Flight Simulator X review

[masraum]

I remember flying FSII on my Commodore 64





I think things are a little different today.

I think I may have done a little in my first IBM compatible PC days, but nothing super serious. I'd enjoy it, but it's so darn time consuming.

[Skillet83]

Originally Posted by john70t

Aces High looks like a lot of fun.
-Is it 64bit?
-Does game play require a microphone, or are there sufficient com menus for coordination?
-Is it player vs player or is AI involved? Is AI any good?

I used to play the original Il-2 quite a bit on the Win7 computer..before Win10 killed that off plus all my other games.
(GPL, Legends of Grand Prix, OFP Resistance, etc) .

Do not have to have a microphone, great vox box: team, area in, squad channels and PM.
It is a multiplayer environment, team based play. Warning, you will need a joy stick, flying with a mouse and keyboard are almost impossible. Download is free, 2 weeks free, then $15.00 a month. For cartoon planes, a great WW2 combat flight sim.

A couple of screen shots and a in game video.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi8jAz13ZBw

[flipper35]

Originally Posted by id10t

No IFF ping?

Nope. At least not at that range. You paint someone, then ask on the friendly channel if you are painting anyone.

masraum, that is what I started on as well.

[flipper35]

Warthunder is supposed to be good for a combat sim as well. Free through Steam. I have it, but haven't tried it yet.

We like Wings Over Europe since we can control the server.

[john70t]

My thoughts of the difference between a 'sim' and a 'video game' is the level of immersion. Obviously that is a fine line and is different for most people. I've flown planes that feel like a game but in a sim world. I've also played fps games that briefly feel like sims. A sim will retain a fun factor even without some external challenge or contest. It is good enough on it's own. Only recently have hardware and programs become so good as to begin to mimic reality in 2D, even without other sensory inputs.

And this is just the start of it all..

Someday auto repair manuals will become step-by-step visualizations of taking apart a 3D models.
Travel will be available virtually.
Go in amongst football player on the line and feel the crunches using focused sonic skin disrupters. Rewind and watch the play from a different perspective in full slo-mo control. Who did what and why. What could they see from that angle? You are in the game instead of watching moving blobs on a screen.
Art and CAD will be create-able in the ether with motion and thought sensors.
So many things will be possible in the upcoming virtual experience.
(sorry I'm repeating myself here, but am fascinated by what many humans now have access to.)

I once went up on a B-17 flight with dad, but now can 'fly' one of them. Felt familiar. Just wow.

[john70t]

There are some very talented individuals involved in flight sims:

EzDock camera plus air effects is made by some lone genius in Russia.
Drzewiecki Design massive cities and airports is made by some lone genius in Poland.
Here is Seattle again with buffeting rain and winds.


MegaSceneryEarth(also owns PCAviator) creates huge photoscenery at affordable prices, as well as disk defrag and virtual memory management, and is our own lone homegrown genius.
Here is Kauai where we took a helicopter tour.

[NeedSpace]

I purchased Prepar3d about 3 years ago. I have been quite happy with it but agreed, more limited. Some of the MSFS planes work, some don't a bit of a crapshoot. I used MSFS for years (since 1997 through 2015. My latest computer wouldn't take the software...too buggy so I switched to Prepar3d. Weird though, it was like they didn't want me to buy the software. But they were really good about helping me move the software to my new computer.

I use Prepar3d to keep "relatively" current flying as I am a pilot but don't fly much at all. I can't get out much and I find it helps me keep some of the skills. Nothing beats real flying but you take what you can get. Plus, it really helped out tremendously when switching to glass cockpits. saved $$$$ money not learning the instruments while in the plane (both Cessna 162 and 172s).

I currently have logitech controls. HUGE upgrade on the sidewinder joysticks I was using. Plus, I now have 3 monitors to give me instruments, and better outside view. Starting to think about getting a VR display now. hmmm.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by john70t

My thoughts of the difference between a 'sim' and a 'video game' is the level of immersion. Obviously that is a fine line and is different for most people. I've flown planes that feel like a game but in a sim world. I've also played fps games that briefly feel like sims. A sim will retain a fun factor even without some external challenge or contest. It is good enough on it's own. Only recently have hardware and programs become so good as to begin to mimic reality in 2D, even without other sensory inputs.

And this is just the start of it all..

Someday auto repair manuals will become step-by-step visualizations of taking apart a 3D models.
Travel will be available virtually.
Go in amongst football player on the line and feel the crunches using focused sonic skin disrupters. Rewind and watch the play from a different perspective in full slo-mo control. Who did what and why. What could they see from that angle? You are in the game instead of watching moving blobs on a screen.
Art and CAD will be create-able in the ether with motion and thought sensors.
So many things will be possible in the upcoming virtual experience.
(sorry I'm repeating myself here, but am fascinated by what many humans now have access to.)

