FSX is FSX...so

[gera]

I was one critic of FSX when it came out.....I still think that more realistic and true advertising of the sim should habe been done by Microsoft, but am sure they din´t care nor care now or ever....having said that I must admit that Now I really enjoy the product...oviously after many frustrations and sleepless nights like many other simmers. I learned the hard way but learned that products like this one needs the backup of the latest hardware around!!!!....that as most of you know has been so from day one. If Microsoft would have been "true" they would have --Made this Very Clear in their advertising and not say that it would work with regular off the shelf PC´s with rinky dink Video Cards-----but this is not a bashing or whatever post...it is a suggestion and a confession post....as a suggestion: Mr. Microsoft when you shoot out FS11 if ever, please tell people the "REAL" specs for the sim to work Right!!!!!and take your time, don´t rush things to the Market in a flaw untried state, we can wait..thank you big guy!!!!.......As a Confession: I din´t want to accept that I really had to "get" me the right hardware and dish out some additional "Mula"-- so until I did the sim was a flop!!!!!....things began to look better and act better after I got me an Nvidia 8800GTS...from then on I stopped doing FS9 adventures and just continued on with FSX. Now I have a better rig with an Nvidia 9800GTX, faster Processor and more memory and the FSX world sails away as smooth as it can get and the planes all work very well........conclusion: No good Video card for starters---No Good Sim!!!!!!, Not enough Ram Memory--No Good Sim!!!!....No fast 2XCPU´s---No Good Sim!!!!----all together= Great Sim!!!!!!!!!!!......yup from the outset you need all together otherwise its a Flop!!!!!....A Good Experience I would like to pass on, not to you guys who know more than me, but to those new ones.....If you really want to see a change from FS9 --a real one besides other goodies you get right off......get yourself at least "2" monitors and use the "extend" feature of your driver to actually get almost "double" front and side window space!!!!! and fly only with your VC panel....2D panels extend like rubber bands and look really bad.....you will really enjoy the Sim this way, oviously with 3 or more its totally grand..I use 2 wide view 19" monitors and have a ball flying inside gorges and ridges, not to say watch the traffic at big airports from the tower........I woke up this morning wanting to say all this because I read about the fps song on the new Bush Hawk by aerosoft yesterday, and even though I mentioned on the thread that I think it´s too expensive, I went ahead and bought it to prove my point........The plane flies beautifully and in my rig-----the one I have to have for FSX!!!---at a fluctuating 24--32 fps...which is fine for me....I´ll beat the dead horse once more:...Right Hardware= Good or better FSX!!!!!!:ernae:
Hope to see you guys in the El Dorado Expedition!!!!!!!!!:kilroy::kilroy:

PS....all my sliders are 98% up, only air traffic is 95%...and No Bloom.

[Brett_Henderson]

Yup :jump:

[Bone]

Threep

[JSkorna]

Hi,

1. Do you realize that the Marketing Department sets those specs and not the folks that design the programs?

2. Do you realize that FSX will RUN under those specs on the box? Yes, it may not run to your liking, but it will run.

3. Do you know that every team at MS has deadlines to meet and that if they don't meet those deadlines there is heck to pay?

4. Do you realize that EVERY version of MSFS pushed the hardware at the time of release to the limit? This is true of the past and will be true in the future.

5. I have a 3 year old computer that runs FSX very well!! You want to come over and see??!!

[Bone]

Hmmm.

[Pepere]

Okay. I think?

[jmig]

Okay. I think?

"I think" That if Microsoft was truly honest and posed, "There is no computer built today that will run FSx well today and it will be a year or more before such a computer exists." How many copies do you think they will sell/

:costumes:

I do agree with gera in principle. MS COULD be a little more realistic on their specs.

[MCDesigns]

While I agree it is frustrating, it's all about marketing and selling the product. Biggest issues I see are different expectations from simmer to simmer and how it performs differently on similar systems.

Here is hoping FS11 will be better in this regard

[gera]

Hi,

1. Do you realize that the Marketing Department sets those specs and not the folks that design the programs?

2. Do you realize that FSX will RUN under those specs on the box? Yes, it may not run to your liking, but it will run.

3. Do you know that every team at MS has deadlines to meet and that if they don't meet those deadlines there is heck to pay?

4. Do you realize that EVERY version of MSFS pushed the hardware at the time of release to the limit? This is true of the past and will be true in the future.

5. I have a 3 year old computer that runs FSX very well!! You want to come over and see??!!

LOL...LOL..:costumes::costumes::costumes:

[calypsos]

My beef with MS was when they announced (just before the release) that FSX was designed (like FS9) to run on single core CPUs.

