Take a look at Avsim or Flightsim and see...

[Roger]

...that the community is still at Fs9. FsX is like the bastard child of Fs9 and Disney and no one is taking any notice except Tim and a few payware developers. Is Microsoft wrong or is there going to be a revelation, a falling of the scales from fs hardened eyes. No, I suspect that Flightsim is about to fall into a big hole where none but the brave will emerge, gagging for modelling tools that are well beyond their means as legitimate tools. Where is MS taking us...and what is the point? There has to a reason....dosen't there?

[spotlope]

What's your point exactly, Roger? I look around this forum, and I see a whole bunch of 'simmers who are using and enjoying FSX. I'm sorry it doesn't run well for you (if indeed it doesn't), but I disagree completely about FSX. I've developed for 4 versions of FS now, and FSX is hands-down the best looking and most advanced sim to date IMO.

I challenge your assertion that the community is still on FS9. What I've seen, and the latest poll on SimFlight bears it out, is that we're divided at the moment. Seems to me that low and slow fliers (and those with up-to-date hardware) have moved on happily to FSX. Tube pilots and those with older machines or thousands tied up in add-ons stayed with FS9 because it suited their needs.

What I imagine will happen is that we'll see another jump like the one from FS98 to FS2002 when the next version of FS comes along. The Aces made some critical miscalculations regarding the direction hardware was going to take, and a few missteps in their marketing. If they learn from those, we'll all reunite again around FSNext, whenever that is. In the meantime, you'll never convince me that FSX isn't the best thing yet for 'simmers. On my machine, it definitely is.

[Navy Chief]

I am keeping both. Just can't bring myself to dump FS9, as a lot of folks have. I still like it too!

NC

[Thoe6969]

The only reason FSX got a slow start is the fact that a lot of simmers didn't want to update their equipment so they could run it.Most that can run it have made the switch,and most developers are switching their products to FSX, FS9 is on it,s way out,just taking awhile,

[PutPut]

I tend to agree with Bill. I decided to design exclusively for FSX about a year ago. Yes, there was a steep learning curve and a new one with every upgrade. I am still mastering the attachpoint stuff for carrier catapults, etc. However, it has been worth it to me because I enjoy towing gliders of my own design with tow planes of my own design and I really do like carrier ops with moving carriers. I am a FSDS designer which left something to be desired for FSX until Dave Nunez developed his FSDSxTweak program which emulates the complete FSX materials system. At my age it is still an enjoyable challenge to learn these new techniques, so I intend to continue down the FSX path.

Cheers, Paul

[Warrant]

The only reason FSX got a slow start is the fact that a lot of simmers didn't want to update their equipment so they could run it.Most that can run it have made the switch,and most developers are switching their products to FSX, FS9 is on it,s way out,just taking awhile,

FSX came too fast after a solid and good looking FS9, with too much a demand on the hardware side. I still have both (though i have to admit i have not juiced up the good old ACOF for quite a while :redf:).

[Lionheart]

...that the community is still at Fs9. FsX is like the bastard child of Fs9 and Disney and no one is taking any notice except Tim and a few payware developers. Is Microsoft wrong or is there going to be a revelation, a falling of the scales from fs hardened eyes. No, I suspect that Flightsim is about to fall into a big hole where none but the brave will emerge, gagging for modelling tools that are well beyond their means as legitimate tools. Where is MS taking us...and what is the point? There has to a reason....dosen't there?


You are just now noticing this Roger?


:d



I saw this along time ago. I hope FS11 runs smoother, has nicer scenery, and is easier to create planes for.



Bill


EDIT: Like Windows XP, FS9 was a good 'golden child' platform. It had 'limitations', but still had tons of mileage left in it. I still think Aces could still makes loads of money on the FS9 platform by releasing a FS9 Platinum, and add some new Autogen, planes, some bits, new compiler, and have it as a updated new FS9. But then I think this way about Windows XP. People want it, people like it, but MS doesnt want to make it or sell it. They dont want to do what the people want. ok.. fine.

