Replacement For Phil Taylor?

[maxter 0]

Thanks everybody for your extremely informative opinions and replies, they are very much appreciated...Back to the topic, so I guess there still isn't a single front person in the function of a Phil Taylor at the moment. And Geoff, can I assume there was a healthy dose of sarcasm included in the first part of your response... :( Cheers and thanks again all,

[FalconAF 213]

And Geoff, can I assume there was a healthy dose of sarcasm included in the first part of your response... :(

Naw...Geoffa was just having a little bit of fun. As in...---------------------------------------------------------------------JOB OPENING ANNOUNCEMENT: Lead Developer, MS FS11REQUIRMENTS: Thick Skin, Outstanding Patience, Ability to receive unwarranted flaming and sarcasm from product users who have minimal understanding of computer technology and capabilities in relation to software applications that will stress even the most capable computer hardware available.PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE REQUIRED: Numerous years knowledge in software development and computer hardware capabilities, including the integration of both. Total understanding of the relationship between software development as applicable to current available technology, with the foresight to include application specific functions that will become capable on newer and more powerfull hardware that is released during the life-cycle of the application. Demonstrated history of refraining from going mad, crazy, or requiring mental institutionalization from receiving correspondence from disgruntled application users who don't understand the above concepts and expect your application to run "maxed out" on a 2-year old computer at the time of the software application release.ADDITIONAL EXPERIENCE PREFERRED: Ability to design and implement a software application designed for one genre, and include numerous other genres completely unrelated to the original genre. For instance, develop a Flight Simulator that includes the ability to also drive cars, busses, trains, boats, go-karts, and skateboards in it, with included graphics capabilites to see ants on the ground in expicit detail in 1 centimeter photoreal texture quality, with no adverse affects on the performance of the Flight Simulator functions whatsoever.SALARY REQUIREMENTS: Subject to negotiation. But will not be anywhere near enough for the hassles, discontent, and unrealistic expectations of a segment of the application user-base who think they got "cheated" because, in their opinion, their X-Box does it better.Please submit your resume as soon as possible. The opening still exists. We haven't received any applications yet. Really. First come, first served. We'll take you. Send now! PLEASE!--------------------------------------------------------------------FalconAF

[mgh 89]

It's my impression that Phil Taylor wasn't officially appointed, but that he chose to take on the role. Given his concerns about the way he was treated by some people on thse forums I don't expect there will be many volunteers. Re-read his own comments about the way he felt!

[Tabs 2,790]

I don't think current FSX has "software rendering architecture", I think that such a view is not only wrong but overly simplistic, nowhere in the blog it states that "software rendering" is somehow holding FS back but what you can read is explanation what makes FS so different from other games and why its architecture is simply different. This got to be the longest living perpetual myth on this forum about FS doing excessive amount of graphic rendering in software.

The issue as I understand it isn't that FSX is using a "software renderer" - I played games back when there were software and hardware renderers (Quake and the original Unreal/Unreal Tournament were two that come to mind) and FS is most certainly not a software renderer. I think the real issue here is that FSX is what's known as a "CPU limited" renderer, which simply means that the engine has to use too much CPU to feed the GPU information to process and therefore the CPU becomes the bottleneck on FPS. What we all hope they're doing for FS11 is rewriting the engine to make better utilization of the GPU. Games like Crysis, CoD 4, Fallout 3, etc have way more polys in a given frame than FSX does yet manage to run at framerates three times or more higher. What we're hoping is that FS11 gets a rendering engine that is like that, where upgrading your video card will actually improve performance drastically. With FSX that's not the case, a 2 year old card will run FSX at much the same speed at the same settings as a brand new generation one. It's not like that with most other games, those are said to be "GPU limited" because it's the power of the graphics card that's determining how fast the game will run.I'm a firm proponet of the idea that they should move away from this model of developing FS for hardware that doesn't even exist yet, assuming that people will run lower slider settings until the hardware "catches up". Why not just design for what they know will be available at the time of release? This is what virtually every other game on the planet does - if I go buy a brand new game and I have a current generation PC, I usually expect that I will be able to run it at 60+ FPS without difficulty, with most if not all of its settings maxed. Fallout 3 is a great recent example - I have that game totally cranked and it looks and runs amazing, I don't have to wait 2 or 3 years for the hardware to actually do that to come out.

