-
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
Take a look at Avsim or Flightsim and see...
- Thread starter Roger
- Start date
Roger
Senior Administrator
I just recently managed to get Fs9 (well GW3 actually) looking good on my FsX dedicated rig. It's been a battle finding the right set of Nvidia Control panel instructions but at last I have it right and it looks pretty good. It is better to leave Fs9 models in Fs9 (after toying with various methods of porting over) and now I'm happy to fly my Lancaster, Ju52, Tri-Motor etc. in Fs9 for as Ian said the amount of development for Fs9 will probably never be matched again.
Brett_Henderson
Charter Member
I think, the biggest problem FSX faced, was that as it was introduced, Intel had recently gained a monopoly on the CPU market..and that filtered down through the entire hardware market.
With Intel and AMD constantly battling ; we got used to prices falling quickly... kinda spoiled us.. lol
Remember when FS9 first hit the market ? If you wanted to build a new computer THEN, to run it full-tilt.. it was a $3,000 endeavor. It didn't take much more than a year, for that harware package to come down into the $1,500 range..
Now granted.. the stakes were raised a bit by FSX.. If you wanted to run it well on day one, it was close to a $3,500 proposition.. and it STAYED that way for almost a year. THAT'S what hurt FSX loyalty and developement more than anything. Hardware prices weren't dropping like we got used to..
Now.. when someone sits with me to see FSX in action.. and asks, "wow.. how much computer do I need to enjoy this ?".. I can finally tell them something that doesn't make then fall over..lol You can get an INCREDIBLE simming experience for the very reasonable (as far as gaming computers go) price of $2,000... It just took a lot longer to get to this point.. Let's hope that AMD rises from the ashes again, before FS-next comes out ..
With Intel and AMD constantly battling ; we got used to prices falling quickly... kinda spoiled us.. lol
Remember when FS9 first hit the market ? If you wanted to build a new computer THEN, to run it full-tilt.. it was a $3,000 endeavor. It didn't take much more than a year, for that harware package to come down into the $1,500 range..
Now granted.. the stakes were raised a bit by FSX.. If you wanted to run it well on day one, it was close to a $3,500 proposition.. and it STAYED that way for almost a year. THAT'S what hurt FSX loyalty and developement more than anything. Hardware prices weren't dropping like we got used to..
Now.. when someone sits with me to see FSX in action.. and asks, "wow.. how much computer do I need to enjoy this ?".. I can finally tell them something that doesn't make then fall over..lol You can get an INCREDIBLE simming experience for the very reasonable (as far as gaming computers go) price of $2,000... It just took a lot longer to get to this point.. Let's hope that AMD rises from the ashes again, before FS-next comes out ..
Boomer
Charter Member 2015
I think what most flight simmers lose sight of is this wonderful "toy" we all enjoy has a short shelf life.
Realistically to stay abreast of software advances you must buy a new computer every 2 yrs. FS is no different. If you are unwilling/unable to make that kind of commitment to decry the present incarnation of FS is nothing more than "sour grapes".
I have been part of the FS community since, well since there was one
& have seen this very same argument with every version. Granted FS2K was a real turd but overall the argument is the same.
For the naysayers that think FSX sux look at the bright side, when you finally get a new puter you still wont be able to run FS11 but all the FSX stuff will be in the bargain bin
Realistically to stay abreast of software advances you must buy a new computer every 2 yrs. FS is no different. If you are unwilling/unable to make that kind of commitment to decry the present incarnation of FS is nothing more than "sour grapes".
I have been part of the FS community since, well since there was one
& have seen this very same argument with every version. Granted FS2K was a real turd but overall the argument is the same. For the naysayers that think FSX sux look at the bright side, when you finally get a new puter you still wont be able to run FS11 but all the FSX stuff will be in the bargain bin
Brett_Henderson
Charter Member
SubLogic FS = TRS80 hooked up to a 13" TV
-- And the FUNY thing is.. that TRS80 was about $1,200 (In 1985 dollars)
Leap ahead.............