With FSX, it is so difficult to find something that can make it run right, and thats hoping its at 50% settings or less..... Mind you, there are some that can run it at 100% settings, but they are rare... Some have paid $5,000.00 for custom computers, and still it didnt run good, while 3 year old rigs are running it fair...

In college, in small business, you learn that the customers are the boss, not the boss. Also, you learn that customers are not dumb. Third, you learn that what makes money is what sells really well, and that is what the people want. If you force them to buy things (like vista) and they dont like it, but they will buy Win XP all day long, even backup copies, and the company still doesnt want to sell it to them, well.. That too tells you something.

If a new sim comes out, and no one is making things for it, ok.. well there are alot, but nothing like before with FS9, that also is a sign...


FSX is very exotic... Its awesome.. But it doesnt run on most computers, and its danged difficult to make things for.....

[CG_1976]

I keep both Sims onboard and both are very fluid. :applause:

[harleyman]

I dumped FSX...It was beautiful...Just too unpredictable for my likings...So I went back to FS9 mostly because I wanted to fly,not fix ...LOL

I am loving FS9 at the moment...I am even getting ready to drop another 110 bucks into it ....

I have had three high end rigs in the last 6 months...All flew FSX well,at first,then started to fail......

I'm happy with FS9,as I get to fly and relax,and thats something that has eluded me for 6 months....LOL


I also plan on a i7 core and X58 mobo coupled with the new OS and FS Whatever is next......I will indeed chase that too......LOL

[spotlope]

FSX is very exotic... Its awesome.. But it doesnt run on most computers, and its danged difficult to make things for.....

Bill, there might be a lot of truth to the difficulty argument where making planes is concerned - you're certainly the expert there, not me. But as far as scenery goes, FSX is a big step forward. It's actually a lot easier to produce great-looking scenery for FSX than it was for FS9. Sure, there are a lot of new material options to learn about, but they're mostly pretty logical and they offer a dizzying level of flexibility than we devs have ever seen before.

[naravac]

I dont use FSX but have seen what can be achived with it. Take aerosofts Lord howe island scenery its more looks real than any Fs2004 scenery. I wont rubbish anything without trying it first.

http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,D10712

[MCDesigns]

I couldn't agree with Bill W more. I see so many frustrated posts from freeware developers that seem to have issues with developing for FSX and I try and understand the frustrations because I don't see them..


FSX is very exotic... Its awesome.. But it doesnt run on most computers, and its danged difficult to make things for....
Not from my point of view, it's the main sim, it runs fine on my old rig at high settings and I have no issues designing for it.

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but at the very minimal, if you have a working source for an FS9 aircraft, assigning new material settings, reworking the animations and the big one, new gauge work (XML?) and you can get the FS9 model working as an FSX native?

I think that one of the strong points of this site, is that we have a very vibrant FSX discussion at most times and I know (for myself) that we try hard to bring out the news on the latest addons, tweaks and fixes to try and help users have a good experience so they don't get brainwashed by the FSX bashers. this becomes a mute point without any users.


Personally I look at embracing FSX as preparing for the next version since FS9 addons will be history and not even an option from my understanding.

[Panther_99FS]

:monkies:

[kjb]

I'm curious about the trouble some have making FSX run well. I have three systems, none are cutting edge, and it runs just fine. The one system is a sub $1500 Dell laptop and it runs FSX at pretty high settings pretty consistently getting 30 fps.

I still have FS9 on one of my desktops, but I don't remember that last time I flew it. I do agree that an FS9 "Platinum" edition would be a good idea. If they could bump the ground texture resolution to 2m and include the autogen from FSX they would have a winner.

[N2056]

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but at the very minimal, if you have a working source for an FS9 aircraft, assigning new material settings, reworking the animations and the big one, new gauge work (XML?) and you can get the FS9 model working as an FSX native?


