This whole FS hobby has really now got me to reconsider software/hardware

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Hi all,I am presently flying in the FS9 default Mooney Bravo mid-way from an airport in South Carolina to my destination of KFNT (Flint, Michigan)While flying on cruise, I have been reflecting on our collective love/passion of this hobby, whether it be with a legacy FS, or FS10.The lack-lustre performance 'shipped' with FS10 (no..this is NOT a bash...just a reality) has really given a 'stall' to our general AVSIM and beyond FS simulation community. Myself included.As one poster has already postured in another thread---are we truly stalled?I say yes.At what point in all of us upgrading our hardware for flight simulation performance/enhancement gain from the days of let's say, Pentium 200's upwards, do we finally take a really hard look at the entertainment/advancement payout curve were we are today. High GHz P4 systems. High end AMD systems. Dual-Core Intel High End systems.....I personally believe that we have all been somewhat 'conditioned' by software publishers to 'EXPECT' to have to upscale what we had only 18 months or so with the then current FS or other life-simulation software,and what we have had upon our desktops as to be considered the HIGH END spec's of the day. Again, myself included.We learned to justify dropping two to five thousand dollars (or some merely swapping out updated components of their present rig, but still at hundreds of dollars spent) for we perceived a 'this-is-justified' feature/performance gain from the newly-released FS that would start the whole 'I-need-to-upgrade' cycle once more.I seriously doubt that any of us on AVSIM would be running every platform release cycle to buy new hardware if we were NOT so passionate about pursuing the simulation of, and real life obsession that is human flight, ---for all of us at AVSIM and other forums.I do not think that anybody reading this post would argue the fact that with each Microsoft FS release, we saw TREMENDOUS gain in features, usability, G.U.I.'s of simulation, etc. Fantastic gains since FS5.1I think with FS9---as far as 'features' are concerned, that being, topography, integrated ATC, airport facilities, true weather parameters, all of it...arrived in FS9. Add on's enhance the base FS9 world, but the basics of real-life-flight simulation is all there.I am so thankful that this product (FS9) was created and is a proven flight simulation performer on ANY present mid to high end computer system. Nobody will argue this.Barry really made me think back to the day when I brought home my Pentium 200 (FS98 days) drooling all over the box and DYING to get it all set up. I was not disappointed. FS98 (primitive by the likes of FS9) was current. It **ran** the simulation. I could BUY a system that after having been purchased made the new FS release 'happen'.I could justify the upgrade.I simply can't anymore. For the first time, a software (FS10) was released that COULD NOT be run without MAJOR file-surgery upon it by the user. Could not be run by the latest hardware offerings.I'm still blown away and shaking my head that the high-end Dual and Quad core systems make no gain when running OUT OF THE BOX FS10 leaving truly no FPS headroom for any add on software enhancements.No longer can I personally justify the concept that software programmers can release to the public, flight simulation software that 'has the promise' of full performance gain and usage ONLY with 'vapor-hardware' not even yet released or even in concept.Those days are gone with the release of FS10. You didn't even get 50 percent of simulation performance (again..with no adulteration of the released code by the user).I now have completely changed my 'purchase model' and have off-loaded the 'burden' of ESPOUSED PERFORMANCE by software publishers that claim they have written the code for a future hardware configuration.No longer acceptable.... Post Vista. Post FS10. I no longer buy into it!Put the software title to the pavement. By that I mean, on the day the title is published, software must be able to perform at LEAST with ***75 percent feature-usability RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX***...on CURRENT HIGH-END hardware on the day of release to the public.This is reasonable. This is acceptable for myself. The 'head-room' of the other 25 percent would be acceptable for the 'to be released' hardware in the later coming weeks or months after software hits the shelf.This new post FS10 'personal purchase model' of software and hardware has now been adopted by myself. I'm no longer willing as a consumer to 'take the financial risk' as was demonstrated by the dismal performance of FS10 on the day of its BOX'ed release. No more!Time for a reality check. I have a blushingly fast and fantastic performer in my Dell XPS Gen II P4 3.4 Ghz platform.My system at present is SERIOUS OVERKILL for anything on the Web, word-pros, spread sheets, music video (yes..it screams with those two as well) and most any other software I own in the simulation market.With FS10 as the hinge point, I can no longer with sanity, justify dropping on average $2,000.00 and up, on a new system and remove from my desktop a PERFECTLY awesome present system...for ONE PROGRAM? ONE PROGRAM? Nope..not any more!I now WANT TO SEE performance and features WORKING AS PUBLISHED by the software house AS THEY HAVE PUBLISHED UPON THEIR PACKAGING before I would now even start clicking on the Net looking at the 'latest' hardware of day.I wonder how many of you feel the same, post FS10?In closing, I can only feel so grateful we HAVE FS9 and all its features that CAN FABUOUSLY run today on present hardware. PRESENT HARWARE! The real thing....and not a **promised** future.Thank you Microsoft for Flight Simulator 9 (nine).You have delivered with this release. We have all the elements of the real world **IN** this release. For that, this flight sim fan thanks you!I now will anticipate all future post release FS10 offerings with the new 'give-my-head-a-shake' software and hardware purchase model I have adopted. I demand performance from future FS offerings, and will no longer be an apologist for that release because of disappointment in performance and sadly---I already spent the money on it...Microsoft will now hear me as a consumer of their products on operating systems and simulation software via my wallet--open...or shut.... If they perform as released-published and, with features I'm interested in...my wallet will perform the same...and no longer as promise-ware. That ended with FS10 and Vista.Back to my present flight over Ohio.... :)Cheers to all!Mitch R.

