MORE bad news...this time from ALphasim...

Donation drives

SOH Bandwidth Drive 2025

Goal
$3,500.00
Earned
$3,130.00
This donation drive ends in
Donate
When....

...I flew solely on FSX for a year and a half, then recently loaded up FS9 as well...I was stunned at how FS9 looked in comparison-- like a cartoon caracture of FSX. And I'm not running a hot rod rig, either (Intel Core 2 2.40 GHZ, 3 gig of RAM, nVidia GeForce 7900), but I can still get framerates in the mid-to-upper 20s (and often in the 30s), with most non-traffic sliders in the upper 75% of their settings, and it JUST looks better to me.

I guess it's like Panther said (I can't remember his exact words) recently about someone's choice of a particular FS airplane: "If it scratches your itch, that's great". FSX clearly scratches my itch desipite some oft-discussed and well documented irritations.

The sad thing is that MS seems to have only marginally improved FSX since it's release, there is only a fraction of the add-ons available for it that were available for FS9. So I think it's a similar deal to MS operating systems:

- Windows 95: OK
- Windows 98: Better
- WindowsME: Sucks
- Windows 2000: Better than ME
- Windows XP: Much Better
- Vista: Sucks

Could FS be like this?

- FSFW95: Okay
- FS98: Big positive jump from FSFW95
- FS2000: Debatable if it was better than '98
- FS2002: An identifiable step up from 2000
- FS2004: A quantum leap up from 2002
- FSX: Leap from FS9-- but performance suffers greatly because of lack of computing power
- FS11: Could this be another FS9 in the making? LET'S HOPE SO!

I'd love to hear other's thoughts. These are my impressions of what these systems and flight sims were like-- maybe some of you have different opinions. I'd love to hear them!

Kent
 
i usually stay away from the FS9 vs FSX discussions. But i'll chime in w/ my 2 cents.

in the gaming biz, most companies are always developing for the next gen hardware platform. We do this for several reasons.

One, game dev usually last about 2 to 3 years. You have to plan and guess what the hardware spec will be when you go to market. Two, many game studios have sponsorships from hardware vendors such as Nvidia, AMD, ATI, etc. When you are being paid by these guys, you have to make your software take advantage of the hardware, and in most cases, these are super new and expensive. Three, technology drive. Being a consumer is very different than being a developer. When you are working several years on a project, and part "2" comes along, you want to move on and do something completely different. Programmers want to push tech, and artists want to push art. And if your whole team thinks this way, most of the time that's the direction it'll go. Keep doing the "same thing but better" is a hard pill for developers to swallow. It just means "repeat another 3 years on the same project....think i'll quit."

In the case of FSX, i'm sure the developers knew what they were headed into. FSX is built for next gen hardware, to be run on Vista with DirectX 10. It might not be perfect, but it's a step they needed to take in order to ready the platform for FS11 and beyond. Whenever you have a tech push, problems will arrive.

There are a lot of pressure in a studio (especially a public company such as MS) to release products and keep the share prices up. FSX i believe suffered a bit from the poor first release of Vista and hardware not catching up. And i'm sure the discussion of bringing FSX to the XBOX has came up several times as well internally...and this always causes conflicts during dev.

I agree with the above post. MS is using FSX as a tech push and get vendors onboard. FS11 should be a better product. However, i don't think MS will ever put more effort into the "hardcore" parts of sim, such as better SID/STAR, ATC, weather, etc. They will depend on 3rd party for that. There is no need to spend money on a narrow band of consumers internally.

-feng
 
Feng brought up a good point...

...I am not trying to turn this into an FS9 vs. FSX thread, either. I'll admit that while I enjoy FSX, it hasn't been without it's growing pains, and frankly, I'm hoping FS11 will be less of a leap in terms of hardware requirements.

I also suspect that FS releases are now on "three or more year release cycles", versus the "two year release cycle" we saw in the late 90s and early in the 2000s.

Just a sign of times, and the increasing complexity of FS, I suspect.

Kent
 
Look at it this way, when FS9 is no longer supported maybe we'll get all the old payware FS9 add-ons for CHEAP!! :applause::costumes:
 
monk1 said:
Look at it this way, when FS9 is no longer supported maybe we'll get all the old payware FS9 add-ons for CHEAP!! :applause::costumes:
Click to expand...

Ebay was a gold mine when FSX was released, I bought a pile of disks!

I am disappointed in Alphasim not bringing this aircraft to FS9 but then I'm sad Real Air won't be bringing their duke or Aerosoft their Twin Otter amongst a load of others!
 
hinch said:
Ebay was a gold mine when FSX was released, I bought a pile of disks!

I am disappointed in Alphasim not bringing this aircraft to FS9 but then I'm sad Real Air won't be bringing their duke or Aerosoft their Twin Otter amongst a load of others!
Click to expand...
That too! Very big disappointment!! I understand the need to eventually cater only to the FSX crowd; I am aware of the underlying business decisions that motivate that migration; I don't like being 'teased' after a month of salivating over screnshots of a product originally advertised as being 'for FSX AND FS2004'.....maybe that makes me a bad guy....but I pay for and support these developers and have for a long time. If it is to be FSX only, make it known as such. I will move on to other products and spend my money there. Simple concept. Everyone who has posted here has a valid point, and i guess it just boils down to personal opinion. Once again...sorry for ranting.
 
I run both on a Vista system. FS9 seems to do better for me in terms of Framerates on Vista. I have to say that I really do hop back and forth depending on what I want to fly. Most of my Military Ops are on FS9 because there isn't a lot being done in terms of packages. UKMIL has done some and MAIW has some tutorials on converting their FS9 package to FSX. I can't say that I really favor FS9 over FSX or vice-versa. They both contribute to what I enjoy in this Hobby. :wiggle:
 
I'm probably going to use...