That is pretty close...although fs9 gauges will work with little or no modification to the code. FreeFlight Design is the place to look for more info, and plenty of help & advice.

[MCDesigns]

That is pretty close...although fs9 gauges will work with little or no modification to the code. FreeFlight Design is the place to look for more info, and plenty of help & advice.

THANK YOU Robert! my point was that I feel to many freeware developers instead of taking a chance and seeing how hard it is to try and export their old FS9 aircraft into FSX native are instead listening to the ones that say how hard it is and what a nightmare it is and don't even try.

[N2056]

It was tough to learn it all back when FSX first came out. Now there is plenty of information to help you get going. There are a lot of things that can be done to 'optimize' a model for good performance, but that is a bit more involved than just getting an FS9 model up to FSX.

[Boomer]

Personally I dont think FSX is any more difficult to design for than FS9. More labor intensive yes, difficult no.

[n4gix]

I've been developing since FS2002 days, and I can honestly state that I find FSX far easier for both modeling and gauge programming...

...in fact, I build FSX models then "downconvert" them for FS9. It's much, much easier that way.

[cheezyflier]

i keep fs9 so i can fly ifr in bad weather. i don't have enough computer to do it in fsx, without tweaking. i have looked at some of the tweaks but i don't understand them, or even which ones i need. if i could set up bad weather, and still have the atc load, i wouldn't need fs9 anymore. however, when i fly fsx, i can only have atc in weather with no precipitation. i can do fog, but no snow or rain :banghead:


any tweakmasters who want to volunteer to help out a tweakilly challenged simmer?

[jdhaenens]

I agree with Bill and Bill, but understand where Bill is coming from as well.:costumes:

Jim

[Brett_Henderson]

Once you break the ice and learn the ropes... FSX developent is easier than FS9... it's just different at first.

Once over the hump.. it's easier to get your vision into 3D form.. and the finished product is better, too.

Far as performance goes.. it is, and always has been a hardware (budget) issue. I went through more money and frustration upgrading from FS2002-to-FS9, than I did FS9-to-FSX (mainly because I learned not to skimp like I did going to FS9) .. If you tried go "half-way" and then pick up some slack later.. you learned the hardway... Stick with the current sim, until you can budget for a FULL upgrade..

[Chuck_Jodry-VJPL]

Pc Gaming is toast:icon31: , take a look at shelf space in stores sometime , bring up sales volumes of addons in general and i question the monitary utility of the time spent developing for the platform...
Anybody doing it does it for love and not money , payware or freeware

[MudMarine]

:monkies:

Now that's an excellent responce!!:costumes:

I still have both FS9 and FSX on my machine. FSX is a sorce of fustration, FS9 is not. I like steps forward but FSX doesn't have me convinced that it's a step in the right direction yet! I hope that it will be someday. I'm still left wondering what MS was thinking with FSX........All the wonderful propaganda has left me feeling like...:173go1: I got a wedgie!:costumes: Believe me I understand both sides of the issue!!

[Piglet]

Anybody doing it does it for love and not money , payware or freeware

I didn't know any freeware designers were in it for the money, or have I been doing something wrong all this time??:isadizzy:

[fliger747]

FSX has come a long way from the beta (which I was involved in). I have come from 2-4 FPS around Seattle with all at minimum to 20 FPS or so with almost everything at max, with a not expensive Quad "Corps". In less demanding areas, 40 FPS or better is possible.

Because much more is possible, and expected, the pace of addon development is slower.

It IS (Clintonian emphasis) catching on:

T.

[mjrhealth]

Noticed on one forum ", i bought fsx and it wouldnt run on my pc so its still in the box and using fs9 till fs 11 comes out", i gues then he will buy fs11 find it wont run on his by now 7 yeard old machine, so it will sit in its box and he willll still be using fs9. Love fsx only sim i fly, models are so much better with so much more ssstems simulated, graphics beats fs9 hands down, and it runs no worse then fs9 did when it came out. I guess fs11 wil be the same and we will all have to update again and all the same complaints will resurface.

