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.

"quilljar" wrote


.

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.

Thanks for the laugh. That's brilliant, IMO.

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:05:34 GMT, "Carl Frisk" wrote:

Thing is for $50 bucks FS9 gives
you IMO a really great realistic flying experience.

I have to agree with your statement here except that it provide a fairly
realistic experience but then I wonder about what FS should be. FS has
been around what 15 years? A long time anyway. There have been some good
general aviation sims compete with FS. Pro Pilot, Flight Unlimited and Fly
for example. All these sims took 1 to 2 years to develop from scratch and
they were able to do as good and in some areas better than FS. Now my
point is if those sims could be done in a couple of years from nothing
should not FS be much, much better than it is? MS has an established cycle
now of every two years coming out with an incremental upgrade. The same
time it takes to develop a new sim and all they do is an incremental
upgrade. Should not by now we have instruments that are as good as say,
the Reality XP line. Should not the long standing default aircraft look as
good as the PMDG aircraft, for example. Should not the aerodynamics
problems/errors that one reads about in the newsgroups be fixed by now?
Should not the ATC be at least as good as say, Radar Contact? Should not
there be a flight planner as nice as say, Flightsim Commander? Should not
the terrain elevations be at least as good as those provided by 3rd party
developers? These are questions I think about when I consider how long FS
has been on the market.

MS opened up the door for 3rd parties to come along and improve it.

Yes they do let some things out in their SDKs now and it is greatly
appreciated by many. However, I still remember for years and years the sim
community was asking MS for information about their aircraft and scenery
structure. MS steadfastly refused to release or say anything. It took
dedicated 3rd party programmers to figure out on their own how things
worked. It wasn't until I believe it was Pro Pilot came out and encouraged
3rd party developers by providing an open architecture that MS relented and
started releasing the SDKs. It seems it has been marketing pressures that
have brought about major changes, not the kindness of MS. IMO we probably
would still not have SDKs if it weren't for sims like Pro Pilot, Flight
Unlimited and Fly to provide competition and actually encourage 3rd party
development.

Well, I'm done.

Regards all
Jack