[FalconAF 213]

I'm a firm proponet of the idea that they should move away from this model of developing FS for hardware that doesn't even exist yet, assuming that people will run lower slider settings until the hardware "catches up". Why not just design for what they know will be available at the time of release? This is what virtually every other game on the planet does - if I go buy a brand new game and I have a current generation PC, I usually expect that I will be able to run it at 60+ FPS without difficulty, with most if not all of its settings maxed. Fallout 3 is a great recent example - I have that game totally cranked and it looks and runs amazing, I don't have to wait 2 or 3 years for the hardware to actually do that to come out.

I'll take the opposite view. I want FS11 to be modeled to have additional capabilities for newer hardware when it comes out. Until then, I'll be happy to make choices of what "sliders", etc, to enable/disable, and at what levels, to achieve the results I want in FS11.This concept reminds me of something I encountered while I was in the Air Force. Around 1996...only 12 years ago...I transferred to Vandenburg AFC, CA, to become the Superintendent, Network Operations for the entire base (and oversee a variety of world-wide DoD networks the base used there). I walked into my new office and met the person I was going to replace. He was a DoD civilian who was retiring. I noticed something interesting displayed on his shelf in the office. It was obviously a computer circuit board, but the likes of one I had never seen before. It was about 18" long by 12" wide, and contained 20 "chips" that looked a whole lot like the CPU chips on my home computer motherboard at the time (1996). I asked him what it was. I was floored by his response. It was a "motherboard" from one of the earliest CRAY computers ever made. It had 20 CPU's on it...and was a component of one of the fastest computers ever made in the entire world in it's time. The cost for it, when it was produced, would have been over $300,000. In 1996, it wasn't worth anything anymore. He had received it as a "going away" gift from another position he held years earlier (a common practice in the military when someone finishes a tour of duty at a location...they get "mementos" presented to them when they leave their current job and move on).I thought to myself, "Wow! I wonder if there would be a way to make that work with Flight Simulator!"From the time that original CRAY motherboard was made, it took almost 2 DECADES...20 years... to double the speed of the CRAY computer. 20 YEARS for it to become "worthless", so to speak. 10 years ago, it took over 4 years to double the capabilities of a home computer. Today, it takes less than 6 - 9 months. The "life cycle" of any Flight Simulator release can easily be 3 years between releases. We are now using Dual Core and Quad Core CPUs, and looking at the distinct possibility of 8, 12, 16, 32, and even 128 core CPUs within the next 5 years. Not to mention Graphics Cards that will contain their own multiple processors on the cards themselves (read Phil's blog for what he is going to be working on in his new job position).I don't want FS11 to be "obsolete" within 6 months of the time I purchase it. If it contains more than I can reasonably expect to enable (sliders, etc) on even the state-of-the-art computer technology when I purchase it, then I will make the "choices" I need in it to allow it to run well on my current computer system. Then if I decide to upgrade my computer 6, 12, 18, or even 36 months later with more capable technology that will allow me to "max FS11 out", then I can. But please don't produce a product that will run "maxed out" on a 2-year old computer right from the start...or even a current state-of-the-art computer. It will become an obsolete flight simulator within 1 year at most.FalconAF

[Mace 1,927]

I don't think current FSX has "software rendering architecture", I think that such a view is not only wrong but overly simplistic, nowhere in the blog it states that "software rendering" is somehow holding FS back but what you can read is explanation what makes FS so different from other games and why its architecture is simply different. This got to be the longest living perpetual myth on this forum about FS doing excessive amount of graphic rendering in software.

You are free to think whatever you want. I was merely repeating what Phil Taylor blogged about. He said a lot of the code in the current sim derived from the 1998-2002 era software renderer. Think whatever you wish about it.