[mjrhealth]

Funny except for maybe 3 people all the posts are from people over 40. lol

[spotlope]

The age thing is typical of 'simmers in general. We're a crusty old lot. :icon_lol:

[stiz]

i think the 2 things which turned alot of people off FSX:

In the begining it really was pc hog, Aces got bit in the butt with that one, i rember Phill saying that when they started to develope FSX clock speed was the way forward. not cores. I bet they where worried when the trend for more cores instead of faster clock speeds happened instead!

Also the defulft scenery, the textures and autogen are fine, its the landclass, the good ol desert look which people dont really like.

As for developing, as people have said, its FAR easier than building for fs9 :jump:

[Lionheart]

Not from my point of view, it's the main sim, it runs fine on my old rig at high settings.

Michael


You are one of the lucky ones, lol.. I had never seen it run really smooth. Most of it was turned off (zero slider settings here and there) for it to be flyable, (such as AI traffic, water effects, thick weather, autogen, etc).



Please, correct me if I am wrong, but at the very minimal, if you have a working source for an FS9 aircraft, assigning new material settings, reworking the animations and the big one, new gauge work (XML?) and you can get the FS9 model working as an FSX native?

Michael


Yep, very easy on that point, but code for animations and effects is quite 'sophisticated'. (difficult for guys like me.. arrgh :banghead: )..



I think that one of the strong points of this site, is that we have a very vibrant FSX discussion at most times and I know (for myself) that we try hard to bring out the news on the latest addons, tweaks and fixes to try and help users have a good experience so they don't get brainwashed by the FSX bashers.

Michael


I humbly apologise if I seem like a FSX basher. I do not feel that I am. There are aspects of it I really love. Its ability to render in real time is amazing. The planes look like renderings from 3DS Max, the plexi, chrome are amazing... And the new planes (Maule, Goose, Airbus, etc) are flipping awesome. The terrain texture though, to me, (desert everywhere) is to me a bit... well.. enough said.




Personally I look at embracing FSX as preparing for the next version since FS9 addons will be history and not even an option from my understanding.
__________________
Regards, Michael


eeeks.. That is what scares me. Is 'vista' also a 'temporary' OS until MS makes a good OS? Are we taking 1 to 1 1/2 years to learn a new sim platform, and in 3 to 4 years, its all changed again, and will require 'another' year or more to learn? If that is the case... well.. 'eeeks' sums up my thoughts.

If there was a directional flow, 'continuity'... for instance... If we keep changing gauge code, we will have to keep relearning.

Having to restart the learning curve each time I think is a bit hard on people.


One of the cool, successful things of iPod Touch and iPhone is the many 'Apps' you can get for them. Perhaps a couple thousand by now. Its easy to design for. Everyone is making them. So now, to get 'Apps', you need an iPhone or iPod Touch. Its just like this with FS. So many planes and scenery available, so you have to get FS to get all these cool planes... (* note below).

If Apple suddenly made it very difficult to make Apps, changing codes, changing graphics formats, having to flip things, get new graphics programs, new code compilers, new this, new that, then all those guys that made Apps originally would disappear except for the hard core dudes with investments in this.. (no longer fun, type of thing).

Then the 'platform' (like iPod Touch, iPhone) would lose interest because the new more sophisticated platform was so sophisticated, that people (devs) left it.




Now... I am not bashing... I am not putting down FSX. Its great for devs after you learn how it works.. I am saying, it runs slow on alot of machines and its difficult to make 'planes' for, (animation codes, materials).


Not bashing.... hey! who threw that! hey... (ducks... ) :kilroy:


*note... I have people that find my planes on searches in the internet. They want the plane, but dont know about FS. Totally new to them. So I tell them to go purchase FSX or FS2004 at a local store, and then obtain the plane, and they are good to go.

