FS9/FS2004: As fake as it gets?

I really like scenery in flight simulators for site seeing and exploration
and have always wanted more, but FS9/FS2004's generated scenery is IMO the
definition of "eye candy" the way others use the word. I guess Microsoft
figured it was more efficient to include fake scenery than to increase the
realness. I wonder if that is the result of some research on user
preferences.

Just grumbling.

I suggest you try to find FS2 somewhere, it's got all the scenery you'll
ever want.

"John Doe" wrote in message
. ..
I really like scenery in flight simulators for site seeing and exploration
and have always wanted more, but FS9/FS2004's generated scenery is IMO the
definition of "eye candy" the way others use the word. I guess Microsoft
figured it was more efficient to include fake scenery than to increase the
realness. I wonder if that is the result of some research on user
preferences.

Just grumbling.

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 07:19:31 +0000, John Doe wrote:

I really like scenery in flight simulators for site seeing and exploration
and have always wanted more, but FS9/FS2004's generated scenery is IMO the
definition of "eye candy" the way others use the word. I guess Microsoft
figured it was more efficient to include fake scenery than to increase the
realness. I wonder if that is the result of some research on user
preferences.

Just grumbling.

I don't know what you expect here. Do you think it's worth Microsoft
making accurate scenery for the entire world, vastly increasing the
development time and cost, requiring several DVDs to deliver it and taking
up 100 gigs worth of disk space just for you to fly around your local
airport all the time? My FS9 dir is now around 30 gigs worth and that is
just UK photgraphic scenery, airports and a few other add-ons.

If you want accurate scenery then you're going to have to pay extra for
it for the locations *you* want to see. Yes it would be nice to have it in
the sim to begin with but let's have a sense of realism here.

K

K wrote
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 07:19:31 +0000, John Doe wrote:

I really like scenery in flight simulators for site seeing and
exploration and have always wanted more, but FS9/FS2004's generated
scenery is IMO the definition of "eye candy" the way others use the
word. I guess Microsoft figured it was more efficient to include fake
scenery than to increase the realness. I wonder if that is the result
of some research on user preferences.
Just grumbling.

I don't know what you expect here. Do you think it's worth Microsoft
making accurate scenery for the entire world,

Absolutely.

vastly increasing the development time and cost,

What part of $50,000,000,000 don't you understand?

requiring several DVDs to deliver it

Like gerrcoin suggested, why not Internet downloads? Or why not support
those who are motivated enough to make add-ons? Or is that too
innovative for poor poor Microsoft?

and taking up 100 gigs worth of disk space just for you to fly around
your local airport all the time?

That wouldn't be required.

BTW. Seattle looks much better than most other cities I have seen in
FS9/FS2004. That is because folks at Microsoft pretty much cater to
themselves.

My FS9 dir is now around 30 gigs worth and
that is just UK photgraphic scenery, airports and a few other add-ons.

If you want accurate scenery then you're going to have to pay extra
for it for the locations *you* want to see. Yes it would be nice to
have it in the sim to begin with but let's have a sense of realism
here.

Flight Simulator 2004 is "as fake as it gets" (playing).










K


Path: newssvr16.news.prodigy.com!newscon07.news.prodigy. com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!news0.de.colt.net!news-fra1.dfn.de!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.t ele.dk!fi.sn.net!newsfeed2.fi.sn.net!mephistophele s.news.clara.net!news.clara.net!lotis.uk.clara.net
From: K
Subject: FS9/FS2004: As fake as it gets?
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 16:34:18 +0000
User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2 (This is not a psychotic episode. It's a cleansing moment of clarity.)
Message-ID:
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
References:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: (please include full headers)
X-Trace: b034213e0842000130000604a04389b2a230ab088051ae1766 3533684065ac8f
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 16:32:15 +0000
Lines: 24
Xref: newsmst01.news.prodigy.com rec.aviation.simulators:150904

Sorry John Doe,
But I think that Microsoft, although obscenely rich, is too easy a target,
rather like 'The Government'. If there was more money to be made by
producing a sim which had everybody's underpants and tooth fillings show up
as well as each brick in the Taj Mahal, I am sure they would produce it. At
the moment, outside the military, there aren't the computers around that can
handle FS9 even at its present state. By about the time you are being slid
into the crematorium I daresay something approaching your desires will be on
the workbench in Seattle :-)

"quilljar" wrote

Sorry John Doe,
But I think that Microsoft, although obscenely rich, is too easy a
target, rather like 'The Government'.

It is like government.

If there was more money to be made by producing a sim which had
everybody's underpants and tooth fillings show up as well as each
brick in the Taj Mahal,

There is an interstate highway around my big city which is barely
recognizable/followable in FS9/FS2004. It looks like a dirt road at best.
The rest is desolation, except for a few low detail buildings.

