FSX Discussion

[copen]

DCS Warthog is my first flight sim in perhaps 7-10 years. I've been playing it for about 3 weeks. It's great, but I didn't realize how great.

 

So I decided to try out Flight Simulator X and X-Plane 9, to see how those compared to DCS. Wow, in comparison, it's amazing how terrible they are. The DCS cockpit is just so lifelike compared to the others. The engine sounds, the realistic flight dynamics, the ability to see all around you during takeoff (way better track IR integration). And the performance! FSX, even on lowest settings, gets barely 20fps on my system. DCS could improve by taking the FSX training system, but that's it.

 

I'm just amazed at what DCS has done here. If I hadn't tried the competitors, I wouldn't have realized just how premium the DCS sims are.

 

Now where can I get a motion simulator and a 720p head mounted display? :)

[Zachlw]

I'm sorry but that comparison is apples and oranges....

 

I do agree DCS is fantastic, but are you using high quality add ons in FSX/FS9? Anyone can tell you the default aircraft are crap.

[kylania]

If I can enjoy an amazing apple instead of having to buy an expensively polished and gussied up orange for the same amount of enjoyment, then an apple it is!

[Geskes]

its not comparing apples and oranges if you are looking at out of the box sims.

 

DCS needs no add-ons. FSX needs a shitload and you need a master degree in FSX tweaking to get it running stable without it being a slideshow. It's almost like having a wife, you need to do all those annoying things around it to get the thing you want. The addons aren't cheap either and come at the price of a full DCS simulator.

[Spectre_USA]

To make a combat sim comparison, I've been tinkering along with the Thirdwire

series for quite a few years, lots of cool add-on aircraft and equipment.

 

Read weapons.

 

But I have tried to go back, to keep a bit of proficiency, but I just can't, it now

looks like a$$.

 

Been telling TK for years to pick it up in the terrain department, but it hasn't

happened.

 

Warthog has spoilt me.

 

Once the gold is released, and the HUGE amount of crashes ironed out, I don't

know that I'll fly anything else...

[STP Dragon]

It's almost like having a wife, you need to do all those annoying things around it to get the thing you want.

 

Hahahah :megalol:

:thumbup:

[Boberro]

So I decided to try out Flight Simulator X and X-Plane 9, to see how those compared to DCS. Wow, in comparison, it's amazing how terrible they are. The DCS cockpit is just so lifelike compared to the others.

 

It depends of addon...

 

The engine sounds, the realistic flight dynamics, the ability to see all around you during takeoff (way better track IR integration). And the performance!

 

Depends of settings.

FSX, even on lowest settings, gets barely 20fps on my system. DCS could improve by taking the FSX training system, but that's it.

 

I'm just amazed at what DCS has done here. If I hadn't tried the competitors, I wouldn't have realized just how premium the DCS sims are.

 

Now where can I get a motion simulator and a 720p head mounted display? :)

 

Overall DCS:W graphics can't be compared to FSX IMHO, cause FSX is much better in GFX area...

[MTFDarkEagle]

Overall DCS:W graphics can't be compared to FSX IMHO, cause FSX is much better in GFX area...

Exactly! It depends completely what add-ons you have installed. And to be brutally honest: it's not that hard to get a stable install of fsx ;) Don't know what the fuss is about really..

[element1108]

its not comparing apples and oranges if you are looking at out of the box sims.

 

DCS needs no add-ons. FSX needs a shitload and you need a master degree in FSX tweaking to get it running stable without it being a slideshow. It's almost like having a wife, you need to do all those annoying things around it to get the thing you want. The addons aren't cheap either and come at the price of a full DCS simulator.

 

 

That's funny you mention the masters degree as there is a service i just discovered by accident that will TWEAK your system for FSX...that's nuts.:pilotfly:

[Yskonyn]

It's almost like having a wife, you need to do all those annoying things around it to get the thing you want.

 

:megalol: Thanks for making me spill my morning coffee over my G15!

 

But comparing both products out of the box is still very much apples and oranges, I think.