FS98 ... Video card ? What the heck is that ? I've already spent $2,000 on this new-fangled "Pentium" thingy.. and now I need a $300 Voodoo thingamabob ? Are you serious ? What kinda scam is this ?
FSX .... The box says "blah blah blah", and my computer is WELL above those specs (even though it's 3 years old).. and I cant even run it on high settings. :angryfir: What a rip-off..
And it will be the same for FS-anyversion..
Aside from new features, eye-candy and technology.. the one thing I'd ask of MS, is to put realistic, minimum specs on the box. If FSX was labeled:
"FSX will load and run on (insert minimum specs), but requires state of the art hardware for full enjoyment. FSX was developed to take advantage future advances in hardware technology"
Something like that little line of text on a box would have saved us all a lot of grief...
-- And the FUNY thing is.. that TRS80 was about $1,200 (In 1985 dollars)
Leap ahead.............
FS98 ... Video card ? What the heck is that ? I've already spent $2,000 on this new-fangled "Pentium" thingy.. and now I need a $300 Voodoo thingamabob ? Are you serious ? What kinda scam is this ?
FSX .... The box says "blah blah blah", and my computer is WELL above those specs (even though it's 3 years old).. and I cant even run it on high settings. :angryfir: What a rip-off..
And it will be the same for FS-anyversion..
Aside from new features, eye-candy and technology.. the one thing I'd ask of MS, is to put realistic, minimum specs on the box. If FSX was labeled:
"FSX will load and run on (insert minimum specs), but requires state of the art hardware for full enjoyment. FSX was developed to take advantage future advances in hardware technology"
Something like that little line of text on a box would have saved us all a lot of grief...
Alexraptor
Charter Member
Its not a Microsoft thing, all games only list minimum specs(on occasion recommended specs too) that is required to play the game on lowest settings, been the same kind of fuss about Crysis and Crysis Warhead when they came out.
Ian posted a good point. The next addons will be more and more time consuming. And they will be more expensive as well. I am curious - what will be the next step for the payware developers ? Will it be bigger detail in the 2D and 3D ? Or will it be more advanced programming and systems ? IMHO, it will be secound option - the Accusim seems to be very logical step forward, as you cannot do much more for the geometry and textures (sure you can, but is it worth ?)
Personally, I prefer a plane which has some advanced systems or if there is some system damage model rather than super-uber 3D/2D plane which has operable default knobs. But it is only my opinion and many flightsimmers will have totally different.
Lucas
Personally, I prefer a plane which has some advanced systems or if there is some system damage model rather than super-uber 3D/2D plane which has operable default knobs. But it is only my opinion and many flightsimmers will have totally different.
Lucas
As far as I can tell, there are three distinct markets in FS - two can have what they want, the third will never be satisfied.
First, you have the "fun flyers" - they want as much eye-candy as they can get, but don't care about systems depth. They also tend to want cheap, rather than expensive, add-ons and will often prefer freeware to paying anyway.
Secondly, you have the hard-core systems pilots, who turn off all the eye-candy to get as smooth a flight as they can, and want to have to read a 101 page manual before they can even start an engine. If the product is right, they'll pay very high prices for products.
Thirdly, there are people who want full systems depth, maximum eye-candy, everything in one package, with no bugs, and they want it to cost a maximum of $0.00. These tend to be the ones who rant loudest when things have bugs or "cost too much" so they'll "never pay that much for anything" (presumably because they spent it all on a big airscoop for the bonnet of their five-year-old tiny hatchback with it's 1.0 litre engine). These are the guys that'll never be happy.
Although there are three markets, I believe that depending on what the product is, people move between them - for instance someone might want a full detail fighter or helicopter, but not care less about the systems in an airliner.