I went out and upgraded at that point!:costumes: All the guys that had dual CPUs grumbled at what a waste of time FSX was on 'state of the art hardware' (true) and low and behold they re-wrote the platform for dual/multi CPU users with SP1 and 2! :censored:

So, now I struggle (but not as much as before) because I do not want to spend out on an upgrade that will not run FX11 whenever that comes out! I wish someone at MS had gone multi core friendly from day one!!!!

[JSkorna]

Hi,

What MS said just before release was totally true, FSX WAS designed to run on single core CPUs. MS did not have that magic crystal ball during development that would have steered them towards supporting multi cores. Hence SP1 and SP2.

[Major_Spittle]

FSX was coded like crap. The next MS FS should be outsourced to people that can actually write code. FSX was/is nothing special.

Graphically- Not much better than FS9, DX10 support turned out to be a joke with the DX10 " preview ".

Flight Modeling- Same horrid flight modeling. Unrealistic stalls, poor weather modeling, no physics generated flight modeling.

World - Great! Excellent! Makes the game worth while! Justifies the $50.

Game Play - Online Stinks, Game Spy Stinks. No combat, no MP carriers, no virtual airline...... The racing in MP is nice and missions are nice.

Realism - No damage modeling! Air craft controlls/Nav are done well, but the lack of damage modeling really is sad. I want to see the landing gear fail if I hit the runway too hard and the plane to skid down it coming apart with sparks and flames, I don't want the game to just freeze and have " Crash " typed on the screen like some kind of 1970's TV Pong game.

This is what happens when you have no competition and little demand for a product. :173go1:
Unfortunately until another company comes along with something better, MS will keep putting out crap that is slightly better than the last crap for their captive audience. :banghead:

[Brett_Henderson]

FSX was coded like crap. The next MS FS should be outsourced to people that can actually write code. FSX was/is nothing special.


I'll admit, as a programmer from back in the "day", that I've had to scratch my head at times when trying to imagine the flow-charts and documentation the coders were working with. But then I remember what this pile of code is actully accomplishing, and what the coders achieved, considering the ever-changing hardware world they were coding for. A bit buggy and ineficient ? ...Sure... "Crap" ? .. not even close. All things considered, I'd say the coders get a B-


Graphically- Not much better than FS9, DX10 support turned out to be a joke with the DX10 " preview ".


Not sure what you're seeing, because graphically, FSX is light-year jump over FS9. Me thinks you've been trying to run it on FS9-caliber hardware. On good hardware it's an incredible experience. As for DX10... blaming Aces for that is like blaming a car company for poorly paved highways.


Flight Modeling- Same horrid flight modeling. Unrealistic stalls, poor weather modeling, no physics generated flight modeling.


Here we'll agree, to a point. I think the flight algorithms need to be completely reworked. Things like stalls can't be patched into the existing flight model.. But to call the flight model horrid ? I'll have to strongly disagree. I'm a real pilot and have to say.. I find it an excellent flight model, with a few short-comings. Same for the weather.. it's represented quite well for desktop simulator, but could be improved.


Game Play - Online Stinks, Game Spy Stinks. No combat, no MP carriers, no virtual airline...... The racing in MP is nice and missions are nice.


Here, your completely off-base. Gamespy has its own problems, but the improved multi-player (that allows for a good enough shared experience for racing), is excellent. The shared cockpits are a big plus. And.. it was never intended to be a combat sim.. so that complaint is moot.


Realism - No damage modeling! Air craft controlls/Nav are done well, but the lack of damage modeling really is sad. I want to see the landing gear fail if I hit the runway too hard and the plane to skid down it coming apart with sparks and flames, I don't want the game to just freeze and have " Crash " typed on the screen like some kind of 1970's TV Pong game.


Modeled damage would be interesting, but the lack of it is nothing to lose sleep over. Like you pointed out; this is a $50 desktop simulator. The kind of simulator that would "have it all", would likely be in the $3,000 range, and require an expensive subscription.


This is what happens when you have no competition and little demand for a product. :173go1:
Unfortunately until another company comes along with something better, MS will keep putting out crap that is slightly better than the last crap for their captive audience. :banghead:

I can't argue that if there were more competition, and more demand, we'd be getting a better product.. that's just fact. But again.. I would hardly classify any of the MSFS as "crap". Bugs, short-comings and all, it's the best entertainment (and education) you can get for a computer, for less than $100 ;)

[Skywolf]

I just built a pc today and is it ever fast! AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+ 2.59 GHZ. 2Gig RAM, And a Nvidia GeForce 8400 GS video Card! Worked Great with Silent Hunter 4, so we'll see what it cando with FSX.