 

DCS are modules with a very high amount of research.

 

The point is; FSX out of the box is just a platform. Ready to be utilised for projects like detailed sims of airliners and what not.

Much like the DCS 'backbone' or 'world' without the models themselves in yet.

FS(X) just has some basic aircraft thrown in there so you can actually use the platform already and all that for a broad public as well. Much like a sandbox flightsim environment waiting to be utilised for cool projects.

DCS is much different; from the get-go this was already a highly detailed sim, but created on a 'per-aircraft' basis.

 

So in a way I agree that you would need to compare out a high detail addon for FS to DCS. Only then the scope is roughly the same; one highly detailed module versus another, both on different platforms. And only then it's fair to compare the quality of both platforms worlds (meaning FS itself and DCS backbone).

Edited December 7, 2010 by Yskonyn

[EtherealN]

And only then it's fair to compare the quality of both platforms worlds (meaning FS itself and DCS backbone).

 

I actually don't agree. I do in actuality enjoy FSX, even as a vanilla product it is a fairly good product. But trying to talk about it as a platform and then wanting to compare quality after it has been customized doesn't work, for several reasons:

 

1) No two people will ever be comparing with the same thing, so it really becomes apples and oranges.

2) The customized setup with terrain/aircraft addons is way more expensive than the DCS product. You don't compare a SAAB with a Koenigsegg, but you know something is wrong when you have to spend Koenigsegg money to make your SAAB compare with a Volvo. :P

 

The way to compare, in my opinion, is on a per-box basis, so to speak. So we compare DCS:Hog with FSX. Then we might compare DCS:Hog with the VRS Superbug. And those two would be separate "events", so to speak, and when considering the system requirements of the Superbug we'd just add "FSX" to the line of computer components. :)

 

On the other way around, you don't compare FSX to LOMAC 1.02 and then say "ah, but with the FC2 expansion LOMAC 1.02 is much better" - because then you're comparing with FC2, not LOMAC 1.02, even though that is the "base" and "platform" product.

[Yskonyn]

well I think we'll have to agree to disagree then. ;) I think my reasoning is still sound.

[EtherealN]

Fair enough. :)

[copen]

I didn't even know about these addons or tweaks. I just installed FSX and X-Plane 9 and played with them. And the experience was amateurish compared to DCS. With FSX, I lowered all settings to low, changed my resolution to 720p, and it was still 10-20fps. Plus, it looked like 1990s 3D graphics in that mode.

 

It's easy to say that you need to tweak this or install that to get FSX up to par. Perhaps DCS can get 100% better as well. But the standard install of all 3 of these titles are leagues apart in quality. I would also argue that DCS is a platform too. It only supports two user-controlled weapons delivery systems (Ka-50 and A-10C). And I hope mods come out to make it better. But for now, DCS is just truly a cut above the other sims. Just look at the animation model of the analog gauges!

 

I would argue that FSX had better training, and X-Plane 9 had better terrain graphics. Also, it's pretty cool how in FSX (maybe XPlane 9 too), you could land/takeoff anywhere in the world, and the terrain was pretty close to the real thing. I hope that kind of customization comes to DCS.

[Steel Jaw]

FSX is an unstable mess, drives me CRAZY.

[EtherealN]

On terrain customizatoin, the current technology does allow creation of terrain for any part of the world (through the released freeware terrain tools, I do believe they require a 3DSMax license to use though). Unfortunately, it is not currently possible to achieve seamless integration - that is, you cannot fly from one "map" to another. Basically, with these products being combat simulators that implementation wouldn't "sell" enough to reward the expense. But certainly it would be nice for the future. :)

[Mnemonic]

Now where can I get a motion simulator and a 720p head mounted display? :)

You can't get 720p HMD in consumer price range, because there are none of them.

Hopefully Carl Zeiss 720p Cinemizer OLED (not current Cinemizer Plus) will be available somewhere in 2011, but let's see.

 

Hi-res HMDs belong to research & military purposes and price of a unit is comparable to sport car.

I hope this will change in near future.