Sometimes the Apps sell the iPhones and iPods.. Sometimes the planes and scenery sell the Sim Platform. The more planes and scenery, the more need for the platform...




Bill

[harleyman]

I didn't know any freeware designers were in it for the money, or have I been doing something wrong all this time??:isadizzy:


I have tried to explain to you that your freeware was to cheap....LOL :costumes:

[lucas81]

IMHO, the FSX should be relased in Fall 2007, not 2006. The first year was lost because of too high minimum specs. Aces opened many possibilities in the sim which were not possible with 2004 - no texture size limit, ground texture size up to 7cm/pix.

One thing messed the sim and added lots of confusion. It was SP-2 and dx-10 mode. Introducing that created a mess in the addons. The compatibility was lost between FS9 and X. Designers were forced to learn FSX SDK to relase native sceneries and aircrafts. In the first year, the developers were relasing "updated" models and they were working quite nice, except of the prop animation, except of few developers which switched to FSX SDK after the relase in 2006.

What stops most of the tubeliner fans from flying in the X are:

-low fps at huge aerodromes
-still lack of some of the popular models availble for the FS9
-Poor scenery development. There is a website which has a links to the FS9 and FSX sceneries in the alphabetical order. While you can get almost every major airport for the FS9, its still a huge problem to do so in the fsx.
-"The land looks the same in the fs9 and fsx from FL 33"

[gajit]

[quote=

What stops most of the tubeliner fans from flying in the X are:

-low fps at huge aerodromes
-still lack of some of the popular models availble for the FS9
-Poor scenery development. There is a website which has a links to the FS9 and FSX sceneries in the alphabetical order. While you can get almost every major airport for the FS9, its still a huge problem to do so in the fsx.
-"The land looks the same in the fs9 and fsx from FL 33"[/quote]

Very good summary. :applause:

[Lawman]

I voted in that poll, but in the end I think the results prove nothing. First of all because the people that have voted aren't representative for the FS-market as a whole. Secondly, it all depends on what type of flyer you are. I can understand the reasons why an "airliner"-style pilot or someone who can't afford to upgrade his/her system doesn't like FSX, but that doesn't mean it is a bad sim. It's just not the right sim for (the flying style of) that particular person.

I still have FS9 installed and I have tons of add-ons for it, just like a lot of people here have done. However, I have found that for my style of flying (low and slow with photographic scenery), I like FSX far better. In fact, I hardly touch FS9 at all now, despite the huge amount of money I have poured into it. FSX just "feels" better to me. But that is a personal opinion based on what I look for in a flight sim. It doesn't mean FS9 is now a worthless sim. And don't forget that a) FS9 had a lot of time to establish itself and b) when it came out, it was just as much a resource hog as FSX is now (remember when PMDG released the B747?).

I'm afraid these kind of polls will again just lead to a lot of bickering and complaining when a developer makes an add-on for FSX only. Such threads always turn out nasty. I don't mind people asking if there will be an FS9-version of a particular add-on, but when the developer says "no", you should respect that decision. And why should it be of your concern that the developer "loses a lot of money because they don't do an FS9-version"? I think it is partly a psychological thing: if there isn't an FS9-version, people who can't upgrade feel like they belong to the "have-nots".

Another thing that I find amazing (though understandable) is how people only look at matters from their own perspective (read: the customers viewpoint). If you look at it from the viewpoint of MS, IMHO what they have done with FSX makes perfect sense. There has been a long time understanding between MS and third party add-on developers that MS gives them the best possible "base" to expand the sim. Note that I said "best possible" and not "best", because even MS can't pour unlimited funds into the development of FS. Surely they will have a certain set budget for and time frame in which to deliver the next installment. By letting third party developers handle "part of the development and expandability", both parties profit. But that also means that the "base sim" has to be future proof and not be obsolete in one year's time (hence in my opinion the always steep hardware requirements). We must consider the (graphical) impact other (non flightsim) games have on the spending habit of the general public (flightsim is a niche market, the rise of consoles). One thing I have personally done is being far more selective in the (number of) add-ons I buy.

