• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Mathijs Kok of Aerosoft's Statement on FSX bug

Chuck_Jodry-VJPL said:
the singularly most pertinent comment was that in their opinion the market for FSX products was going to be unable to support further development expenditures within a year was telling indeed. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p></o:p>
Click to expand...

He further quantified the remark by saying customers wouldn't like the FSX graphics in a year to year and a half. So his remarks were telling and quite possibly telegraphing, also. Something good this way comes.
 
I only have a GTX260, so i can't test his observations, but it was an interesting interview.
To me it seems that FSX runs only good with certain settings. Even when i decrease the details, i'm getting lower FPS.
It's sad that there is no explanation and help from MS. Strange sense of responsibility.
And Microsoft's zig zag course regarding flight simulation seems to really damage the sales of boxed add-ons. At least here in Germany it isn't easy anymore to find boxed add-ons, even in big shops like Mediamarkt.
 
Most of those decisions on why they went the way they did was for backward compatibility.
 
improper in what way??? works fine for me if you follow the sdk. FS9 planes have problems because their fs9 planes .... :kilroy:
 
I notice on my graphics for FSX, that there is an odd 'wave' like thing that occurs, especially when flying low over a city. Certain sections will seem to move, like a little wave, and an area will float over about a 1/4 of an inch or so. Kind of like rippling, not tearing, but smoothly, constantly rippling with these waves going on.

I have seen this with my other computers as well, so all GC's are included. Its very minute, but when you are stairing at a house or street as you are flying by it, and it moves several times, like its adjusting on the screen, then you start noticing it more and more.

The effect reminds me of digital TV. The system doesnt always catch extreme detail and edges of people that were still and start moving will appear to rip or have rough edges, as the system is trying to render only what it needs to so that it saves data or energy or something. What ever digital TV does. (Same with YouTube, rough movies have this effect).


Thats only an observation. I have no idea if thats what he could be talking about. FS9 doesnt do this, so I was just wondering if that is what Mathijs was talking about..


Bill
 
which ACES never wanted to include in FSX but where effectivly forced to by the comunity ... so whos to blame?? :monkies: :engel016:
 
stiz said:
which ACES never wanted to include in FSX but where effectivly forced to by the comunity ... so whos to blame?? :monkies: :engel016:
Click to expand...
I don't want to blame ACES. I only think that this community deserves a little bit more help, since MS is making the money with a long legged FSX and i guess FSX' legs wouldn't be very long without this community.
I think a little bit more responsibility from MS isn't asked too much.
 
Just listening now, and they're into the piracy protection thing.

I was just thinking about buying the Carenado 152, and Googled it. On the first page of the results, the first hit was Carenado, but not for the 152 (but it would get you to the home site.)

Next 3 hits were resellers, then came two torrent sites!

I would never pirate something, but I can see how easy it could be.

Wandering, the point I wanted to make is that I will buy A2A, Realair, and Carenado in a minute (if I want what they have, of course) because they install so easy, and also because the purchasing experience is fairly painless.

I have used other systems, and been less than happy. I realize it is a balance, but I buy from those who make it easy. And as I said, if you want to steal, the net makes it pretty easy, anyway, so what all these protection schemes accomplish is beyound me.
 
My personal take on the FSX "problem" is a lot of it extends from forced backwards computability. Truth be told, the FSX engine is EXTREMELY bloated. At the heart of the engine, lies a great rendering engine that can crunch millions of polygons and quite litterally simulate the ENTIRE WORLD! Game engines like Unreal, Quake and Crysis can only simulate VERY SMALL SECTIONS of the world at a time. From a few city blocks to a very small town at best. That being said, its greatly held back by a ton of old code left in there from all the way back to FS95. The engine can really do for a great cleaning, but that would break a lot of functions. So they just kept adding and adding and adding to it.

On the reverse side, the engine is already looking dated. I have been playing a lot with the Crysis engine recently and the visuals in that game are simply amazing! There is NO WAY you can model a world to that level of detail, but the things they do with shaders is simply jaw dropping. Real time soft shadows, with HDRI, volumetric lighting, and Ambient Occlusion? ALL LIVE RENDER? That stuff takes me hours to render into FSX. The Vision cockpit alone took over 20 hours to render all that stuff into texture!!!

I wish Aerosoft the best of luck, but the market is getting smaller and smaller. Its much harder for such a market to support a full blown flight sim like FSX or FS2004 anymore.
 
BTW, I went from an ATI X1950 with 512MB of RAM to an ATI X4870 with 1GB of ram and saw ZERO improvement in frame rate. I had to spend a full day going through threads and blogs to even get it playable at 1280x720. Thats just not user friendly at all.
 
Thanks Gibbage for that insight.

Cool to hear details about the inner workings of the heart of FSX.


From a person (like me) thinking outside of the box (knows little of the actual sciences and mechanics of a sim platform), I wonder if its possible for a rendering engine to create its own occular occlusions, its own forms of light effects, etc? Why should it have to be created into the textures when 'in reality' (in the real world) the light source is what causes the effects of light and not the paint and skin, etc.

I wonder if its possible to do that? A new generation shading engine?

For instance, if you then did this, you would only have to worry about bump mapping and could then make creation of models (by the public, both payware and freeware) much easier to do.



Bill
 
Also, one other thing that sort of disturbed me about the interview. He said he tracks down pirates (yay) but forces them to buy 10 copy's of his software, or expose there personal information on forums. Isent that extortion? Even extortion on a thief is illegal, no matter how you look at it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top