Because of this, there is room for all sorts of add-ons covering every category as far as I can tell. To be honest, I think that there would still be a market for freeware that only uses FS9 texturing and modelling techniques, without all the new toys, but compiled using the FSX SDK. I think people are more concerned about having the aircraft than having all the toys, but I might be wrong on that. What does anyone else think?
Ian P.
First, you have the "fun flyers" - they want as much eye-candy as they can get, but don't care about systems depth. They also tend to want cheap, rather than expensive, add-ons and will often prefer freeware to paying anyway.
Secondly, you have the hard-core systems pilots, who turn off all the eye-candy to get as smooth a flight as they can, and want to have to read a 101 page manual before they can even start an engine. If the product is right, they'll pay very high prices for products.
Thirdly, there are people who want full systems depth, maximum eye-candy, everything in one package, with no bugs, and they want it to cost a maximum of $0.00. These tend to be the ones who rant loudest when things have bugs or "cost too much" so they'll "never pay that much for anything" (presumably because they spent it all on a big airscoop for the bonnet of their five-year-old tiny hatchback with it's 1.0 litre engine). These are the guys that'll never be happy.
Although there are three markets, I believe that depending on what the product is, people move between them - for instance someone might want a full detail fighter or helicopter, but not care less about the systems in an airliner.
Because of this, there is room for all sorts of add-ons covering every category as far as I can tell. To be honest, I think that there would still be a market for freeware that only uses FS9 texturing and modelling techniques, without all the new toys, but compiled using the FSX SDK. I think people are more concerned about having the aircraft than having all the toys, but I might be wrong on that. What does anyone else think?
Ian P.
ryanbatc
Charter Member
I totally disagree. There are many new files for FSX, if you look at ALL the usual FS sites. I used to use both, but I've made the switch - I might go to FS9 once a month, just to test something out, but all my flying is done in FSX. The horrible resolution of ground textures is one reason why I stay clear of FS9 lol....
But there are some valid points being made here...
sparse FSX scenery selection (for tube pilots)
bad perf in large cities
more dev time to create fsx models etc
I can't go back to GA flying in FS9 - it's so dull....yucky!
But there are some valid points being made here...
sparse FSX scenery selection (for tube pilots)
bad perf in large cities
more dev time to create fsx models etc
I can't go back to GA flying in FS9 - it's so dull....yucky!
DennyA
SOH-CM-2023
At this point in FS9's lifecycle, I was still getting annoyed at the massive quantity of planes being uploaded that were actually built to FS2002 standards. (And FS2002 planes flew horribly under FS9.)
It's always this way with new FS releases, particularly when the release has significant new capabilities. Progressive developers learn the new tools and create cutting-edge add-ons. A part of the development community, meanwhile, sticks with the older sim, and familiar, either because they're just comfortable with the old tools, or they're using outdated equipment that can't handle the new sim properly. So they stick with what they know and support the old sim.
There's nothing new here -- this is what happens with every new release. A couple of years after it comes out, the new sim finally starts to really supercede the previous one. You didn't see the majority of new planes supporting FS2004 (for real, as opposed to mislabeled FS2002 planes) until fairly close to FSX's release.
The fact is, there's plenty of new stuff for FSX, and because of the sim's capabilities, it's generally more sophisticated than the FS9 stuff. If my concern was having 300 planes in my FS library or having custom scenery for thousands of airports, sure, I'd go FS9. But there's more out there for FSX already than I have time/money to check out.
Sorry, but this discussion is the sim equivalent of "New Study Shows College Kids Drink to Excess." It's a discussion that comes up over and over again, yet nothing's changed from 5 years ago. It's a cycle, and it's doing what the cycle does.
It's always this way with new FS releases, particularly when the release has significant new capabilities. Progressive developers learn the new tools and create cutting-edge add-ons. A part of the development community, meanwhile, sticks with the older sim, and familiar, either because they're just comfortable with the old tools, or they're using outdated equipment that can't handle the new sim properly. So they stick with what they know and support the old sim.