It is always easy to look back in hindsight and say "Oh, MS should have implemented this or done that". With that same hindsight, we can now say that MS should have ended all FS9-compatability right from the start (like Panther has always advocated). IMHO, FSX is another evolution in the FS-series, not a revolution. Maybe FS11 will be that revolution. But one thing I know for sure: it's not gonna run smoothly on the then current hardware.

The bottom line: there is no "right" or "wrong" in this discussion. Stick with the sim that floats your boat (err, shouldn't that be "plane":confused:?) and enjoy it!!

[Alexraptor]

FSX wins hands down, though i still keep good ol FS9 and its 20+ gigs worth of addons for sentimental reasons.

While tricky to get to run right i find that FSX gives me the ultimate flight simulator experience.
It supports shaders to give it the more realistic effects of reflections, bumpmapping, bloom. It also has the best potential and has the best scenery since it allows for amazing terrain and texture resolutions.

[IanP]

I don't think there's any question at all that FS9 is going to be the "Golden Child", as Bill described it and we're never going to see the likes of it again. The sheer amount of development done for it was astonishing but, unfortunately, it built expectations that with the reality of ever more complex development cycles will never be matched.

Speaking from my own experience, FSX is far easier to develop scenery for than FS9, but most of the aircraft developers I know love what FSX can do while bemoaning the amount of time and effort involved in doing it. The things that are being done now for FSX aircraft simply couldn't be done in FS9, regardless of how much tweaking and twiddling you did, but the downside is that it takes a larger team longer to develop it.

Personally, right now, I'd say that FS9 is still best for airliner nuts, FSX is better for military and low'n'slow nuts.

Ian P.

[jdhaenens]

I have both FS9 and FSX installed. The only reason FS9 is still installed is that I'm pretty regularly asked "How do I .....?" by friends who develop for FS9 only. It's the same reason I keep FSDS installed. I find more and more of my answers for FS9 questions are "I don't remember," and "Gee, I'll have to look through my notes for that one."

I stick with developing for FSX only basically because (as mentioned before) FSX does not have nearly the scenery base as FS9. That's also the reason I put out the scenery object libraries.

Jim

[Roger]

So you don't think it was "post and run":costumes: I'll re-address the reason for the post.
I visit the libraries of Avsim and Flightsim regularly and have done so for about eight years. within a year of Fs2004 being released most downloads were for Fs2004. The same thing had occured with Fs2000 and even quicker for Fs2002. Whether we like FsX or not (and I love it and my system handles it pretty well) the fact remains that the community has not embraced it. Apart from a very few freeware plane makers, if you want to add significant new aircraft you have to pay and on a global level to make significant changes to the look of your FsX again you have to pay.
So those that can afford to pay tend to be the older members of society and it precludes those that cannot afford to buy or build a rig to handle it and then the payware to make it look good. So fewer freeware builders than ever before can afford to make the jump to FsX and as I understand it the legitimate 3d modelling tools are expensive too.

[IanP]

The thing is, Roger, that you'll never see that level of development we had for FS9 again, regardless of whether it is for FSXI, XII or XXVIII - the amount of time required to make the add-ons ensures that.

Ian P.

[Lawman]

I'd like to add to Ian's reply that the number of freeware add-ons says nothing about the quality of the sim or the amount of enjoyment to be had from it.

[Pepere]

FSX runs on my 3+ year old machine just fine (see spects below). But I may reinstall fs9 for the fun of it... Hobbies are suppose to be fun. Lets have fun :friday:Now where is that damn joy stick?

David :kilroy:

[Roger]

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.