And the funny/sad thing is that all of that tech is probably going to be applied to sex before the rest of that, VR glasses and a bluetooth fleshlight.

[john70t]

There is an airport just west of Cali, Columbia which ends up being stuck inside a giant pit.

Either the original FSX airport data was incorrect...or the mesh and the addon mesh is incorrect.

So I used an airport height-adjust program to try to bring it all back up to ground level.
I did it wrong.

[flipper35]

Originally Posted by NeedSpace

I purchased Prepar3d about 3 years ago. I have been quite happy with it but agreed, more limited. Some of the MSFS planes work, some don't a bit of a crapshoot. I used MSFS for years (since 1997 through 2015. My latest computer wouldn't take the software...too buggy so I switched to Prepar3d. Weird though, it was like they didn't want me to buy the software. But they were really good about helping me move the software to my new computer.

I use Prepar3d to keep "relatively" current flying as I am a pilot but don't fly much at all. I can't get out much and I find it helps me keep some of the skills. Nothing beats real flying but you take what you can get. Plus, it really helped out tremendously when switching to glass cockpits. saved $$$$ money not learning the instruments while in the plane (both Cessna 162 and 172s).

I currently have logitech controls. HUGE upgrade on the sidewinder joysticks I was using. Plus, I now have 3 monitors to give me instruments, and better outside view. Starting to think about getting a VR display now. hmmm.

If you want head tracking and still be able to see the keyboard and controls, TrackIR works great. For combat sim flying it is a major advantage though.

I have used it on both triple screens and single large screens with great success.

Will be interesting to see how the new MS sim compares to others like X-Plane.

[Sarc]

Well, this looks promising....

[flipper35]

One for Paul. S-76 instead of his bird though.

[flipper35]

The combat sim we fly together.

[rcooled]

Sure has come a long way ↓

[fanaudical]

Fun stuff.

I'm not a pilot, but have used flight simulators for a long time. I think my first was IFR on a Commodore VIC 20. Currently "flying" X-Plane 11. My last version of MS Flight Simulator was 2004. I personally think that X-Plane has better physics...

[flipper35]

Yup. I would take better physics over eye candy any day. 11 looks pretty good too, especially with the ortho scenery.

[john70t]

After struggling with typical OOM (Out Of Memory) errors for a long time....I finally read about major problems.
Every FSX'er banging their head on the desk has experienced this.
It was an epiphany.
A eureka moment. That forgotten sock in the carburetor.

Here are some basic facts every newby should know:
1). FSX from 2006 is a 32-bit program and it can only utilize 4GB max memory internally.
(Prepar3d is 62-bit version which can use your computer hardware fully the way it's supposed to be.)
It doesn't matter if your computer has 500GB RAM. The software can only digest a small part of it.
Software memory is different from computer hardware memory.


2). FSX loads all enabled scenery at the main menu and not just the location selected!
You must disable all other add-on scenery not being used for that specific flight!

a). After slimming down to only a few countries, the frame rate is now much faster for some reason.

b). The menu and flight now loads within a minute or so. (Not 15-45 minutes as before.)
I've got about 6Tb of photo-scenery covering much of the world and had it all enabled previously.
I'm now using https://www.disktrix.com/ultimatedefrag6.html which allows selected programs and files to be placed at the outside of the disk for faster read/write times. Seems to be working good.

c). FSX can now run 100% road traffic without studder. An FSX milestone. Traffic and shadows are well known framerate killers.
I'm now using ProcessLasso from https://bitsum.com/ which allows programs to be prioritized for CPU usage. Background progs can be turned off or punted to the back of the line. Seems to be working good.


3). I just found out FSX does not un-load scenery from program memory!
(It keeps building up like a giant garbage pile.)
On the internet there are a lot of stories of crash-to-desktop when landing after long flights.
The new airport overloads the program memory, which was already full.
There is not a known solution for this AFAIK.

[flipper35]

I bet the new version is 64bit! Not that it helps with the current version.

[john70t]

I've arrived at the conclusion that seahawk's former job is probably the most difficult thing to attempt so far.
Even in a simulator.

Instead of planning forward there are four dimensions of travel. Add in torque over, descending rate limitations before rotors lose all lift, sudden gusts off the ocean, ground effects near the surface, a small moving and bouncing target, close quarter obstacles, etc and it all become very complicated.

I've got about a 10% success rate so far. Thankfully there is a reset button on the keyboard.

[flipper35]

Some rotor craft are much harder to land on a water based pad. The Bell 47 or MD500/Loach compared to something like an HH53 is much easier to get tossed around and are much more intensive with small adjustments. The 47 doesn't even have auto-throttle. The Little Bird is a blast though. I was always jealous of the pilot that flew the more difficult scenes in Magnum PI. Roger Mosley was a certifies rotorcraft pilot and flew a lot himself.

You did well landing that bucket on the front of the ship. I have a hard time landing on the back of a frigate or something. Front would be worse.