the deminishing fs9 products

[Guest jgreth123]

Okay. While my theory is speculation, it is WELL-founded. I'm a programmer as well and I've been through the previous Microsoft FS upgrades. This one is, however, unique. The CPU was never the limiting factor before because the CPU's just kept getting faster and faster on a single core ( which is how MSFS operates ).Now the single cores are capped and they are just making more cores on the same die. Well the new FSX utilizes only a single core ( okay, it DOES pass off a MINUTE amount of work on to a second core but it definately doesn't "share" the same workload ). Without MAJOR single core advancements OR Microsoft making FSX truly use multiple cores, the bottleneck in EVERYONE's system is going to be the CPU regardless of everything else. This isn't a blind 'OMG!' cry. If they don't fix this situation then I'm afraid FSX will never run as fast as it COULD. Add in complex add-on planes, scenery, and utilities ( these can run on the second core though if the developers do it right ) and you get an awful performing simulation.Anyhow.... as I said before. It was an early design decision that bit them in the a**. Let's hope they can fix it. I'm afraid future anything short of major advancements in single-core CPU speeds will not help terribly much when the CPU just can't keep up with the other components.FSX isn't to FS9 as FS9 was to FS2002 (or any earlier upgrade). Well, it is SOMEWHAT but not as limiting in this case.

[Guest JTEK99]

>Hi all I built a new rig with FSX in mind back in October and>when I finally burned my rig in I put FSX on its own dedicated>10K drive and I was hoping for an eye opening 20 year wait for>the ultimate>flight sim experience.What I received was an "Arcade" looking>type Sim that I could not run @ 50% without performance>issues.I suppose you believe that those folks who built/bought a brand new, 'mind-blowing' power machine when FS9 was released didn't have the same experience? Again, I remember the same things being said: it couldn't be run at full bore, so there MUST be something wrong with Microsoft, FS9, and the world in general.Then a patch came out.Then more tweaks.Then addons.Then more tweaks again (and people are still tweaking FS9).The fact is, whatever machine you put together in anticipation of FSX a month before it's release isn't going to cut the mustard in a year; that's reality, no matter how loathe you are to admit it. Scenery addons, complex aircraft are going to bring current, NEW PC's to their knees... again, as with ALL new versions of FS, not just FSX.I mean.. I don't have the same PC I bought around the time of FS9's release. It's a proverbial antique for flightsimming (as all PCs are a year or so down the road). I had to get another one with greater speed/grfx/mem further down through FS9's lifecycle; and, yet again, I upgraded that one (so that makes an essential total of 3 PC's through a single FS lifecycle). And even now, with all the tweaks available, it isn't giving me the most 'cutting edge' experience available to humankind. That's the nature of flightsimming and -- need I say it -- 'gaming' in general.Relax and enjoy what you can. And if you made a hasty purchase, despite the entire history of new FS versions and their associated cycles of complaint, then so be it. But I can nearly guarantee the situation will resolve itself and, a year from now, if you still can't run FSX at eye-candy levels appropriate to your taste, people will simply say (as they do now about FS9):"Well, you don't have the horsepower, that's all."Painful, but true. But tens of thousands of simmers before you have had to hear that statement, so be stout of heart.And before you hurl at me the idea that multicore/duocore is the summa of all-attainable PC power and to ignore such info is tantamount to believing the world flat, remember this:There's no such thing.

