View Full Version : Sums up MSFS-X

08-15-2007, 07:25 AM
*Warning Language in Subtitles
MSFS-X demo release (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcW3hbnR2EI)
At least Oleg gets a mention http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

08-15-2007, 07:25 AM
*Warning Language in Subtitles
MSFS-X demo release (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcW3hbnR2EI)
At least Oleg gets a mention http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

08-15-2007, 08:48 AM
Posted before but still hilarious!

08-15-2007, 08:58 AM
Hehe, that was pretty colorful.

08-15-2007, 04:08 PM
That has been around for a while but when I saw this thread I had to watch it again. It is still funny no matter how many times I watch it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

08-16-2007, 08:10 AM
oh ye gods why do you create this marvelous stuff and the fact that msfx is that bad makes me laught its true what they say some parts of il2 1946 are 6 years old but its still out stripping everythingh else no matter what it is.

08-16-2007, 08:39 AM
Can you elaborate and why some of you think FSX is so bad (is their a thread out there about this?). I'm aware of the steep system requirements but that is how FS been doing it for years, systems always seem to catch up to the latest FS version. I would like to know more about the cons of FSX? Thanks

08-16-2007, 08:57 AM
A classic!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

08-16-2007, 09:54 AM
The video is really funny, I laughed with tears in my eyes. It´s even more funny if you can understand german and be aware of what they really talking at the time!! BTW, is FSX really so bad? I was thinking of giving it a try.

08-16-2007, 09:57 AM
I haven't got it but I heard it had problems out of the box, MS liking customers to beta-test their products for them, but that a patch sorted stuff out mostly and it's now very good if you have a machine that's powerful.

A forum member called GOZR might help you with tweaks if you ask him, and there are quite a few other members with it such as Leitmotiv who swear by it.

I'd buy it if I had a machine that'd run it.

08-16-2007, 10:17 AM
Thats cool, ya before the patch it was unplayable but a lot better now. Its tough to invest in FSX when so many people have pumped tons of money into Add-Ons for FS2004. But my guess is this time next year everybody will be using FSX.

I can't help but to support any flight simulator that comes out, be it FSX or the next Maddox game, because you got to keep that ball rolling ;-)

08-16-2007, 11:30 AM
Here is my take on FSX (and all the previous MSflight sims).
The MSFS series is great for systems and procedures training first, eye-candy second, and flying "skills" somewhere around 100 or so. The FM's ARE ****. I've owned every MSFS since my mom bought me 2.0 back in 1985. Sometimes I swear the FM's are the same! (only half kidding) So I think it is really a perspective thing - when it comes to working systems and navigating MSFS has all others beat hands down. But the "feel" is just not there.
So when I want to "fly" I fire up 46', and when I want to practice approaches or work on new cross country I fly FSX.

08-16-2007, 11:42 AM
To sum it up Very lacking!


and for you big boys


08-16-2007, 01:02 PM
p-11, i agree with you all the way. MS FM is based on number variables, and from what i understand there is no true physic engine like X-plane. Now the defense for such a FM that is it makes 3rd party design a lot easier because you can make the model half *** and still get some decent FM by just playing with numbers.

I can also thank MSFS for giving me credit as being the fastest private pilot student to fly solo at the airport I trained at. I was 16 at the time and the instructor couldn't believe I had never flown a real airplane, and i thank MSFS for that ;-)

As for slipBall..ehh you can always trump consumer products with professional suites. Thats like saying Home Designer is a piece of **** compare to Autocad. I think the good ol saying is that you get what you pay for. 500 vs 50, i would say MSFS got tons of value and is not "very lacking" for the price. And i would love to own a virtual cockpit setup like in your links.

Finally, i would love for X-plane to get some budget behind it and really take MSFM on, like most Microsoft products, MSFM could always use some stiff competition, and X-plane could really give it to them.

