"Carl Frisk" wrote
Being from Seattle I see lots of things missing and wrong with the
Seattle area in FS9.
Lots missing compared to which other city?
Doesn't take my enjoyment away 1 bit though.
Seattle looks better than other cities.
Just curious what city are you flying around?
Cities bigger than Seattle.
In Seattle, Washington. Besides the colorful cranes, the huge golf course,
and miscellaneous other stuff, there are football/soccer fields, baseball
fields, even what looks like basketball courts in the suburbs. The Seattle
Seahawks stadium is detailed. What might be the biggest difference is in
the city of Seattle where there are many crossroads clearly showing. I do
not see them in Dallas, Los Angeles, or San Francisco. The buildings in the
city of Seattle are placed in line with those streets. They even appear to
have courtyards drawn out in front of them. In other, bigger cities, the
buildings appear to be junked in at about a 45 degree angle to where
streets should be.
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.
There are no crossroads roads in other cities.
In case anyone wants a benchmark, this is my setup.
....Clean, full install of FS9/FS2004, no add-on scenery.
....Turn all scenery sliders to max, water is forced to about one half.
....Special effects is off.
....Fake (generated) scenery is off.
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