[MarkRey 16]

But please don't produce a product that will run "maxed out" on a 2-year old computer right from the start...or even a current state-of-the-art computer. It will become an obsolete flight simulator within 1 year at most.FalconAF

I'm assuming therefore you don't buy addons? I'd say the vast majority of us still consider fs just a starting point for 3rd party developers, thus the more headroom the better. It'll only get obsolete if you stick with the basics.

[Virtualwombat 4]

We have no idea what will be served up to us in FS11 and anyone who thinks they can influence the direction MS takes does not understand the decision making process of large companies. The managers do not care what the minute fraction of hard core simmers want, although the people doing the coding might. Management will look for an acceptable balance between features, performance and cost. One that has the potential to maximize ROI. There is no room for enthusiasts at the level that signs off on product releases. Let us not forget how Phil was unable get the DX10

[Geofa 108]

We have no idea what will be served up to us in FS11 and anyone who thinks they can influence the direction MS takes does not understand the decision making process of large companies. The managers do not care what the minute fraction of hard core simmers want, although the people doing the coding might. Management will look for an acceptable balance between features, performance and cost. One that has the potential to maximize ROI. There is no room for enthusiasts at the level that signs off on product releases. Let us not forget how Phil was unable get the DX10

[Guest christian]

Phil Taylor's role was lead program manager of the core engine (which powers ESP, FSX and TS2). I expect someone will have to follow his role as surely there needs to be a lead program manager on this. Brett Schnepf just changed roles, so maybe there is some internal restructuring going on. With the X-mas break coming I expect people take their time to find the right person.FSX isn't using software rendering. Phil Taylor in fact wrote a nice blog post explaining the rendering constraints. Since MS is working on a core engine that's built on FSX I would expect evolutionary changes, not revolutionary ones, just like in the past. When TS2 is released next year, we'll get a first insight into FS11 (they'll use the same engine). In fact Phil has been dropping a few hints (like animated people).Christian

[FalconAF 213]

I'm assuming therefore you don't buy addons? I'd say the vast majority of us still consider fs just a starting point for 3rd party developers, thus the more headroom the better. It'll only get obsolete if you stick with the basics.

That's an interesting marketing concept. Let's see...based on that, there's no reason whatsoever to even develop and release FS11. We could all just continue adding addons to FSX. All the third-party developers could just increase the complexity of their addons in relationship to the advances in the hardware capabilities. Eventually, with 32 cores on my motherboard, a graphics card with multi-core capability, and better memory management hardware and operating systems, OOM's would be a thing of the past, FSX could be "upgraded" forever with just addons, and no one would have to worry about the blurries, stutters, pauses, ad-nausium. OOPS! I forgot about all those "simmers" who couldn't afford the hardware upgrades to meet the requirements of those new, more demanding addons. Silly me! Yes...I buy addons. Lots of them. I can afford it...and afford the new hardware when it comes out, too. I won't apologize for being able to do that. I feel for those who might not be able to do that also, but they still have FS9 with all those addons they can run on the hardware they currently own...and many of them are still doing it. I have no animosity towards anybody who can afford a Rolls Royce or a million dollar home, just because I can't. But based on your logic, the only cars auto manufacturers should be producing are bare-bones Beetles. All purchasers could always get addons for them then, I guess.It's all just relative, like Geoffa said.

[michal 44]

FSX isn't using software rendering. Phil Taylor in fact wrote a nice blog post explaining the rendering constraints.

