Fire away

[Airliner]

how is Logan Airport? is it better then George Grimshaws Logan V.2?

Dude, didn't you look at the image?



Actualy, the Logan images in this thread are a bit off, as there are some jetways missing. (1 or 2 missing off Delta's sat. terminal plus the Comair concourse, B1, B10, B15 and B16 missing from US Airways Term., B-something on the center of the American pier is out of place, couple gates missing from Terminal C - but who's counting? )Also, the south cargo area still has the outer buildings in place. Currently, these have been removed as work is being done on the new runway 14/32. Still, for a default airport, it's pretty wild.



Post Edited ( 09-07-06 05:57 )

[Airliner]

Current state of KBOS:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1061226/L/



Post Edited ( 09-07-06 06:07 )

[JayKae]

Remember these are pictures of BETA 3, not the finished product

[Airliner]

JayKae wrote:
Remember these are pictures of BETA 3, not the finished product

Already acknowledged. Not trying to criticize (as evidenced by the smiley), just being overly-observant of an area I'm intimately familiar
with.

[jboweruk]

I can't believe we still can't fly over the poles on a round globe, that's a bit silly surely. I've pre-ordered mine but it looks like it will only
come out for airshows at first. I'll probably stick with FS9 for my serious flying till a few 'improvements' have been made.

[JayKae]

Remember guys that these answers are valid for the current BETA .. number 3

[American Jet]

Ceemosp wrote:

highlander wrote:
You won't need 4 GB, I bet, but FSX should take advantage of it if you do.

Nope...FS-X will only use 2 GB of ram at max ! see =&gt http://simflight.com/modules.php?
name=News&file=article&sid=8242

JayKae

So my impression that FS-X is far more GPU limited in contrast to FS9 being CPU limited seem to be correct, or what is your impression.

I found the support for Dual-core cpu's gave some performance boost wich was anihilated by the limitations of the graphics stuck to
DirectX 9.0

I wonder if that will improve with DX10 graphics available (finally sli support)

Greetz Carsten

I was actually told it would use 12 but who knows

[American Jet]

How does Kmia look and how about KJFK, can you post a couple of screenys please?

[xhado13]

American Jet wrote:

Ceemosp wrote:

highlander wrote:
You won't need 4 GB, I bet, but FSX should take advantage of it if you do.

Nope...FS-X will only use 2 GB of ram at max ! see =&gt http://simflight.com/modules.php?
name=News&file=article&sid=8242

JayKae

So my impression that FS-X is far more GPU limited in contrast to FS9 being CPU limited seem to be correct, or what is your impression.

I found the support for Dual-core cpu's gave some performance boost wich was anihilated by the limitations of the graphics stuck to
DirectX 9.0

I wonder if that will improve with DX10 graphics available (finally sli support)

Greetz Carsten

I was actually told it would use 12 but who knows

wait wait, they say the max is 2 gig of ram...I have 2 gigs of ram. Good or bad thing? lol idk what they mean by that

[andy14]

JayKay

Would you post a screen shot of the airport gate

or of the Airport enviroment

Thanks

Andy

[JayKae]

I know you guys want shots and stuff believe me I do, but my main priority still is with testing the product so after
testing is done, I might
pick up on your requests

[CODY614]

Now here is a question that I'm sure must be lurking in the minds of most....
Being a payware junkie.....Real bad junkie....
What is going to justify all the "Payware companies" saying that this,that and the other wont' work in FSX....?
This just seems like FS9 on "Steroids"....I mean is it really going to allow the companies to build better A/C's with tons more options,Better flight
dynamics?
I could really care less about "Flocks of birds....Wet looking runways"....ETC.This can be done with more payware...HEHEHEHE....
I'm looking at what it has done to the "Payware Industry" as a whole....I mean seriously...One company has stated that "All" of their planes will
"Not" be compatible with FSX.....And wouldnt you know...I own everything they make.....
Honestly Jay, Are the actual "Planes" going to be any better....Not what is going to be in the base program that they sell in the box....But what all
the companies like LDS,PMDG And Flight1 build...Is it going to make a really huge difference?
Some are going to offer free upgrades...some will charge a small fee.....and some are even saying you will need to re-buy the whole product!
I dont' know..In my opion....This just doesnt' seem to make any sense....

Jeff

[highlander]

Flocks of birds can be done with 3rd party in FS9 - it already has been - but birds in real life generally don't talk to ATC.

Wet runways can be done, but again, they'd be permanently wet, and wouldn't reflect properly.

Graphically things will improve; aircraft can be normal-mapped, I believe, giving rivets (etc) an actual 3D appearance without increasing poly counts.
If these techniques are properly applied to a 3D cockpit, you can expect a lot of little details appearing far more realistically. I can't wait!

[andy14]

Thanks JayKay

[JayKae]

Now here is a question that I'm sure must be lurking in the minds of most....
Being a payware junkie.....Real bad junkie....

So am I

What is going to justify all the "Payware companies" saying that this,that and the other wont' work in FSX....?

The fact that some programs rely on a particular structure of the simulator, if MS completely redoes the structure, you pretty much have to
start from scratch.

This just seems like FS9 on "Steroids"....I mean is it really going to allow the companies to build better A/C's with tons more
options,Better flight
dynamics?

In short? no

Honestly Jay, Are the actual "Planes" going to be any better....Not what is going to be in the base program that they sell in the
box....But what all
the companies like LDS,PMDG And Flight1 build...Is it going to make a really huge difference?

No, it isn't I feel that the FDE for the default planes in FSX are worse than FS9 but as far as I can see, FSX will mean massive hardware
upgrades for a lot of people and what it offers beyond FS9 ? Not much really, I compared for example Sitka in FSx with Sitka in FS9 with
the Tongass Fjords Addon by http://www.fsaddon.com and apart from the light bloom in FSX I reckon the FS9 payware version looked better
and more natural, ... less cartoonish