There's nothing new here -- this is what happens with every new release. A couple of years after it comes out, the new sim finally starts to really supercede the previous one. You didn't see the majority of new planes supporting FS2004 (for real, as opposed to mislabeled FS2002 planes) until fairly close to FSX's release.
The fact is, there's plenty of new stuff for FSX, and because of the sim's capabilities, it's generally more sophisticated than the FS9 stuff. If my concern was having 300 planes in my FS library or having custom scenery for thousands of airports, sure, I'd go FS9. But there's more out there for FSX already than I have time/money to check out.
Sorry, but this discussion is the sim equivalent of "New Study Shows College Kids Drink to Excess." It's a discussion that comes up over and over again, yet nothing's changed from 5 years ago. It's a cycle, and it's doing what the cycle does.
Hey Ian, I thought that only we had them but it looks like they have invaded whole globe.
:bs:BTW, let the bull stay.
regards
ROB
Bjoern
worst developer ever
Gentlemen, us FSX'ers are the elite of the MSFS community. We have computers, autogen densities, texture resolutions and bump maps FS9'ers would sell their wives for. Whenever we enter screenshot threads we run the show. Our add-ons are setting new benchmarks in visual and technical quality. Our chest is full of awards for flight times, take-offs and landings and once we find the time, we'll rescue people from mountains, supply lone outposts or watch road traffic for the local TV station. We aren't scared of glitches, errors or occasionally low framerates. We'll enjoy and enhance what we have.
Because we ROCK!
Now GO AND FLY, MAGGOTS! DISMISSED!
d)
Because we ROCK!
Now GO AND FLY, MAGGOTS! DISMISSED!
d)Look at FSX as retooling the factory.
A Look back
It had to be done if we were going to continue furthering the advances in simulation.
Yes FS9 was great.... because it had reached the pinnacle of development built on by previous versions (FS98, CFS1,FS2000,CFS2,FS2002,CFS3).
FS9 was the last and best model of all of these because of the previous versions.... but you know what??... FS9 also had reached the end of the line in terms of what it could do.
How could it be possible to put advances such as:
- materials,
- moving carriers,
- curvature of the earth,
- 1m texture resolution,
- true systems simulation built in external modules (aka A2A's Accusim),
- missions
... into code that goes back to 1995-1996??
Answer is.. they could not. With all the advances in technology... to choose otherwise would have been assinine.
A Tough Choice
Aces made the right choice and the team recognized that there would be some backlash as we were moving away from established rules of designing.
Also we would lose some people who became very comfortable using the tools available and those created by our more talented coders in the community who provided the budding designers... some great tools to make their jobs easier (Ground2K, FSDS, AFCAD, et al)
So imagine that one of the greatest cars of all time... the Model T could have somehow evolved to make it into today. Would it still be one of the best selling cars? Of course not.
What Has FSX Accomplished?
Lets look at what FSX has accomplished in it's short 2 year life.
- Given the public a state of the art systems simulation made possible when developers take advantage of the technology... see Accusim.
- Taken scenery objects to it's highest levels ever seen with more detail and enhancements with fewer fps penalties.
- For the first time we can get world texture resolution of 1 meter if the source is available. Being able to get true photo quality textures to add and further advance the realism of the sim.
- A world model where the curvature of the earth is modeled. Mesh can be handled in full detail.... with a lesser fps penalty then what FS9 imposed. Rivers and roads are more accurate, holy cow... we can see the improvements in autogen by even the most pessimistic person can agree... 50x
- new features in modeling have pushed aircraft design quality to never before seen levels.
So in addition to the above....that all FS fans have seen. There are other things behind the scenes that not all simmers might have caught on to.
FSX has done more than any of the previous versions to bring about a new age in simulation. The new advances in simulation that FSX introduced has:
- Helped to return the Train Simulator enterprise by providing the world engine and systems simulation.