Yes, he did, but some people have their heads in the sand, they heard somewhere "software rendering!!" and this is their opium. And now they wait for a messiah to just do away with this "original sin" and they will be in heaven :(

[Mango 0]

---------------------------------------------------------------------JOB OPENING ANNOUNCEMENT: Lead Developer, MS FS11REQUIRMENTS: Thick Skin, Outstanding Patience, Ability to receive unwarranted flaming and sarcasm from product users who have minimal understanding of computer technology and capabilities in relation to software applications that will stress even the most capable computer hardware available.PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE REQUIRED: Numerous years knowledge in software development and computer hardware capabilities, including the integration of both. Total understanding of the relationship between software development as applicable to current available technology, with the foresight to include application specific functions that will become capable on newer and more powerfull hardware that is released during the life-cycle of the application. Demonstrated history of refraining from going mad, crazy, or requiring mental institutionalization from receiving correspondence from disgruntled application users who don't understand the above concepts and expect your application to run "maxed out" on a 2-year old computer at the time of the software application release.ADDITIONAL EXPERIENCE PREFERRED: Ability to design and implement a software application designed for one genre, and include numerous other genres completely unrelated to the original genre. For instance, develop a Flight Simulator that includes the ability to also drive cars, busses, trains, boats, go-karts, and skateboards in it, with included graphics capabilites to see ants on the ground in expicit detail in 1 centimeter photoreal texture quality, with no adverse affects on the performance of the Flight Simulator functions whatsoever.SALARY REQUIREMENTS: Subject to negotiation. But will not be anywhere near enough for the hassles, discontent, and unrealistic expectations of a segment of the application user-base who think they got "cheated" because, in their opinion, their X-Box does it better.Please submit your resume as soon as possible. The opening still exists. We haven't received any applications yet. Really. First come, first served. We'll take you. Send now! PLEASE!--------------------------------------------------------------------

LMAO :( , that's the best thing i was reading in a long time. Allow me to forward this to ACES... :(

[MarkRey 16]

That's an interesting marketing concept. Let's see...based on that, there's no reason whatsoever to even develop and release FS11. We could all just continue adding addons to FSX. All the third-party developers could just increase the complexity of their addons in relationship to the advances in the hardware capabilities. Eventually, with 32 cores on my motherboard, a graphics card with multi-core capability, and better memory management hardware and operating systems, OOM's would be a thing of the past, FSX could be "upgraded" forever with just addons, and no one would have to worry about the blurries, stutters, pauses, ad-nausium. OOPS! I forgot about all those "simmers" who couldn't afford the hardware upgrades to meet the requirements of those new, more demanding addons. Silly me! Yes...I buy addons. Lots of them. I can afford it...and afford the new hardware when it comes out, too. I won't apologize for being able to do that. I feel for those who might not be able to do that also, but they still have FS9 with all those addons they can run on the hardware they currently own...and many of them are still doing it. I have no animosity towards anybody who can afford a Rolls Royce or a million dollar home, just because I can't. But based on your logic, the only cars auto manufacturers should be producing are bare-bones Beetles. All purchasers could always get addons for them then, I guess.It's all just relative, like Geoffa said.

I'm speaking specifically to 'current state of the art hardware' as you stated -you're basically saying continue the fps eating fiasco that led to two service packs. Fs9 ran far better on available hardware and swept fs2002 away because the general market could run it. Seems to me that scenario far better suits the suits looking for ROI.Your auto analogy does not follow - what do you think the auto market would be like if, like pc titles, vehicles had to be paid for up front by the consumer, no financing options from anywhere? As for all that about affordability etc -dunno where that comes from. Personally I never stepped up because though I can afford to, fsx was a waste of my money given my kind of sim use, which was diminishing anyway - I'm at maybe 3 hours a month heavy iron ifr, and play no other games - that's not worth several thousand dollars to me - other things, like a great amp and other guitar gear, were.But then I guess that means that since I don't have thousands to throw at my music plus a few hours simming a month, I can't in fact afford it :(

[FalconAF 213]

...that's not worth several thousand dollars to me - other things, like a great amp and other guitar gear, were.But then I guess that means that since I don't have thousands to throw at my music plus a few hours simming a month, I can't in fact afford it :(

So tell me then...why didn't you just buy an old acoustic 6-string guitar with no amp? It would play music, too. Let me guess...you are a "hard core guitar player". Just like someone who can't or won't upgrade their current computer hardware can still fly using FS9.Case closed. Bigger grin.FalconAF