08-16-2007, 01:40 PM
Agree to a extent....I have ms04, I just get too annoyed to spend very much time with it....IL2 has a much better feel, it just feel's right....it is very close to real life, and a good way to learn skills, handeling, guage watching, and yes navigation

08-16-2007, 02:27 PM
Yawn, here we go again. Simply, FSX is the nearest thing to BOBSOW we have now. It is marvelous and the visuals delight. If it makes you feel better about IL-2, hammer away, but, until BOBSOW gets here, I prefer it to IL-2 for everything except "boom stuff."


08-16-2007, 02:51 PM
Leitmotiv, my friend, I know we have had our differences in the past - but I trust you as a knowledgeable and honest forum member: Do you really think the FM's in FSX are as good as or better than the FM in IL2? If so, in what way?

Oleg has consistently upgraded the FM - and since 4.01 the patches have been testing FM for SoW. I am not "bashing" FSX - in many ways it is FAR superior to IL2. IMHO, however, FM is NOT one of them.

08-16-2007, 03:01 PM
This thread is quickly leaving the humor it was created for...but oh well.

In regards to IL2 versus FSX, you also have to remember that the FM is only as good as the person who developes the FM for a plane. There's a lot of junk out there for MSFS, but some of those 3rd party add-on companies make WWII aircraft for MS04 that have FM nearly identical to IL2. Since I've never flown anything other then a Piper Tomahawk, i wouldn't know who's closest to the real thing.

08-16-2007, 03:03 PM
Hell's bells, p-11, I am not an aeronautical engineer! Those with more knowledge than I, like Sensei, have noted the superior modeling of torque in FS9. I like the experience in FSX. Those who only enjoy fighting will not like FSX. I do not like playing without 6 DOF---I feel like I have tunnel vision without it. Been over all this a thousand times. Also, more to the point, my favorites are bombers, and British bombers specifically, and the pickens they be slim in IL-2. FSX is not toxic as so many are trying to convince themselves. You don't need to disparage FSX to feel good about IL-2, and vicey versay!

08-16-2007, 03:12 PM
I quess it boils down to "each for his own"...what ever blows your hair back http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

08-16-2007, 03:39 PM
FSX is the best looking and most modern flight sim to date.

All you need is a PC to run it and a bit of tweaking.

08-16-2007, 05:56 PM
On a related note, have a look at this (posted before, I know, but still funny):


"Do you wanna see those damn elephants or not?"

08-17-2007, 04:03 AM
Can someone explain to me exactly what the difference between how MSFS and il-2 flight models are done? I know FS is apparently table based and il-2 is something else, what exactly? What are the differences?

08-17-2007, 05:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
when it comes to working systems and navigating MSFS has all others beat hands down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you tried B-17II, The Mighty Eighth -- for navigation let alone bombing?
It's no line em up roughly and drop sim.

08-17-2007, 06:21 AM
Oh noooo not Bollywood, must turn it off but can't (as i fall into a trance).

Ahahaha B-17 II. Ah yes the days when you would hit the time skip key and end up 400 miles off course. Man i wish they would make a III. With today's computers you could have hundreds of B-17s instead of the crappy 8 or so in II.

08-17-2007, 07:47 AM
Yup a B17 III would be great. Wasn't B17 II just released a little bit above alpha stage?

08-17-2007, 08:13 AM
Heh ya, i remember the manual referred to features that were nowhere to be seen. Still Gunz is right about the navigation. You found yourself spending more time at the Nav chart then you did gunning or bombing ;-) I use to get really ticked about the AI navigation because you would have an ACE navigator and you would still end up in Russia if you didn't do it yourself.

-HH- Beebop
08-17-2007, 10:18 AM
Now that was funny!

(of Hitler) "He's a former Luftwhiner". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

08-17-2007, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blood_Splat:
Yup a B17 III would be great. Wasn't B17 II just released a little bit above alpha stage? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's my understanding. See this post. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/6891060085?r=2311053085#2311053085)