 

Overall DCS:W graphics can't be compared to FSX IMHO, cause FSX is much better in GFX area...

Cannot agree, DCS Ka-50 had inferior graphics to FSX , but DCS A-10C Warthog with all it's normal \ specular maps, HDR, atmospheric scattering, detailed ground and superdetailed units and cockpits (A-10C and Ka-50) are superior to FSX in terms of eye-candy and overall visual realism, to vanilla FSX that's for sure.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Mnemonic

[Ragtag]

It's almost like having a wife, you need to do all those annoying things around it to get the thing you want.

 

LOL, comment of the year!!:smartass::lol:

[Zachlw]

I can get in my PMDG MD-11 and fly --non stop, with no loading-- from Memphis to Tokyo... With a systems fidelity rivaling the level-d sim's at Fedex. On the same *platform* I can load up my A2A J3 and putt around my home town, Salisbury.

 

And whoever doesn't think it's apples to oranges has no real experience in CIVIL sims. I don't see what the fuss is about. These sims are different but do what they intend to well.

 

During my instrument training I used Fs2004 and an addon by Carenado (C172) to shoot practice approaches into Rowan airport and Lexington. I had the same approaches on my practical test...

 

FS9=$40 (7 years ago)

Carenado 172= 23$

430 GPS addon= 30$

Therefore 10 hours in my simulator practicing approaches= 93$

10 hours in the real plane= 1200$

 

EDIT: Dont think I'd practice my approaches in DCS or Falcon or F/A-18 or IL2 or etc... Point is it's apples to oranges. :P

Edited December 7, 2010 by Zachlw

[tusler]

Well here is a great page explaining all the HD VR stuff and comparing them.

 

http://vresources.org/HMD_rezanalysis.html

 

These guys here supposedly have 720p gaming glasses but you will have to contact them to get a price

 

http://www.tdvision.com/video-games.php

Edited December 7, 2010 by tusler

[Mike Busutil]

That’s like comparing "Freeware" to "Payware" not a fair comparison...

[Mnemonic]

Well here is a great page explaining all the HD VR stuff and comparing them.

 

http://vresources.org/HMD_rezanalysis.html

 

These guys here supposedly have 720p gaming glasses but you will have to contact them to get a price

 

http://www.tdvision.com/video-games.php

TDVision is out of HMD business for more than a year, and they never had 720p HMD, only 800x600.

 

Other High-Def solutions, oriented on professional market, cost more than 10 000 USD per unit.

 

I'm in VR myself (have 3 HMD's, data-glove and bunch of trackers at home :D ) and try to track all the products available.

Here's a thread with some info on possible 720p HMD:

http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11510&start=0

 

But it's not available yet, let see what 2011 will bring to us.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Mnemonic

[Boberro]

Cannot agree, DCS Ka-50 had inferior graphics to FSX , but DCS A-10C Warthog with all it's normal \ specular maps, HDR, atmospheric scattering, detailed ground and superdetailed units and cockpits (A-10C and Ka-50) are superior to FSX in terms of eye-candy and overall visual realism, to vanilla FSX that's for sure.

 

Vanilla.. who plays FSX vanilla? :D

 

FSX strong is mostly in addons as same as in Firefox web browser.

FSX with addons own and pwn DCS:W with addons I think :)

[Steel Jaw]

Vanilla.. who plays FSX vanilla?

 

Nobody who knows anything.

 

FSX is a platform for quality payware add-ons, like REX, RC4, PMDG.

 

Unfortunately, FSX itself, is unstable single-core bound JUNK.

[copen]

Nobody who knows anything.

 

FSX is a platform for quality payware add-ons, like REX, RC4, PMDG.

 

Unfortunately, FSX itself, is unstable single-core bound JUNK.

 

I thought add-ons would add more aircraft/scenery. What I need is to speed up FSX from 10-20fps on low settings to 60fps on at least medium, if not high, settings. This is a 4 year old title, it should scream on my PC.

 

Also, it would be nice if the TIR stayed inside the plane (X-Plane 9). FSX has this problem a bit as well.