Sign in to follow this  
Sesquashtoo

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

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

:-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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy multiplayer in FSX much better than FS9- gamespy and all. Sharing cockpits is SO cool. MS does a much better job than FSNet for FS9- it is very smooth synchronisation. The flight dynamics are improved and I can whittle away hours. That being said, I still enjoy FS9 and have bought more addons for it than I did before I got FSX. Like Ladamson, I have done no surgery. My performance in FS9 was nothing to write home about before I went to a 256 graphics card and another gig of RAM (1.5 total). What I did for FS9, works for FSX.I have the February DirectX 9c and the February ATI Catalyst drivers. It helps.I can disable shaders if I want some headroom to fly complex aircraft. I am looking forward to flying the ATR-72 and Aeroworx B200 while sharing a cockpit. Even at JFK with shaders in default aircraft I have very playable frame rates; I am happy with FSX. I had some trouble with a non boot situation and elected to start from scratch with a formatted Hard Drive. After I loaded Windows I downloaded Windows updates, Avast Antivirus, Net 3.0 framework, Catalyst for my Radeon vid card and I was done. Half an hour later later FSX had me flying with custom control settings and the display how I like it locked at and getting 30 FPS. I have yet to load FS9- all the work of installing Ultimate Terrain, Genesis mesh, Ground Environment Pro, Active Sky- I'll get around to it.Best Regards, Donny :-waveFLYing? It's cool. Trillions of birds and insects can't be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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:-violinSays the man who whines with every post and shows off his 'rig' as a signature LOL :-xxrotflmaoRob "Holland&Holland" de Vries http://fool.exler.ru/sm/fly2.gif"To go up, pull the stick back. To go down, pull the stick back harder"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>FS9 may well end up being one of those games, which refuses>to die.>I agree absolutely. I have enough in FS9 to satisfy all my flight simulation requirements for the rest of my days! I can fly anywhere in the world using real world charts and find that FS9 is extraordinarily accurate. Eye candy is there in abundance already. If I want I can add any number of excellent freeware and payware addons, I can design scenery, paint aircraft, tweak AI FDEs, write AI flightplans. I can fly for a VA or even set up a VA, I can fly on-line, I can make films of my flights in .wmv format. The possibilities are endless. The cost-benefit to me of an upgrade to FSX is just not there, given that I would have to seriously upgrade my hardware, and junk a lot of FS9 stuff I really enjoy. And even then, FSX is designed for Vista and I would have to buy that, and wait for DirectX 10.If FSX had sorted out ATC and provided the AI engine with a few neurones, I might be tempted. It hasn't, so I'm not!Betel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I read it all!Agree with you on this. Software made for future hardware should be sold when the future hardware is available.We don't buy DVD HD or Blue Ray disks to put into our normal DVD players. The hardware and software have to belong together.Also the current minimum hardware specs on the box are downright criminal.But off course we will have the usual yes FS-X! sayers posting their great experience with the product... :-rollLook at their hardware specs if they list them. They mostly use serious hardware and make large compromises to make it run...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"""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."""A $40 game design to entertain, has turned into complete frustratiation for many. Mike Stone sums it up very well. http://www.pmstone.com/Announcement.htm""" 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."""Very well put.. I think the vast majority have seriously re-examined their priorities and have refused to upgrade to FSX because no hardware today can fix poorly coded software. FSX should never been released in its state. Like any poorly written software program, if a company writing it sees that it is full of bugs, they will "try" to fix it with a patch. Is a patch being made for FSX? Yeap, only months after release! http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/default.aspxWill it fix all the bugs? NoPeople that have been simming for years (myself) and have bought and flew every version do no see it as a game. Some do. Everyone uses Flight Simulator in a different fashion which is ok. Thank you microsoft for FS9. FSX has been a very big dissappointment for me. Maybe people that use it as a game in the fields with autogen off feel different..Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>But off course we will have the usual yes FS-X! sayers posting>their great experience with the product... :-roll>>Look at their hardware specs if they list them. They mostly>use serious hardware and make large compromises to make it>run...So what; I ran FS9 for years, with less than a top of the line CPU and an adjustment of sliders.MY FSX hardware is certainly less than serious, and yet my compromised sliders can sometimes produce a better picture of the ground below, than FS9 can at full sliders to the right. As a general rule, when away from add on scenery, FSX rules with it's high resolution ground textures.Please keep in mind, that I run FS9 right along with FSX, to get the best of both sims. And for anyone interested, no, I do not fly simulations for hours each day.Athlon 64 3800+/2Gig/Geforce 7600GS 256MB/ 1600*1200*32 21" monitorNo tweaks either, except FSGenesisL.Adamson -- FSX sayer, FSX a really excited user, whatever....FSX default:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/167371.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The longevity of FS9 will, IMHO, be decided outside of anything MS can or can't do with FSX. It will be decided by how important the fact that, for the first time, we simmers DON'T have a previous-generation product completely overtaken by the next and how much that encourages the aftermarket to continue to develop for the older sim. So far, there seems to be a split between developers who have jumped into FSX feet-first and immersed themselves in the possbilities and those who have taken a more cautious approach and have offered continued commitment to FS9. Frankly, FS9 has now reached such a state of development that a `tricked-out` FS9 sim easily matches or exceeds a basic FSX. And that is before you even start thinking about frame rates. So you have the visual beauty AND the frame rates. And no deserts in the autumn in Europe or rocky rivers.The problem is that FSX has no apparent future if the marketplace won't support it, can't make use of it and the FSX development team wont get their collective heads out of the cumulative rectums and realise that FSX is fundamentally flawed, corrupted by their Masters demands it be developed for Vista, and released for XP. It's not ACES fault, they need to stand their ground with their own Lords and Masters and start telling THEM like it is. FSX is so badly flawed I don't think it can be fixed as long as the mindset is "patch what can be fixed, ignore everything else". It won't work if it don't work.Meanwhile FS9 continues to offer a fully-rounded simming experience. And with todays hardware able to really show FS9 is the best light, it could be the clue that MS needs to abandon FSX and start work on FS11 as the next true version of the sim, from a completely clean slate. There is EASILY another two years of life in FS9 with the comprehensive aftermarket product range available today. I personally firmly believe that rather than patch FSX, ACES should have carried as many of the FSX featuires as possible to FS9 in a Service Pack that could have kept even the most cynical simmer happy for another two years or so. And killed the FSX project in favour of an early start on FS11.Sometimes the best thnig you can do for a sick animal is put it out of its misery.Allcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent post Allcott. Many developers will decide the fate of FSX. http://www.calclassic.com/"""FSX Information: FSX (FS10) has been released. I bought it, I've installed it. I have decided that currently: 1) It forces my AI propliners to push back, 2) My sceneries and panels are not compatible, and 3) I do not have a computer that can run it at my KLAX with full AI turned on (less than 10 fps). Therefore, I have decided not to pursue creating addons for FSX at this time. We will still be creating for FS2004. However, see below for compatibility information."""Very sad to see LVL-D 757 only for FSX. It will not be bought if only for FSX. Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>Thank you microsoft for FS9. FSX has been a very big>dissappointment for me. Maybe people that use it as a game in>the fields with autogen off feel different..>I could cease to reply here, if mis-information wasn't so plentiful. What's this "game --- in fields--- with autogen off stuff. Kind of like FSX is just for "bush flying".One of my favorite (and often posted) FSX pics, with MegaScenery Hawaii. Looks rediculous with auto-gen on, since it takes away from the photographic qualities. Remember, MegaScenery has 16 times the resolution & crispness of FS9. And a shot below, where FSX is un-cluttered by cartoon auto-gen subdivisions. L.Adamson FSX sayer, a really excited user, and again-- whateverhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/167372.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/167373.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

L.Adamson those are nice "still" shots. I use Flight simulator for a different purpose, IFR training/practice. Maybe one day I'll like to watch elephants running around on my simulator. For a VFR flyer at 10,000ft FSX is beautiful. Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this