- Opened a new ESP franchise to provide professional and certified simulation to a real business entity - aerospace, military and soon systems and procedural simulation.
- Bring about a return of the Comb..... ( OOPS! Wishful thinking... but I am hoping we can see this engine bring about the revival of CFS... hehe I know Aces.... but I am hope everlasting.) :costumes::costumes:
Being First Is Not Always The Best Thing
Now FSX is the first... the genesis of a new simulation platform that will be used not only by FS.
"Who cares!" says a FS pessimist.... well you should care.
FSX, TS2 and ESP all share a Core technology. Heck there is even a team working on nothing but the core engine! Those advances in the Core engine made by the other products only benefit FS. Even advances made outside the Core could help FS.
Ok the pessimist comes back... " Well maybe the team should just stick to FS and not get distracted."
Those that have been around long enough know what the wait time is between versions of FS. Does one really think that in the past... they finished a version and started working on a new version?
That is simply not the truth. There has been times in the past that all of that talent that was gathered to create the sim.... has not stuck together. If the team does not remain intact... it gets torn apart and the talent flows to other projects. I do not think that Microsoft in the past paid to keep the team together after an FS version was completed.
Now I was waxing nostalgic with CFS2 the other night. I went to open the Readme... I could only find 2 names on that list that are still with Aces today. Here is an exercise.... go open your FS9 readme...check the credits and see how many people you recognize still on Team Aces.
Fact is... Microsoft is not going to pay to keep a team together that does not produce revenue. The amount of FS copies sold could not pay to keep this team together.
So now FSX and the changes made @ Aces has also provided for more revenue streams:
- TS 2
- ESP
- FS(x)
Having multiple revenue streams helps keep the talent intact... a first over there I believe.
Change Can Be Difficult
"Yeah but these new tools though are so difficult and time consuming to learn. I could get it done in <enter favorite FS9 design tool here> but now I have all these other tools to learn."
I would bet the amount of money made is really in the payware side of the industry. You pay $60-70 dollars for a copy of FS. Next one goes off buying a miriad of planes for $20-60 each. Not to mention the scenery modules @ $10-40 a piece. Where does most of the money get spent? .... with the payware. So really payware developers get no gripe about the new tools and learning curve. The price one pays to do business.
As a hobbyist myself... I understand the time constraints that FSX entails. I have not learned all the secrets of materials,bump mapping and the SDK.
True it's tougher now than ever before to keep up with the Joneses.
Heck I have not even finished my first FSX project. Started many... but have completed not a one. :redf:
Hey though.... I do this for love. Those that know me, know that I love to recreate the past.... a 30s-40s-50s look. I love it when I can create something and someone else can use it and say WoW!... just like being there.
Truth is I have even less time than I used to have to devote to FS design. Real Life... the biggest killer of FS design.
To those of you who have built freeware for the world to share... I have nothing but the utmost respect and gratitude.
You do it for love and becuase you want to share your vision with others who share the same vision. Whether it be a WW1 biplane, a ship, a not so famous airfield... and then those who can bring the past to life.
Yep... takes longer now... more difficult learning curve. Love has no bounds though does it? :costumes: Besides... that project you just finished is the best you have ever done eh?
Look at what the new tools have brought.
Reflective materials, metal looks real, wow... check out the # of polys on this model I created and it performs great!, functioning MFD displays?!?, operate in multiplayer as the flight engineer??!??!
Yeah a lot of time put in... but check out those results huh?
In the End
Yep FSX has experienced some growing pains... and so have it's users. Really though it takes some understanding of the history of the franchise to understand where we are going.
No...not all the decisions were right... but we are playing with hindsight.
The reality is... if you have FSX installed on a machine built in the last 2 years... your experience will be enjoyable. Go out today... you can build a machine using first-tier Intel Conroe processors and and video card for anywhere in the range of $400-$1000.. depending on what pieces you can reuse ( case, fans, power supply, disks).