[txnetcop]

FSX was coded like crap. The next MS FS should be outsourced to people that can actually write code. FSX was/is nothing special.

Graphically- Not much better than FS9, DX10 support turned out to be a joke with the DX10 " preview ".

Flight Modeling- Same horrid flight modeling. Unrealistic stalls, poor weather modeling, no physics generated flight modeling.

World - Great! Excellent! Makes the game worth while! Justifies the $50.

Game Play - Online Stinks, Game Spy Stinks. No combat, no MP carriers, no virtual airline...... The racing in MP is nice and missions are nice.

Realism - No damage modeling! Air craft controlls/Nav are done well, but the lack of damage modeling really is sad. I want to see the landing gear fail if I hit the runway too hard and the plane to skid down it coming apart with sparks and flames, I don't want the game to just freeze and have " Crash " typed on the screen like some kind of 1970's TV Pong game.

This is what happens when you have no competition and little demand for a product. :173go1:
Unfortunately until another company comes along with something better, MS will keep putting out crap that is slightly better than the last crap for their captive audience. :banghead:

Major, I handle networks and write code for a living and have done contract work for M$ and I agree that some of the coding in FSX will make you scratch your head, but I could not agree less with what you are saying.

I have no idea what you are seeing when you are looking at code but this is a light year ahead of FS9 in it's capabilities. I am sorry you are having such a bad time with FSX. If there is anything I can do to help, I will be glad to.

By the way if you need an example of just how awesome FSX really is, talk with the guys at A2A who have almost finished the first service pack for Accusim engine for the B377 and P-47. If you want a lesson in damage modelling code these are the guys to set you straight. The flight physics of this simulator are actually very good as demonstrated by this product alone. Many developers will disagree with you, I'm afraid. This could not have been done on FS9. FSX is a major step forward.
Ted

[EgoR64]

:wiggle:

Interesting, I have to admit, I went through a few Hardware changes to be happy with FSX, I use it the most because hands down it is the most impressive as far as the Eye candy goes and capabilitites. Not impressed with DX10, not sure what DX11 will bring, I have not seen the DX11 painting. I'm about due for a new card and hardware, I usually figure every 2-years or so or when ever MS comes out with the Latest fs Sim. Good thing is everything is so damn cheap now a days, I remember how much a tandy - 286 computer cost me from radio shack back in the day - LOL - almost $3000.00 big ones and that came with a 5.25 "Double Density" Ohhhhh Yea - floppy(use to use them as frsibies) and a monster 10-meg harddrive that sounded like a generator upon start up. :costumes:

Progress is awsome !!:applause:

Cheers !!

[Brett_Henderson]

I remember how much a tandy - 286 computer cost me from radio shack back in the day - LOL - almost $3000.00 big ones and that came with a 5.25 "Double Density" Ohhhhh Yea - floppy(use to use them as frsibies) and a monster 10-meg harddrive that sounded like a generator upon start up. :costumes:


The AMD vs Intel war spoiled us... fast hardware was cheap and getting faster by the day. Since Intel has had a stranglehold for years now.. hardware has gotten a little more expensive, but NOTHING comapred to what it was. Remember now, that 286 machine was $3,000 in 1988 dollars ... it'd be about $7,000 today !

[Major_Spittle]

Major, I handle networks and write code for a living and have done contract work for M$ and I agree that some of the coding in FSX will make you scratch your head, but I could not agree less with what you are saying.

I have no idea what you are seeing when you are looking at code but this is a light year ahead of FS9 in it's capabilities. I am sorry you are having such a bad time with FSX. If there is anything I can do to help, I will be glad to.

By the way if you need an example of just how awesome FSX really is, talk with the guys at A2A who have almost finished the first service pack for Accusim engine for the B377 and P-47. If you want a lesson in damage modelling code these are the guys to set you straight. The flight physics of this simulator are actually very good as demonstrated by this product alone. Many developers will disagree with you, I'm afraid. This could not have been done on FS9. FSX is a major step forward.
Ted

Obviously I have never looked at their code, I am just commenting on what they were able to accomplish with what overhead when it comes to hardware. For what they touted FSX to be I expected "scaling for future hardware" to mean more than being able to have more trees drawn and suck up bandwidth.

I have seen what other programmers have accomplished with the same hardware. Graphics are poor and don't scale well at all with newer Video cards. Clouds/smoke/particle rendition is bad at best. Flight physics doesn't include basic stall characteristics and planes drop out of the sky with little reguard to how the plane is balanced or airflow effects from falling, it is almost like they are in a vaccuum.

