and time
retarded, initially I thought that there was a problem with my
yokestick, so I bought a new one, but the problem persisted, then when
I installed the system (FS2004) in a desktop computer the problem
disappeared and the simulator was again working as expected.

Kind regards
CR

Mxsmanic wrote:
> "Grumman-581" > writes:
>
> > I suspect that it is either it is the lack of depth perception without a
> > true 3D view or we're relying the G-forces that are produced when we're in a
> > turn to tell us how much to bank as compared to just reading the gauges...
>
> Plus a limited field of vision, since it is difficult to "turn one's
> head" in MSFS.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

drclive writes:

> I'm a pilot (PPL) low hours. I have been reluctant to use Flight
> Simulator 2004 for flight training for very long time, amount other
> things because the landings and the flare moment never really felt
> nowhere near of the real thing. Now I'm studying and preparing myself
> to take the IMC rating and I have to tell you that for instrument
> spanning is great.
> One big problem I have encounter so far, when using my laptop the
> controls (using a yokestick or keyboard) were very heavy and time
> retarded, initially I thought that there was a problem with my
> yokestick, so I bought a new one, but the problem persisted, then when
> I installed the system (FS2004) in a desktop computer the problem
> disappeared and the simulator was again working as expected.

If you lower the sensitivity on the controls, their response will be
delayed (in fact, the sensitivity control doesn't control how
sensitive they are, but only how long the simulator waits before it
begins to react to their movements). For maximum realism, you should
usually set all the realism controls at the top, except perhaps
P-force and torque effects.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.