[Jack C 8]

It sucks that we are given a product that we can only really enjoy for 1/3 of its life. Lets look at FS9. If memory serves me correctly it came out in Aug 2003. I would take a good guess and say FS9 only really became FPS (smoothness) friendly with all sliders maxed maybe a year ago which is say October 2005. SO between the time of release and to the poin that the AVERAGE person was happy with FS9 is about 2 years which leave 1 year left until FSX came out. That is 2/3 of the life of FS9 that people weren't happy with it. This is complete crap. We are given a product that we are only given 1 year to be happy with until the next product comes out. I am sure FSX will have the same outcome. We will be happy with it for only 1/3 of its life. Instead of designing a product that is meant for computer that wont be available for another 1-2 years, why not design the product to run smooth on a system that is available today. I dont mean a AMD 3800 but design it for a FX57'ish kind of system. One that can be obtained easily today with a moderate amount of money. So really for the next bunch of FS versions we will only enjoy FS 1/3 of the time. Pretty pathetic huh? This is the first version of FS that I will not be jumping on right away thats for sure. there is no reason to be. From 2k2 to fs9 at least there was a good improvement in the weather engine. fsx? nothing to be excited about. And to all those that are running FSX with "awesome" performance, I bet I can stand my FS9 up to your FSX and put it to shame. I have over 500 in scenery addons (genesis, all UT, all cloud 9, flightscenery, imaginesim, ground environment, etc) and just about every addon a/c u can think of as well as the amazing AS6 (see Jim? no hard feeling for disagreeing with me! lol). Just remember gents, WE should be the ones the aces team are tayloring to. Airbus brought the A350 back to the drawing board. Why? Because the customers such as Emirates, etc told them to. Why should it be different for us? Ok so we are not spending 200 million on FS but that shouldnt matter. How many of us wanted the turbine model simulate properly? Being a tester at Aeroworx on the B200, I sure can tell you I did. Did that get resolved. Not in the least little bit. I am pretty disappointed in that. Why really got improved? I have no idea.

[kerosene31 349]

I was reasonably happy with FS9 on release day. At the time I had what was at the time pretty powerful 3.0 Intel chip. We didn't need to max the sliders to be happy. I was able to run it reasonably well with sliders that still made it better than fs2002. Granted, you needed a quite powerful PC to enjoy it, but at least that PC was available at the time. While I have had my FPS issues with fs2004 along the way, I would still say that I have enjoyed it since the day it came out. Again, I don't own FSX, but given what I hear, I don't think people are enjoying it on their current hardware for the most part.

[mnmon 0]

Here's a thought that anyone with more knowledge of MS and coding can shoot down immediately if they wish: I've always had the impression that MS doesn't really create new code, but just enhances the existing core. I would swear that FS98 had the same core code as the original subLogic program. Has FS really changed in the lower levels? Same for Windows. How long was it still built around DOS? My totally unjustified guess :-wave is that the reason FSX won't work with multi-core is that some of the old Sublogic code is still there; just greatly juiced up to become a behemoth of bloat. To utilize multi-core, MS would have to write a completely new simulator, rather than just build on what was there. I don't think they will do that. Mike

[Guest JTEK99]

>I was reasonably happy with FS9 on release day. And many, many people are happy with FSX on release day, too.>At the time>I had what was at the time pretty powerful 3.0 Intel chip. We>didn't need to max the sliders to be happy. Well, you're a better man than most, then, since many can't stand FSX because they have to make compromises.>I was able to run>it reasonably well with sliders that still made it better than>fs2002. Key words: "reasonably well".>Granted, you needed a quite powerful PC to enjoy it, but at>least that PC was available at the time. And there are PCs available at THIS time that will allow you to enjoy FSX as well, graned that you don't "need to max the sliders to be happy" and that you accept "reasonably well". You see where I'm going with this?>While I have had my FPS issues with fs2004 along the way, I>would still say that I have enjoyed it since the day it came>out. Again, I don't own FSX, but given what I hear, I don't>think people are enjoying it on their current hardware for the>most part. And yet a great majority are actually enjoying it, posting screenshots (which are slowly beginning to outnumber the FS9 ones), sharing cockpits, and more. Some are running it with higher sliders, some with less, most are compromising; but still, they're enjoying it.Remember that we are always willing to "hear" those things which most reflect our already-held opinion. It's easy to just read the complaints when that's all you want to hear; but there are loads of posts on many forums that are positive. And, at bottom, I think this is what drives the complaints to greater fury. :)And once again, this is how it's always been with every release.