I will just leave it at we disagree. :ernae:

[Brett_Henderson]

I have seen what other programmers have accomplished with the same hardware.

This is a common reference when complaining about FSX.. And it's base-less. No other graphics-limit-pushing 'game' has to deal with an open-ended, real world.. nor the range and scope. The "world" that other software renders is small and well mapped out... and they are not trying to render complex models (behaving like aircraft) within this boundless world.. all the while letting the user switch back and forth twixt a world of models (aircraft (AI that is also animated and behaving like an aircraft), clouds, autogen, mesh) and a fully functioning cockpit, complete with an array of accurate instrumentation (maintaining an accurate view of this boundless world (not a limited,constantly reapeating pre-determined world)FROM that cockpit).

Again.. not a perfect and efficient job done by the MSFS developers, but certainly a very good job... I'd go as far as to say their work is remarkable and amazing.

[cheezyflier]

of all the folks who post over here in the fsx forums, my computer is probably the most low-end. mine will run fsx ok, but not as great as some of the hardware you guys have. mine barely handles fs9 at 80 % sliders to the right. for what i paid for it, i'm pretty happy with fsx.

[txnetcop]

Obviously I have never looked at their code, I am just commenting on what they were able to accomplish with what overhead when it comes to hardware. For what they touted FSX to be I expected "scaling for future hardware" to mean more than being able to have more trees drawn and suck up bandwidth.

I have seen what other programmers have accomplished with the same hardware. Graphics are poor and don't scale well at all with newer Video cards. Clouds/smoke/particle rendition is bad at best. Flight physics doesn't include basic stall characteristics and planes drop out of the sky with little reguard to how the plane is balanced or airflow effects from falling, it is almost like they are in a vaccuum.

I will just leave it at we disagree. :ernae:

Major, like Brett said, when you are looking at coding for most other games they are coded in much smaller area then compiled with other parts-and you can add much more detail, that of course doesn't apply to every game. I like water in Far Cry better than the water in FSX, though you can change the water in FSX with addon texturing.

If you look at the coding in FSX it is rather unique-limited a bit in places you wouldn't expect which why I agree with Brett-a B- is appropriate. It looks somewhat rushed. It could have been truly awesome, but you know how corporations work. They want a return on their money(labor and materials) spent as quickly as possible.

To accomplish something like A2A has accomplished you have go beyond the scope of the SDK and do your own programming, but the unique part is that you can and you can make FSX accept it-WOW! Anyway, like you said, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Ted

[Alexraptor]

There are many parts with FSX which is just plain sloppy and poor and that is how it handles autogen. The truth is that while FSX is great when you get it working its just extremely poorly optimized and wastes more system resources than it has to.

[MudMarine]

I would think that I'm someone thought they could do better job at coding maybe they should apply for a job with the FSX team..........? Just a thought. Perfection is easier said than done.

[heywooood]

If I can weigh in here -

FSX developement - like all other flight sims - is designed as if being pulled in three directions at once...

One - is always the eye candy - for some reason that always gets first priority in flight sims...probably because flight is a heavily visual sensation / experience...ok

Two - is 'realism' - which means different things to different people - or many things to different people depending on who you ask....for instance - to me realism means accurate flight dynamics, accurate ATC communications, accurate and dynamic weather forces and depiction, accurate aircraft models with realistic and varied damage models etc... to you it is likely different and in different order.

Three - is what the developers themselves want to code into it...lets face it this kind of programming contains a certain artistry and all artists want to express themselves in some ways - also - in the case of FSX there was a high corporate priority or rather the necesssity to start with the whole virtual world and that has to take alot of resources right off the top...but for ACES it was a precondition as it is the foundation of M/S's other virtual world sims like TrainSim and their commercial application which I don't remember the name of just now...

I like some of the things FSX does and others not so much...

It is fairly bloated though and not as efficient maybe as it might have been - I think all of M/S software suffers from the compartmentalisaton of their developements in this regard - Phil Taylor alluded to it many times before he left ACES...

But for what FSX does well - it is a great diversion and I love to fly within its friendly confines...but confined it is, that fact is undeniable.
I think the compromises they made for gameplay are acceptable based on what the program costs as others have said, but I would have prioritised certain things differently - I think its safe to say we all have our own ideas on what they could have done better (or worse) and I also think it is safe to say that there will always be for the forseeable future anyways.

[BananaBob]

I'm glad we are able to change most things to our liking. It seems they missed a lot of the simple things though that can add greatly to your simming experience.