You must have some very big tooth fillings.

I am sure they would produce it.
At the moment, outside the military, there aren't the computers around
that can handle FS9 even at its present state.

I remember when my monitor displayed 16 colors and I complained about games
requiring 256. In fact, my system was way substandard. After a few
upgrades, I ran Multi-Player Battletech online at about 2 frames per
second. It's really tough trying to hit a target when you cannot tell its
heading. But it was fun anyway.

By about the time you are being slid into the crematorium I
daresay something approaching your desires will be on the workbench in
Seattle :-)

But making scenery much more detailed isn't my argument. I wrote "Seattle
looks much better than most other cities I have seen in FS9/FS2004". My
frame rates are about 15 FPS over Seattle with all scenery sliders maxed,
except no fake scenery generated.

My system:
....K7T Turbo2 mainboard
....Athlon XP 2400+ (2 GHz) CPU, thanks to BIOS upgrade from MSI
....512 MB, 133 MHz RAM
....NVIDIA GeForce3 video card, faster than low end GeForce4
....Windows Millennium

Being from Seattle I see lots of things missing and wrong with the Seattle area
in FS9. Doesn't take my enjoyment away 1 bit though. Just curious what city
are you flying around?

I also see lot's of things wrong in the Redmond area which is where FS is made.
The roads are off in both Seattle and Redmond. Thing is for $50 bucks FS9 gives
you IMO a really great realistic flying experience. MS opened up the door for
3rd parties to come along and improve it. And if you happen to be a programmer
that includes you.

Your system is a little on lower mid range so most likely you aren't rendering
everything that a high-end system will. And I suspect you will get better
texture rendering from XP than you ever will from Millennium.

What resolution is monitor running FS in?

--
....Carl Frisk
Anger is a brief madness.
- Horace, 20 B.C.
http://www.carlfrisk.com


"John Doe" wrote in message
...
"quilljar" wrote

Sorry John Doe,
But I think that Microsoft, although obscenely rich, is too easy a
target, rather like 'The Government'.

It is like government.

If there was more money to be made by producing a sim which had
everybody's underpants and tooth fillings show up as well as each
brick in the Taj Mahal,

There is an interstate highway around my big city which is barely
recognizable/followable in FS9/FS2004. It looks like a dirt road at best.
The rest is desolation, except for a few low detail buildings.

You must have some very big tooth fillings.

I am sure they would produce it.
At the moment, outside the military, there aren't the computers around
that can handle FS9 even at its present state.

I remember when my monitor displayed 16 colors and I complained about games
requiring 256. In fact, my system was way substandard. After a few
upgrades, I ran Multi-Player Battletech online at about 2 frames per
second. It's really tough trying to hit a target when you cannot tell its
heading. But it was fun anyway.

By about the time you are being slid into the crematorium I
daresay something approaching your desires will be on the workbench in
Seattle :-)

But making scenery much more detailed isn't my argument. I wrote "Seattle
looks much better than most other cities I have seen in FS9/FS2004". My
frame rates are about 15 FPS over Seattle with all scenery sliders maxed,
except no fake scenery generated.

My system:
...K7T Turbo2 mainboard
...Athlon XP 2400+ (2 GHz) CPU, thanks to BIOS upgrade from MSI
...512 MB, 133 MHz RAM
...NVIDIA GeForce3 video card, faster than low end GeForce4
...Windows Millennium

..

You must have some very big tooth fillings.


No but my underpants are HUGE.
Nothing to do with my physique though, it's just that at my age, I cannot
stand on one leg long enough to deal with putting on small stuff.

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
vastly increasing the development time and cost,

What part of $50,000,000,000 don't you understand?

WARNING: BASIC ECONOMICS LESSON FOLLOWS

Just because they can afford to do it doesn't mean they will. The fact of
the matter is, the vast majority of the FS customer base DOES NOT CARE about
having the exact buildings in their exact locations. Outside of their
immediate area, it's not likely they're going to know what every single
house looks like anyway, so why bother? Certainly, they have the capability
to do it--but the potential increase in sales doesn't offset the expense.
Consider, too, the additional processing power that would be required for
all of this. Few people have systems that can handle FS9 as it is; what do
you think they'll do when every single house, blade of grass, and stalk of
corn is modelled?

Finally, remember too that there are quite a few who don't give a damn about
the eye candy--they just want the physics of flying modelled as
realistically as possible and as long as they can read the gauges they don't
care how detailed the rest of the graphics are.

--
Kurt Weber

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:54:38 -0500, "Kurt Weber"
proclaimed:

Finally, remember too that there are quite a few who don't give a damn about
the eye candy--they just want the physics of flying modelled as
realistically as possible and as long as they can read the gauges they don't
care how detailed the rest of the graphics are.

What he said!!!!!!!!!!!!!