We are talking $ if we want to be first adopters yes. Tell me what in the electronics industry is not that case?
The future of the FS enterprise though looks real promising. Tools will only be optimized even more. Maybe see some more features, and more than likely be more reliable like that ol Model.... er I mean FS9.
In the meantime... we will have all those TS2 and ESP users suffering though all the teething issues next time for us! Heh Heh!:costumes:
A Look back
It had to be done if we were going to continue furthering the advances in simulation.
Yes FS9 was great.... because it had reached the pinnacle of development built on by previous versions (FS98, CFS1,FS2000,CFS2,FS2002,CFS3).
FS9 was the last and best model of all of these because of the previous versions.... but you know what??... FS9 also had reached the end of the line in terms of what it could do.
How could it be possible to put advances such as:
- materials,
- moving carriers,
- curvature of the earth,
- 1m texture resolution,
- true systems simulation built in external modules (aka A2A's Accusim),
- missions
... into code that goes back to 1995-1996??
Answer is.. they could not. With all the advances in technology... to choose otherwise would have been assinine.
A Tough Choice
Aces made the right choice and the team recognized that there would be some backlash as we were moving away from established rules of designing.
Also we would lose some people who became very comfortable using the tools available and those created by our more talented coders in the community who provided the budding designers... some great tools to make their jobs easier (Ground2K, FSDS, AFCAD, et al)
So imagine that one of the greatest cars of all time... the Model T could have somehow evolved to make it into today. Would it still be one of the best selling cars? Of course not.
What Has FSX Accomplished?
Lets look at what FSX has accomplished in it's short 2 year life.
- Given the public a state of the art systems simulation made possible when developers take advantage of the technology... see Accusim.
- Taken scenery objects to it's highest levels ever seen with more detail and enhancements with fewer fps penalties.
- For the first time we can get world texture resolution of 1 meter if the source is available. Being able to get true photo quality textures to add and further advance the realism of the sim.
- A world model where the curvature of the earth is modeled. Mesh can be handled in full detail.... with a lesser fps penalty then what FS9 imposed. Rivers and roads are more accurate, holy cow... we can see the improvements in autogen by even the most pessimistic person can agree... 50x
- new features in modeling have pushed aircraft design quality to never before seen levels.
So in addition to the above....that all FS fans have seen. There are other things behind the scenes that not all simmers might have caught on to.
FSX has done more than any of the previous versions to bring about a new age in simulation. The new advances in simulation that FSX introduced has:
- Helped to return the Train Simulator enterprise by providing the world engine and systems simulation.
- Opened a new ESP franchise to provide professional and certified simulation to a real business entity - aerospace, military and soon systems and procedural simulation.
- Bring about a return of the Comb..... ( OOPS! Wishful thinking... but I am hoping we can see this engine bring about the revival of CFS... hehe I know Aces.... but I am hope everlasting.) :costumes::costumes:
Being First Is Not Always The Best Thing
Now FSX is the first... the genesis of a new simulation platform that will be used not only by FS.
"Who cares!" says a FS pessimist.... well you should care.
FSX, TS2 and ESP all share a Core technology. Heck there is even a team working on nothing but the core engine! Those advances in the Core engine made by the other products only benefit FS. Even advances made outside the Core could help FS.
Ok the pessimist comes back... " Well maybe the team should just stick to FS and not get distracted."
Those that have been around long enough know what the wait time is between versions of FS. Does one really think that in the past... they finished a version and started working on a new version?
That is simply not the truth. There has been times in the past that all of that talent that was gathered to create the sim.... has not stuck together. If the team does not remain intact... it gets torn apart and the talent flows to other projects. I do not think that Microsoft in the past paid to keep the team together after an FS version was completed.
Now I was waxing nostalgic with CFS2 the other night. I went to open the Readme... I could only find 2 names on that list that are still with Aces today. Here is an exercise.... go open your FS9 readme...check the credits and see how many people you recognize still on Team Aces.