[Rudi 0]

I guess this is what people do and think about during long-haul flights!

[Dillon 2,197]

:-lol In all seriousness, great post Mitch... :-)"Microsoft will now hear me as a consumer of their products on operating systems and simulation software via my wallet--open...or shut...."Great logic here the only problem is MS is in denial on many fronts. Concerning Vista they feel their whole problem with sales is due to 'Pirates'. They refuse to consider whether it be Vista, FSX, or Office 2007, their software is crap. Whether it be overly intrusive security on the end user of a said OS or performance issues that shouldn't be there in this day and age for simulation software, MS won't own up to fixing what's really wrong. Thankfully today we have options (at least until MS partners up with hardware manufactures and all but forces us to upgrade).

[Guest Water Mango]

:-lol Mitch I love what you

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

I guess that I was in a contemplative mood. Had to get some thoughts out... (smile)Loved the flight from Asheville to Flint. Just landed short of three real-time hours total in the air... Great weather brought to myself by AS 6.5Gotta love those three or four background program goodies...:)Bird's Eye View gave great 'scape from 10,000 feet at cruise, and 180 knots :)))Mooney gave good fuel performance with an average consumption en route of 18.0 GPH.

[Guest Water Mango]

Mitch don't get me wrong I thought it was a good read and very true... :-)

[David Roch 1,982]

I definitely agree with you Mitch.I had the same thoughts but not the talent to express them in my non native language.thanksDavid

[LAdamson 240]

>For the first time, a software (FS10) was released that COULD>NOT be run without MAJOR file-surgery upon it by the user.>Could not be run by the latest hardware offerings.>Mitch,I still have done no surgery whatsoever, but I'll let you know when I do! :-hah Am I settling for less? There are obviously some features of my less than perfect FSX, which I prefer over my hopped up FS9. So instead of settling for less, it's still a compromise with either sim. Other than that, yes, the post is much too long... :7 L.Adamson

[Guest TMMT]

I

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

'Other than that, yes, the post is much too long...' Everyone's take and what they focus on regarding aspects of a post is different. Thanks for your interest,Mitch R.

[Guest krswen]

I don't know Mitch ... I didn't think it was too long. I savored every word, since I agree and it was well written. As you can see below, my system is no slouch, but I only run FS9 now (with oodles of upgrades to near FSX quality and five times the framerate).I'm a sucker for bleeding edge technology, so when processors and video double what I've got I'm sure I'll build another system. But until then it's FS9.

[Guest crotiusf16]

Fellow simmers, take hold of the stick (yoke or joystick), MS has given us the product. Why don't some of our programmers here try to trim it down. Is it possible? It is probably a GREAT task that I am asking here. I can't even program a video machine to record something. Technology has left me in the dust coughing and struggling to keep up. What I have heard and seen of Vista makes me want to burn every store that sells it. Issues upon issues is all that you see when I go to some of my favorite sites for hardware reviews. The price is another issue here in South Africa. Man, I will have to save another year to be able to buy a "real" Vista. My wallet will be closed for much longer than a year. I have played with it on my machine. It loaded it without any glitches, until it rebooted. I am not even going into all the problems.As for FS10, my cousin managed to buy the "real experience". OOPS, wrong. His machine was upto specification. Apparently he has endless problems with his joystick drivers getting lost in the wind after a long flight, and some other small problems. He has gone back to the "realest experience" FS9.Lets all gather our planes and crash into MS Head Office. lol Ok, whoa, maybe this is a bad joke. I am not a terrorist. But I think they need to wake up and look at the end user. A happy customer is a frequent customer.

[Guest TMMT]

FS9 may well end up being one of those games, which refuses to die. I had originally planned to buy a rig to run FS10 (which I will some day) but as I put my machine together I decided to stay with FS9 and complete it with wonderful mesh, Flight Environment as well as Ground Environment and Active Sky.Most of the high-end payware developers are still developing for FS9 so as long as I can still find enjoyment with FS9 I shall stay.

[Ricardo41 5,949]

I can't understand why people get so worked up over a $40 game that is purely designed to be entertaining and a little diversion from everyday life. If you're dropping bazillions of cash on new hardware every other month just to play this game, you need to seriously reexamine your priorities. ricardo

[trevorbee 0]

I agree.And in fact I would say that, in my opinion, FS10 is ahead of it's time (in some ways)and really should not have been released until such time as it will run acceptably (smoothly)on current mid to high end computers, and with enough slack left to accommodate complex add-ons.Fortunately, FS9 (plus add-ons) has matured to such a state that there is no imperative to move to the new version until such time as the above conditions apply.Therefore, there is no justification for risking large amounts of money on hardware replacement or upgrades in the hope that FS10 will run acceptably.I cannot help but think that MS/Aces would have served us, and themselves, better by releasing a new version that remedies some of the shortfalls in FS9 (which have often been highlighted on these forums), rather than spending the effort on improving the visuals.I am all in favour of higher resolution textures and signs of life on the ground, traffic on the roads, activity at the airports, trains and boats on the move etc etc and hope that it will not be too long before a version is released incorporating these features that will run acceptably on the current equipment of the time.I know that all of this has been stated already in a number of ways in a number of threads but I just wanted to try and pull it all together.TrevorbeeIn Auckland NZ