....Vista if I do decide to go the Boot Camp-MAC route. I hear 64bit Vista does increase performance on those platforms with FSX.

SACtargets....are you an old 544 SIW guy?

K.
 
To give you the developers perspective...based on almost daily conversations with a good friend...

Bill (Lionheart Creations) has been cranking out dual platform versions of his planes, but he has a lot of problems when it comes to the FS9 versions. The reasons are pretty basic.

When you build your plane in the design program of your choice you must run it thru a "compiler" program that takes the model you have made and turns it into a 'mdl' file used by the sim. The problem is that in FS9 you are limited by the compiler in terms of model complexity, which is typically determined by how many polygons a model uses. The "compiler" for FSX does not really have a limit like that, which allows a modeler to create a much more detailed model, especially in the vc.

What it boils down to is a difficult decision for the model maker, especially if he is in the payware side of things. You are effectively having to make 2 full models for each plane. Most developers are finding that the extra work required to support both platforms is just not paying off in sales, and the next version of FS apparently will not support FS9 models at all. The FSX models are supposed to work with minimal if any modification.
 
N2056 said:
To give you the developers perspective...based on almost daily conversations with a good friend...

Bill (Lionheart Creations) has been cranking out dual platform versions of his planes, but he has a lot of problems when it comes to the FS9 versions. The reasons are pretty basic.

When you build your plane in the design program of your choice you must run it thru a "compiler" program that takes the model you have made and turns it into a 'mdl' file used by the sim. The problem is that in FS9 you are limited by the compiler in terms of model complexity, which is typically determined by how many polygons a model uses. The "compiler" for FSX does not really have a limit like that, which allows a modeler to create a much more detailed model, especially in the vc.

What it boils down to is a difficult decision for the model maker, especially if he is in the payware side of things. You are effectively having to make 2 full models for each plane. Most developers are finding that the extra work required to support both platforms is just not paying off in sales, and the next version of FS apparently will not support FS9 models at all. The FSX models are supposed to work with minimal if any modification.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed explanation!
 
Yes, thanks for the details! Its good to learn some of the different and more intricate nuances of the development processes. Can more be explained to me what exactly is added to FSX aircraft (save for bloom and assorted unnecessary eye candy) that makes them so unpalpable to reverse or de-program for FS9? What 'systems' does FSX simulate that FS9 does not? I am very curious to find out, as I have used both and see very little to no difference in 'systems' simulation. Does FSX offer support for PAR or GCA approaches? Does It alow for a 'stock' ATC vectored overhead approach? Revision of an IFR flight plan enroute? There are no differences that I have seen requiring 'significant' new systems challenges. Therefore, as a totally stupid FS9er, I am starved for information, and once again ask for the patience of the sim-outhouse community to help me come to terms with this dilemna. Thank you guys for putting up with me.
 
Felixthreeone said:
What 'systems' does FSX simulate that FS9 does not?
Click to expand...

Not a system but for one...
Virtual cockpits in FSX are actually a different model/item than the aircraft itself enabling one to theoretically swap virtual cockpits.

The FSX Accleration F/A-18 single seat shares the same v/c as the CaptainSim F/A-18 2 seater & F-117...
 
Ok....thats the kind of info I'm looking for, Panther... actual details of how it all works. I thank you once again for your response; Much appreciated.
 
ColoKent said:
....that dilemma has GOT to suck for developers!
Kent
Click to expand...

Very much so!
Re 'FSX' hardware, it appears to be a very mixed bag and seems to hinge on what the user expects, some are happy with a reasonable performance and others want everything maxed out, while the usual suspects are chasing the FPS Holy Grail.
I built up a complete new package with FSX 'performance' in mind, in the end I decided FSX was 'OK' but not for me, as there were not enough genuine FSX aircraft or scenery packages available that I was interested in and to be fair, the cross-overs were not capable of making the most of FSX.
So far, I've found two 'FSX Only' releases that I would really wish to own, and it would be no reason to justify the outlay that I felt was neccessary for a suitable hardware upgrade.

It makes sense for the commercial developers to go the route of the FSX capable releases, they are in the business of making a dollar and so must make 'business decisions'.

For myself, my outlay on a new system was no problem, it runs my Motor Racing Sims at full 'everything' .......................:d..............and I was due for a nice new unit anyway.

Specifications:
Core 2 Quad Q9550 2.83G overclocked to 3.4+G; XFX nForce 790i Ultra Chipset; OCZ 2G DDR3 1600 Platinum XTC; 2x2 XFX Geforce GRX260 896Mg 'XXX' Editition in SLI; 2x760 SATAII/300 in RAID O; LG Blu-Ray / HD-DVD Combo; Creative X-FI XtremeGamer; Coolermaster Stacker 830SE Black; OCZ 1010W GameStream PSU; Thermalright Ultra-120 xTreme Heatsink&Arctic Colling 120mm; 24" Samsung Widescreen LCD; Saitek X52 and Saitek Pedals combo.
Almost forgot, Windows XP Pro 64bit, DDR3 RAM is wasted onder 32bit architecture.
 
Another difference between the 2 sims is that FSX allows you to adjust the transparency of 2D panels (if you choose to use 2D...)
 
Well,
As N2056 stated, since the compiler doesn't have a poly limit for FSX, you can have some pretty incredible V/C's in FSX that don't cost nearly as much FPS as they would in FS2004....:kilroy:

However,
I must say I've got some AWESOME FS2004 V/C's....Cloud 9 has made a few of 'em :applause:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top