[GHarrall 494]

>>I was reasonably happy with FS9 on release day. >>And many, many people are happy with FSX on release day, too.>>>At the time>>I had what was at the time pretty powerful 3.0 Intel chip. >We>>didn't need to max the sliders to be happy. >>Well, you're a better man than most, then, since many can't>stand FSX because they have to make compromises.>>>I was able to run>>it reasonably well with sliders that still made it better>than>>fs2002. >>Key words: "reasonably well".>>>Granted, you needed a quite powerful PC to enjoy it, but at>>least that PC was available at the time. >>And there are PCs available at THIS time that will allow you>to enjoy FSX as well, graned that you don't "need to max the>sliders to be happy" and that you accept "reasonably well".>You see where I'm going with this?>>>While I have had my FPS issues with fs2004 along the way, I>>would still say that I have enjoyed it since the day it came>>out. Again, I don't own FSX, but given what I hear, I don't>>think people are enjoying it on their current hardware for>the>>most part. >>And yet a great majority are actually enjoying it, posting>screenshots (which are slowly beginning to outnumber the FS9>ones), sharing cockpits, and more. Some are running it with>higher sliders, some with less, most are compromising; but>still, they're enjoying it.>>Remember that we are always willing to "hear" those things>which most reflect our already-held opinion. It's easy to just>read the complaints when that's all you want to hear; but>there are loads of posts on many forums that are positive.>And, at bottom, I think this is what drives the complaints to>greater fury. :)>>And once again, this is how it's always been with every>release.Except this time, the FS franchise turned left and the hardware market turned right.When FS9 was released we were still in the middle of the Mhz race. It was a gauranteed certainty that FS9 would perform better 12-24 months from it's release date due to the ever increasing speed of single core CPU's. That race is well and truly over, so unless MS give us the promised 'performance patch', I can't see how current and near future hardware maps hold any promise for performance improvments in FSX. I'm afraid we are in a totally different set of circumstances than in any previous FS release and to say otherwise is just being short sighted.

[Guest jgreth123]

>>I was reasonably happy with FS9 on release day. >>And many, many people are happy with FSX on release day, too.>>>At the time>>I had what was at the time pretty powerful 3.0 Intel chip. >We>>didn't need to max the sliders to be happy. >>Well, you're a better man than most, then, since many can't>stand FSX because they have to make compromises.>>>I was able to run>>it reasonably well with sliders that still made it better>than>>fs2002. >>Key words: "reasonably well".>>>Granted, you needed a quite powerful PC to enjoy it, but at>>least that PC was available at the time. >>And there are PCs available at THIS time that will allow you>to enjoy FSX as well, graned that you don't "need to max the>sliders to be happy" and that you accept "reasonably well".>You see where I'm going with this?>>>While I have had my FPS issues with fs2004 along the way, I>>would still say that I have enjoyed it since the day it came>>out. Again, I don't own FSX, but given what I hear, I don't>>think people are enjoying it on their current hardware for>the>>most part. >>And yet a great majority are actually enjoying it, posting>screenshots (which are slowly beginning to outnumber the FS9>ones), sharing cockpits, and more. Some are running it with>higher sliders, some with less, most are compromising; but>still, they're enjoying it.>>Remember that we are always willing to "hear" those things>which most reflect our already-held opinion. It's easy to just>read the complaints when that's all you want to hear; but>there are loads of posts on many forums that are positive.>And, at bottom, I think this is what drives the complaints to>greater fury. :)>>And once again, this is how it's always been with every>release.Just as there will always be the gloom-n-doom folks there will always be those that won't hear anything they don't want to about the new product. I know you DO use FS9 but you also have to try to shut down any differing opinions from your own.I hope you ARE right; I really do. I want a centralized platform that we can all enjoy and for which we can all get addons, though this is typically in the middle of version releases ( halfway through the newest version's lifecycle ).Time will tell who was right. I feel very strongly about how the MS team coded themselves into a box this time... but it is, afterall, a theory ( as well-founded as it may be ).Agree to disagree... time will reveal all.