[Kiwikat]

Hobbies are suppose to be fun. Lets have fun :friday:

That's the smartest thing I've heard in a long time.:applause:

[Brett_Henderson]

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 ..:jump:

[Boomer]

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 :icon_lol: & 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 :173go1:

[Brett_Henderson]

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...

[Alexraptor]

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.

[lucas81]

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

[IanP]

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.

[ryanbatc]

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!

[DennyA]

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.

[ROB]

...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.

Hey Ian, I thought that only we had them but it looks like they have invaded whole globe.
:jeep0a: :bs:

BTW, let the bull stay.

regards
ROB

[Bjoern]

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)

[crashaz]

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. :banghead:

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:

[Lionheart]

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


Good question Lucas..




Bill

[Lionheart]

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

[Henry]

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

[CG_1976]

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.

[dswo]

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.

[beatle]

Hey All,

Interesting thread :->

Hey Crashaz,

Nice historical look at where the franchise has been and where it is going. Just wanted to comment on one thing:



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?



After a month or so of decompress time, pretty much that's exactly what we've done in the past and currently. For awhile there we were cycling back and forth between doing FS and CFS releases (with some team members working on just one product, while others were working on the other product, and some of us floated back and forth as needed :-> ). Not to mention time spent developing service packs, etc after each of those releases (and no, those things still don't develop or test themselves :-> ).

I'll grant you, there has been some turnover over the years, but that's actually fairly common at MS (one of the advantages of working someplace with so many different products/projects being developed, you get bored working on one thing, you can move to a different department/team and do something different for a while :-> ). At the moment, counting myself, there are 4 developers (hope I didn't miss counting anyone) on the team that trace all the way back to pre-FS95 days at BAO in Champaign IL; of those, only 1 has been on the team the entire time (and its not me :-> ).

There are at least another 10 to 15 folks who can trace their time on the team back to the FS95 or FS98 timeframe (this includes folks on the art team, test team, management team, and the development team), although again, not all of these folks have been on the team continuously. Our current studio head, Shawn, has been around since FS95 (I believe he was a PM back then).

The team is much bigger now than it was back in the early days (I think right now, we have more folks just in developer/coding based jobs than the entire production team (ie all job titles) for FS95, granted that's counting folks working on all 3 current products - FS, TS, & ESP (which is where I am these days)).



Oh, and just to add a couple of additional points to your section on What has FSX accomplished:

- Added the SimConnect API to the sim engine and the SDK (first time we've had a documented external access API included directly in the SDK). Is it the be all and end all for all addon developers? Of course not (we can't anticipate everything you guys (and gals) are going to attempt to do :-> heck, I've run into a few things myself that made me say, "how the heck did we forget to include that in SimConnect" :-> ), but its certainly a good first step in the right direction (compared to previous SDKs).

- Added the new mission system to replace the previous ABL (Adventure Basic Language, or A Better Language :->) based system, which itself was a replacement for the older ADV (Adventure) based system. Again, was everything implemented perfectly? I'm pretty sure anybody who has used the Object Placement Tool to create missions will agree with me its far from perfect :->, but again, its better than what was included in previous SDKs.

Tim
http://beatlesblog.spaces.live.com

[empeck]

Hi beatle, nice to see you around :)

[MCDesigns]

Nice input Tim, good to see you around!

I get the impression SimConnect has more of a role to play with the sim that is fully realized by us at the moment

[crashaz]

SimConnect plays a very big role.

Think of it as:

FSX <--- SimConnect <---Your favorite FSX external product (ie Accusim, etc)

So SimConnect plays a huge role in allowing these systems simulations like A2A's Accusim, probably all of the FSX weather simulation applications out there, and I am thinking FSx Passenger.

SimConnect.... allows one to take simulation to a much more detailed level.