Fact is... Microsoft is not going to pay to keep a team together that does not produce revenue. The amount of FS copies sold could not pay to keep this team together.
So now FSX and the changes made @ Aces has also provided for more revenue streams:
- TS 2
- ESP
- FS(x)
Having multiple revenue streams helps keep the talent intact... a first over there I believe.
Change Can Be Difficult
"Yeah but these new tools though are so difficult and time consuming to learn. I could get it done in <enter favorite FS9 design tool here> but now I have all these other tools to learn."
I would bet the amount of money made is really in the payware side of the industry. You pay $60-70 dollars for a copy of FS. Next one goes off buying a miriad of planes for $20-60 each. Not to mention the scenery modules @ $10-40 a piece. Where does most of the money get spent? .... with the payware. So really payware developers get no gripe about the new tools and learning curve. The price one pays to do business.
As a hobbyist myself... I understand the time constraints that FSX entails. I have not learned all the secrets of materials,bump mapping and the SDK.
True it's tougher now than ever before to keep up with the Joneses.
Heck I have not even finished my first FSX project. Started many... but have completed not a one. :redf:
Hey though.... I do this for love. Those that know me, know that I love to recreate the past.... a 30s-40s-50s look. I love it when I can create something and someone else can use it and say WoW!... just like being there.
Truth is I have even less time than I used to have to devote to FS design. Real Life... the biggest killer of FS design.
To those of you who have built freeware for the world to share... I have nothing but the utmost respect and gratitude.
You do it for love and becuase you want to share your vision with others who share the same vision. Whether it be a WW1 biplane, a ship, a not so famous airfield... and then those who can bring the past to life.
Yep... takes longer now... more difficult learning curve. Love has no bounds though does it? :costumes: Besides... that project you just finished is the best you have ever done eh?
Look at what the new tools have brought.
Reflective materials, metal looks real, wow... check out the # of polys on this model I created and it performs great!, functioning MFD displays?!?, operate in multiplayer as the flight engineer??!??!
Yeah a lot of time put in... but check out those results huh?
In the End
Yep FSX has experienced some growing pains... and so have it's users. Really though it takes some understanding of the history of the franchise to understand where we are going.
No...not all the decisions were right... but we are playing with hindsight.
The reality is... if you have FSX installed on a machine built in the last 2 years... your experience will be enjoyable. Go out today... you can build a machine using first-tier Intel Conroe processors and and video card for anywhere in the range of $400-$1000.. depending on what pieces you can reuse ( case, fans, power supply, disks).
We are talking $ if we want to be first adopters yes. Tell me what in the electronics industry is not that case?
The future of the FS enterprise though looks real promising. Tools will only be optimized even more. Maybe see some more features, and more than likely be more reliable like that ol Model.... er I mean FS9.
In the meantime... we will have all those TS2 and ESP users suffering though all the teething issues next time for us! Heh Heh!:costumes:
Ok..............
I watched 'Joel Osteen' this morning.. He says I need to present solutions, not problems...
Ok...
What if in the future (FS11), they (Aces) make the 'materials' such as 'plexiglass' to be 'friendly' in design. This and chrome really get people side tracked.... Or, perhaps enable FS9 materials to still be useable in the future. So that models could be made the old fashion way of using 1 to 2 textures instead of 4 to 7.
EDIT: Example explanation; Enable materials to use minimum materials such as just a Difuse texture or Diffuse, lightmap. Have that as the minimum. Use red highlights on 'required sections' of the Material Menu's for needed minimum 'things' or entries.. and Yellow outlines about 'additional FS11/FSX mod Material extras. This way a newbie dev will be able to quickly navigate to making a Material without losing two weeks (yes, they have spent up to 2 weeks trying to figure out how to make chrome or plexi for FSX), and they have a working Material quickly and painlessly. (Sort of like 'taxi lights').
Second.. Simplify some things in the model making area, with the first area being 'code creation'. I think the code area could be simplified. Making code (like a glove box door that opens, or a sky diving door that disappears) is a bit of a handfull.
EDIT 2: Example explanation; Group the code into one section again. Simplify it. Tell the game engine to not request frames sections (zero to 50, zero to 100, zero to 200, etc, etc), leave out things that arent needed so the system is basic. Have a 'basic' header, etc.. And this time.. Please please please, do not change the code, unless you really dont want people making things for FS..... Thats humble advice...
Simplicity............. Simplicity and continuity.... That might enable a return of a army of devs to start back to work on making birds for the new FS platform...
Just my humble two cents....
Bill
I watched 'Joel Osteen' this morning.. He says I need to present solutions, not problems...
Ok...
What if in the future (FS11), they (Aces) make the 'materials' such as 'plexiglass' to be 'friendly' in design. This and chrome really get people side tracked.... Or, perhaps enable FS9 materials to still be useable in the future. So that models could be made the old fashion way of using 1 to 2 textures instead of 4 to 7.
EDIT: Example explanation; Enable materials to use minimum materials such as just a Difuse texture or Diffuse, lightmap. Have that as the minimum. Use red highlights on 'required sections' of the Material Menu's for needed minimum 'things' or entries.. and Yellow outlines about 'additional FS11/FSX mod Material extras. This way a newbie dev will be able to quickly navigate to making a Material without losing two weeks (yes, they have spent up to 2 weeks trying to figure out how to make chrome or plexi for FSX), and they have a working Material quickly and painlessly. (Sort of like 'taxi lights').
Second.. Simplify some things in the model making area, with the first area being 'code creation'. I think the code area could be simplified. Making code (like a glove box door that opens, or a sky diving door that disappears) is a bit of a handfull.
EDIT 2: Example explanation; Group the code into one section again. Simplify it. Tell the game engine to not request frames sections (zero to 50, zero to 100, zero to 200, etc, etc), leave out things that arent needed so the system is basic. Have a 'basic' header, etc.. And this time.. Please please please, do not change the code, unless you really dont want people making things for FS..... Thats humble advice...
Simplicity............. Simplicity and continuity.... That might enable a return of a army of devs to start back to work on making birds for the new FS platform...
Just my humble two cents....
Bill
Henry
Retired SOH Administrator
I fly Fsx
mostly
and yall know i have a "basic System"
as far as developing goes
my simple tweaks air files are no harder
AI and flights about the same.
Developing new models
for me still baffled but i can still Make a teapot:costumes:
there are more features
so i guess its a learning curve
but do we want to stagnate?
H
mostly
and yall know i have a "basic System"
as far as developing goes
my simple tweaks air files are no harder
AI and flights about the same.
Developing new models
for me still baffled but i can still Make a teapot:costumes:
there are more features
so i guess its a learning curve
but do we want to stagnate?
H
CG_1976
Ret. US Coastie/RCAF
I see intel mentioed one to many times and no positives for AMD. To me the AMD chips are being underated here when paired with Nvidia's. Over the last 6 years for me ive blown up 12 intel chips and 0 AMD's running Fs9 and FSX. Even my AMD 3500 single core paired with a 512 8800GT and 2 gigs ram blows out FSX compared to the intel equivelent. This is whats fustrating with FSX. Some computer can run and some cant wheather high end or low end. As stated my low end AMD eats FSX for lunch but my Quad AMD eats FSX for Dinner and Fs9 for a snack. But my only remaining Intell a Q9450 Ah it not very fluid paired with ATI, but with assit from Nvidia i nail FSX in the rear. FSX is just a computer specs hit and miss mystery challenge to built within ones means.
I don't dismiss the framerate problem, or blame users for having the wrong hardware. I've also noticed that the main FS forum at AVSIM seems less active than it was a couple years ago. I'm very impressed by how many good add-ons there are for FSX, freeware as well as payware.