the deminishing fs9 products

[Ricardo41 5,949]

I was at gamestop yesterday. The same 5 copies of FSX that were sitting on the shelf a month ago are still sitting there. FSX will be hitting the bargain bin quickly and will go down as one of the least successful FS releases. Aerosoft's two recent scenery offerings were both released for FS9. I suspect that this will be a growing trend: developers quickly backpedaling from their prior statements of releasing for FSX only. ricardo

[Jack C 8]

It will take 2 upgrades at least to be happy with fsX. The first which is now and thats just to get it running. The second whcih i would say would be 1.5 yrs from now and buying the top of th eline system then too to make FSX run like a top. You FSX enthusiats ready to spend money on 2 upgrades? Have fun!

[Guest JTEK99]

>It will take 2 upgrades at least to be happy with fsX. The>first which is now and thats just to get it running. The>second whcih i would say would be 1.5 yrs from now and buying>the top of th eline system then too to make FSX run like a>top. You FSX enthusiats ready to spend money on 2 upgrades?>Have fun!Bingo. That's the reality, of course. But ####, many have already done that with previous versions, so it's par for the course. :) I agree, it sucks, but that's the fact.

[Guest jgreth123]

Par for the course of previous FS upgrades... this one is different. Unless they make it multi-core it'll never run as smooth as FS9 does now... mark my words.

[Guest JTEK99]

>Par for the course of previous FS upgrades... this one is>different. Unless they make it multi-core it'll never run as>smooth as FS9 does now... mark my words.Marking them, and taking screenshots of your posts so that editing won't matter a year from now. :)

[Guest guyjr]

I totally agree... and after many happy hours of simming in FS9, with UT, GEPro, ASV, FSG mesh, and RC4, I'd have to say that there are only two things missing that would quite literally complete the simulation for me: - Accurate turbulence - True overcastThe problem seems to be mainly an issue with the weather engine in FS9 itself, as ASV have tried their darndest to recreate both of those weather phenomena. But it just won't happen for whatever reason. To me, flight simulator needs to have great graphics, but it also needs to have realistic weather, as it does make for a great way to at least go through the motions of IFR flight. But with ASV fully loaded, and an airport that is currently seeing ceilings of 500 feet, all I see in the sim are usually scattered to broken clouds. So that breaks the illusion right there. Then there's the issue of practically every airplane feeling like it is flying on rails with little to no turbulence, even with FSUIPC set for random turb, and 95% prob selected in ASV. Quite disappointing... when I fly a C-172 in real life, you most certainly expect turbulence on almost every flight... at least a little light chop. The only times it is ever as smooth as FS9 is on a calm, cool, clear night.Ah well... I already blew my money on FSX, but certainly won't be buying any add-ons for it, as it doesn't run well enough on my machine.

[Guest guyjr]

Most people around these parts have FS9 loaded up with add-ons, and that's exactly why people expect FSX to live up to a much higher standard. Nobody would have bothered buying Battlefield 2142 from EA (one of their top sellers this year) if it had just been a bunch of map add-ons. They added an entirely new game mode, not to mention even better graphics, sound, and vehicles in the game. FSX did not make anywhere near as big a jump to justify the _$70_ I paid for it. No way.

[GHarrall 494]

You can mark my words as well 'JTEK'Unless FSX gets a multicore patch, no PC 1.5 years from now will make any difference whatsoever.I could post some slides from the Intel IDF to show you the CPU future, but I cant be bothered as you clearly wish to leave your head in the sand like so many others.If MS deliver the goods with a patch, then we should all be happy.If not, then FSX gets resigned to FS2000 status.End of.FYI - you cant edit posts a year later anyway

[Guest JTEK99]

>I could post some slides from the Intel IDF to show you the>CPU future, but I cant be bothered as you clearly wish to>leave your head in the sand like so many others.Yeah, I'm in the sand along with the rest of the 'idiots' on the ACES team and the entire Microsoft company. The now-standardized series of disgruntled end-users that crop up after every new release are the ones with real vision. I see that now, thanks to you. I mean... what could a company like Microsoft possibly know about the future of CPUs and how it could influence a major product line? Sheez... I must look really dumb right now.I surrender. You're totally right. Their intent the whole time must have been to design a product that could never be used to its potential. Every programmer, graphic artist, and manager assigned to the project were either (a) completely ignorant of the future of CPUs, or (:( conspiratorially driven to destroy the FS franchise with an unusable product. Again, I clearly see that now.I totally forgot that Microsoft is a company that never knows what it's doing. Duh. Where was my head?? :-roll

[LAdamson 240]

>If not, then FSX gets resigned to FS2000 status.>FS2000 ---An earth model now based on topography mesh. Did away with FS98's flat table model, that required the grand canyon to be simulated by painting a blue ribbon between pyramids; and also, now had the ability to add thousands of additional airports, which MS did.Real life Jeppesen navigation data-basesA very detailed Mt. Rainier, that hasn't been equaled since.We also got the VC's and much improved animation.And the end of FS98's "block" clouds. Flight models were improved too! You could no longer just set and forget while you eat dinner & take a nap, without an auto-pilot!All in all, FS2000 was a tremendous improvement over it's predecessors!L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

>>Par for the course of previous FS upgrades... this one is>>different. Unless they make it multi-core it'll never run>as>>smooth as FS9 does now... mark my words.>FSX already does run as smooth as FS9, perhaps even smoother. And it's certainly more like real flight, in the way movement is portrayed. These are some of the items that are so impressive. It's just fluid smooth at 25 fps, and not a hint of stutter. It took a better CPU for me to get rid of stutters in FS9, and it does very well with FSX. And BTW, I can still drag my normally 35-70fps FS9 down into the teens with numerous frame rate hogging addons. And from the postings I've always seen, I'm certainly not alone!L.Adamson

[Dillon 2,197]

Mike the code changed from FS98 to FS2000. It changed again from FS2000 to FS2k2. After that the same code remains. So in essence your on the money with this theory... :-)

[FlyAndFight 37]

>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 DX9>>4 - For the first time EVERY SIMMER MUST UPGRADE TO A DX-10>VIDEO CARD>>5 - Many will have to upgrade their power supplies to support>the new DX10 power hungry cards>>6 - 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.Brilliant post. My sentiments exactly.

[buzzbee 52]

I am going to probably spend $ on an FS 9 add on or two this weekend, especially after reading this post. (I have been eyeing Active Sky and I am getting the CH Throttle Quadrant for Xmas so a new twin might be required) I know I must be getting old because I just want to fly FS9 on my older AMD Socket A 2500 and AGP X850pro and enjoy it and not have to even think about building a new system and tweaking FS X to run. In my younger days even if what I had worked, I wanted something newer. Still eyeing up a Core 2 Duo machine. My new Core 2 Duo 2Ghz Macbook is fast. When it comes to FS X, I choose to wait it out and see what happens.

[Dillon 2,197]

L.Adamson if you can justify FS2000 then hope is truly lost debating with you on FSX. I now see why you have such a love for the latest version of Flight Simulator. The negatives of FS2000 far outweighed the pluses. Even Aces acknowledged this fact. They had to go back to the drawing board with FS2k2 which ultimately saved the franchise. FS2k2 was the best performing release of any FS title before or since. FS2k4 was a close second with the exception being cloud and autogen performance.After reading these comments here I would advise anyone from here on out to dismiss anything L.Adamson has to say. He and Geofa are in a camp all their own. Even the most hardened FSX supporters can't touch what L.Adamson just wrote above.