[Guest jgreth123]

>Except this time, the FS franchise turned left and the>hardware market turned right.>>When FS9 was released we were still in the middle of the Mhz>race. It was a gauranteed certainty that FS9 would perform>better 12-24 months from it's release date due to the ever>increasing speed of single core CPU's. That race is well and>truly over, so unless MS give us the promised 'performance>patch', I can't see how current and near future hardware maps>hold any promise for performance improvments in FSX. I'm>afraid we are in a totally different set of circumstances than>in any previous FS release and to say otherwise is just being>short sighted.>Thanks. I've been saying this since the demo and no one wanted to listen. :)

[GHarrall 494]

Jeff,You have an ally....I dont understand, it's there for all to see. All you have to do is look at www.Intel.com and www.amd.com and read.I have some slides from the Intel IDF which I posted in here a while back showing the processor roadmaps right out until 2009.The next big architecture change will be codenamed 'Nehalem' and will be based on 45nm technology. We already know it will be heavily multi-core based with (it seems right now) only moderate speed increases. It won't even be available until mid 2008 - Just in time for FSXI it seems??It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the FSX code in it's current form, will NEVER take advantage of any future CPU development does it?????I just don't get the 'bury the head in the sand' mentallity that seems to be doing the rounds on here regarding performance. The 'It's the same with every FS release' comment is rather annoying to say the least......

[Guest jgreth123]

>Jeff,>>You have an ally....:-wave>It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the FSX code in>it's current form, will NEVER take advantage of any future CPU>development does it?????I wouldn't think so but some people just like to refute every suggestion. :-bang>I just don't get the 'bury the head in the sand' mentallity>that seems to be doing the rounds on here regarding>performance. The 'It's the same with every FS release' comment>is rather annoying to say the least......Yes... understatement of the year there. :-roll

[Mike T 208]

EXACTLY!!!! This is what the "oh stop whining, everything will be fine in 12-24 months just like with every other release", fail to realize.There has been a CPU technology paradigm shift. CPUs are moving towards smaller die sizes that facilitate more cores on a single die NOT stunningly higher single CPU speeds. The future ACCORDING to Intel and AMD is multicore as well as multi-multicore CPU support on the MoBo.Secondly, in the past, a new Operating System was not required as an upgrade path and neither was a new generation of video card!Lets also take into account what needs to be done to get the same results as past MSFS releases into the future.1 - For the first time Microsoft must recode the simulator to take advantage of a NEW SHADER ENGINE in DX10 to take advantage of that technology. 2 - For the first time Microsoft must recode the simualtor to take advantage of multicore advances - right now Aces admits it does not.3 - For the first time EVERY SIMMER MUST UPGRADE TO WINDOWS VISTA to take advantage of DX10 - right now Aces admits it is written for DX94 - For the first time EVERY SIMMER MUST UPGRADE TO A DX-10 VIDEO CARD5 - Many will have to upgrade their power supplies to support the new DX10 power hungry cards6 - Many simmers will have to upgrade their motherboards so that the new DX10 cards will even fit into them since they are all around 12" long right now!!!Even IF Aces provided 1 and 2...you need 4-6 to take advantage of 1 and 2. In the past, Micrsoft could just release a patch, you load it up and see an increase. Not so with FSX.AND...1-6 is just for the price of admission and there is no STILL promises being made that you will even enjoy the show! Only time will, but the cost of even taking a peek in the door is extremely high!If anyone is still saying that this release of MSFS is the same as the others, then either there is a deliberate choice do ignore the obvious or there is just plain ignorance of the current situation.Right now an extremely high majority of simmers enjoying FSX are GA pilots zipping though the beautiful mountains, streams and herds of yaks. No foul there because (except for the global deserts), many areas in FSX are absolutely breathtaking and do indeed surpass FS9 out of the box...but very few people here at Avsim are using FS9 out of the box.But here's MY individual problem. I'm a heavy pilot. I require detailed and accurate AI, high density detailed airports and dense city areas. I replicate COA flights based out of KEWR (New York) with highly complex add-on airliners. I personally don't care if I can drop flour on a migrating herd of Ostriches in Northen Africa and the only time I see a mountain is with a minimum of 1,000 feet vertical and horizontal seperation. For me...FSX provides no use at all because most cities are persona non grata unless 3 FPS looks fluid to you. And THAT is a problem shared with many, many simmers.And NO I will not land at an airport "close to my location" as a work-a-round someone suggested.Look, at the end of the day FSX is what it is. Upgrading to DX10 will cost what it costs. The issues admitted by Aces are what they are. CPU technology is what it is. And, DX10 will bring to the table what it does. All of these things are out of our control.I've grown tired of the argument and personally don't care anymore. I'll continue to use FS9 until such time as I can utilize FSX in the same way. If that is sooner...fine; if that is later...fine. If it's never, then fine too. That just means I'll spend far, far less on the hobby than I ever have and that will be good for me, but unfortuantely, not so good for the 3rd party developers if even a large minority find themselves in the same boat.

[Guest GA Flyer]

Some time ago in this thread the original poster got hijacked and became something off topic. I've read many interesting post so far in this thread. One thing I hope we all mean is when we refer to "ACEs" we speak of those high ups (outside and above of the developers) who makes the calls and not our friends, who pop in this forum from time to time, who are the developers that create the vision that they are ask too by those high ups. That said, one of the more interesting post that I read was the idea of how we only get 1/3 of the use of the sim before a new version is released. Very true and thankfully with the extra year between FS9 and X we recieved a extra blessing. (Just for fun: a year ago what was the fastest CPU and video card one could buy and how well does that run FSX today? If we are all crying that top of the line doesnt cut it today imagine if we got FSX on the same 2 year cycle the previous version came too us as)But it is for that reason of only 1/3 life that I agree with the original post that we should still have developers making stuff for fs9 more so then fsx. Maybe products to add to the sim like a/c and scenery for FS9 and utitilies to boost for FSX. Then once FSX has been patched and a year or more has gone by the developers start making the move to FSX.If I was a developer (like FlightScenery or PMDG) I would make that commentment and I'm willing to bet that a year from now if they are still cranking out products only for FS9 you would see plenty of users not only buying them but also greatly enjoying them from day one of purchase.Just because MS decides to make software designed for the future doesnt mean the addon community has too.

[Guest jgreth123]

>Just because MS decides to make software designed for the>future doesnt mean the addon community has too.I think slowly you're going to see some developers move back ( or at least release products that are compatible with both versions ) to FS9 for awhile due to the CPU issue I've mentioned ( and a few others have chimed in with as well -- thanks! ) earlier.

[Guest neslesman]

I would be quite curious to know what this has done to the FS9 add on market. It certainly must have screwed up budgets and have a lot of people scratching their heads.On the one hand they were winding down FS9, then all of a sudden FS9 is hotter than ever. I think developers that use a bit of aggressive FS9 pricing/discounting could come out very well on this with sales they never anticipated. On the other side of the coin they will get hurt bad on the much anticipated FSX add on sales side of the ledger which might well just put a few developers under. At least it's a low over head enterprise, if they don't mind eating for a while they at least won't go into hawk at the bank.It's going to be interesting to see how it all unfolds and only time will tell.One thing however, and I say this as a newbie to gaming and FS, I think it illustrates what a gem that FS9 is/was. Sure is for me anyway, I never dreamed there was such a neat computer toy out there, and I'm having a ball. It might well be FS11 before I switch over because I'm sure not going to be spending any money on upgrading hardware any time soon, its (money) going to go into cheaper FS9 add ons.