On another note Tim... in another thread, the Avsim 2009 Convention was announced... Wright Patterson in Dayton OH Sept 5,6,7..... a relatively short drive for you so I am looking forward to shooting the bull and talking shop. :ernae:

[beatle]

Hey Crashaz,

Yep, definitely plan on being in Dayton that weekend and looking forward to meeting everyone else that can make it. FanCons are a lot of fun, I usually don't like being in largish crowds, but have never had that problem while at one of these types of events (both the current AVSim ran ones (and thanks guys, we appreciate it) and the MicroWings (I think that was the name of the mag) ran ones), always a great bunch of folks.

And if you can't find me anywhere else, I can usually be found several times a day in the designated smoking area (or my car if its raining :-> ), just follow your nose :->.

Hopefully I won't have to keep ducking into a side hall and code up fixes/code review other's fixes like I did at the 11/07 DevCon/FanCon out in Seattle (we were RTMing ESP v1 at the end of the following week :-> ).

Tim
http://beatlesblog.spaces.live.com

[crashaz]

Tim,
Nice! Yeah I was there for DEVCON and FANCON and do remember you popping your head in and out of presentations. I was part of that designated area underneath the driveway at the hotel and also got you a seat at our table at the banquet along with Martin Wright and others.

I'm easy to remember.... I am the guy still building scenery for CFS2 and always takes particular care in lobbying for another CFS .:costumes:


For Everyone else:
If you are interested in what SimConnect can do... and you have some coding skills... check out Tim's blog.... just happens to have an article right on top with a SimConnect sample. :wavey:

[quantumleap]

If Apple suddenly made it very difficult to make Apps, changing codes, changing graphics formats, having to flip things, get new graphics programs, new code compilers, new this, new that, then all those guys that made Apps originally would disappear except for the hard core dudes with investments in this.. (no longer fun, type of thing).
As someone who works for a software company which has been developing cross-platform apps for Windows, Mac OS and Unix for over 15 years I can tell you that Apple are by far the worst example of changing the underlying platform and tools than any other. The reason why those who have stayed in it with them for any length is mainly because of their fanatical addiction to the Mac.

Jeff

[spotlope]

Well said, Jeff. I worked with Macs for years, and I can tell you: don't believe their ads. Macs got problems a'plenty.

[huub vink]

I have both FSX and FS2004 on my PC and both are running quite well. Nevertheless I still make repaints for FS2004 and not for FSX. This has nothing to do with the quality of FSX. And I even consider FSX a quite logical step for MS to take after FS2004. For me personally there are two reasons why I haven't done many FSX repaints;
the main reason is the fact the aircrafts I like to repaint do not exist (yet) as native FSX model (Or I consider them too expensive);
it is too complicated to make a full FSX paintkit from scratch.
For any FS9 aircraft I can make a reasonable paintkit without alphas in 24 hours (real time). Depending on the texture layout, but it will take several hours to complete the necessary alpha layers. Like I make my own paintkits in most cases, I would like to make my own bumpmap as well, which most probably will take the same amount of time as the complete paintkit.


Cheers,
Huub

[Kiwikat]

The reason why those who have stayed in it with then for any length is mainly because of their fanatical addiction to the Mac.

Noooooo!!! :costumes:

That's the second great quote from this thread. Keep it up guys, it's great reading. :applause:

[dcc]

I had been developing since FS98 and had gone through all the learning curves, kluges, tweaks etc., from version to version. With FSX I hit a brick wall trying to port my creations over and gradually realized it just wasn't fun anymore. Perhaps it's easier to build from scratch for FSX using the prescribed tools, but coaxing a port of my existing FS9 models to FSX with my toolkit (FSDS, etc.) just turned out to be too much for me as a hobbyist, so I "got off the bus."

I fly FSX from time to time -- it truly is a beautiful sim -- but I favor FS9 'cuz that's just where all my toys run best in.

- dcc

[crashaz]

and BOY do we sure miss your Lightnings in the sim!:wavey:

Heck I move over to FS2004 during RTW just to use it!:kilroy: