Will someone else "step up to the plate"?

[tf51d 284]

DJ,I think your banner is a bit too large for the forum rules.

Jim I hate too tell you, but yours is too large too!3.) "The image file shall not be larger than 20 Kbytes in size"Yours is 50kb!

[JSkorna 137]

After we resized the banner we couldn't compress the file any more. The banner is also hosted on our server and not AVSIM's.

[Murmur 3,944]

After we resized the banner we couldn't compress the file any more. The banner is also hosted on our server and not AVSIM's.

The banner must not be hosted on AVSIM by rules, so exceeding max size is not related to it being hosted elsewhere.Marco

[JSkorna 137]

That's nice.

[CFIJose 5,485]

I'm sorry if the banners are too big for the forum rules.I did not create them. All I did was copy and paste a URL.I would like to have one that says AVSIM proud supporter for more than a decade.I also want Realair, but as you've stated, there's only so much room. LOL

[Guest DeskPilot]

I have been dabbling with X-plane; and have to say default clouds and limited vis are better than FEX!Once I find some nice GA payware and friends for multi-player, I will be firing it up a lot more.Donald

[gman! 1]

I don't see Flight Sim as dead....not even on its last legs at all. Almost 1 year on from the, very sad admittedly, destruction of ACES and its seems to me that devs/programmers/publishers etc etc are only just beginning to realise the potential of this sim (fsx). Add to that the fact that i7 and other massive hardware upgrades are here or just around the corner, and that also allows us to push the boundaries in what we expect of this "beast" and what can be accomplished with it.Admittedly, with a code thats as old as the hills in fsx, it will only go so far but in hindsight, to me anyway, it seems a blessing in disguise. In the next couple of years, someone will pick up the flightsim baton in one form or another, but in the meantime we, as the user, can slow down the ridiculous cycle of hardware upgrading every 5 minutes and the developers have a sim that is "standing still", i.e. they don't have to worry about throwing their resources at a sim that will be obsolete in less than 6/12 months. Its only now that we are seeing the true potential - look at what FTX/ORBX, REX, PMDG, Realair, Feelthere/WILCO, Carenado, Aerosoft & Flight1 (GEX Europe when released)to name a few of my addon makers,have done recently, or are doing now for release in near future and this sim is kicking!!!!I think its just beginning :(

I totally agree, good reply! Developers will be more likely to develop quality products for flight simulator and develop new features for FSX that we never thought were possible because they don't have to worry about their product becoming obsolete so soon.

[Guest GMM]

What I suggest, is rather than changing the system all together, is someone buy rights to modify FSX and fix the endless amount of bugs in the system.Also possibly develop an FSX with a combination of FSPassengers and FS2Crew and Air Hauler (for Commercial Passenger Aviation, not just Cargo)Add Some meaning to Flight-Simming. Manage your own company (not just Cargo)I have a Core-i7 based computer and it still cannot run with smooth framerates with max graphics (including traffic), so there are still limits to the graphical settings of FSX, despite being 3 years old now

[stevem72 10]

I have a Core-i7 based computer and it still cannot run with smooth framerates with max graphics (including traffic), so there are still limits to the graphical settings of FSX, despite being 3 years old now

That is what I am getting at with the way fsx was written - we may never get to hardware that can run every slider to the right with 100% traffic in heavy weather at KLAX/EGLL/KJFK etc. Its reasonably well documented that fsx is a poorly coded mish-mash of a job and until we get to 5-6 ghz processors, then running it full on max may well be a pipedream/holy grail :( In my opinion FSX's biggest drawback is its code/design and I feel that this was brought on by the fact that ACES/Microsoft didn't have the guts/time/money to "start over" and design fsx from the ground up. What we ended up with was a "compromise" of a sim - having to write for, and ensure, backward compatibilty with people's add-ons is the millstone around the neck of fsx. To me, that alone has held it back so much and its only now that scenery/add-on designers are finding ways around this, and in conjunction with hardware advances we are only now seeing its truer potential with the quality of work that some developers are currently producing.The fact that ACES are no more means that that whoever takes on FS11 would effectively have to write it from scratch using current (at that time) coding methods, with current (at that time) hardware etc etc etc - that could equally be the best thing - new more efficient sim - and worst thing - all of our expensive add-ons would be useless in the new sim!!!

[tf51d 284]

I have been dabbling with X-plane; and have to say default clouds and limited vis are better than FEX!Once I find some nice GA payware and friends for multi-player, I will be firing it up a lot more.Donald

The problem is, that's all you get, limited visibility! 25 miles vs 120 miles for FSX! Also once X-Plane determines you have too much scenery loaded, it reduces it even further!

[tf51d 284]

I have a Core-i7 based computer and it still cannot run with smooth framerates with max graphics (including traffic), so there are still limits to the graphical settings of FSX, despite being 3 years old now

If you are running default traffic unmodified, it's probably being caused by the jetways engaging in the total scenery load radius all at once! You can get better frames without them. You need to either change the exit statements in your default traffic (That would be the 737, 747, CRJ, MD-80 (AI))to FS2004 format, essentially removing the coordinates for the jetways. Or comment out the whole exit section. Only do this on AI aircraft, or you won't be able to use the doors or jetways yourself on user aircraft. Better yet just replace your default AI with a 3rd party package, Most are payware, but a very good one that is free is World of AI (WOAI), which uses real world flight schedules. The only drawback is you have to download each airline separately (Which they are constantly adding more) and is a lot of work to setup, but once done, is very rewarding. That's how I do my AI. The payware will load all at one time. Look at my videos with 100% WOAI set, to see the performance I get with my C2D E6850 2GB Nvidia 9800GTX system.http://www.youtube.com/user/tf51dWorld of AIhttp://www.world-of-ai.com/To change to FS2004 format from FSX, remove the last 3 params per exit line. (Comment out the original lines if you ever want to go back with a // in front.)[exits]number_of_exits = 2exit.0 = 0.4, 36.6, -5.0, 3.0, 0 exit.1 = 0.4, -38.5, 4.5, -3.0, 1 exit.2 = 0.4, 33.5, 3.5, -4.0, 2 [exits]number_of_exits = 2exit.0 = 0.4 exit.1 = 0.4exit.2 = 0.4

[Guest GMM]

Thanks, but I prefer not to fly with 100% AI because at busy airports I never get a gate, plus ATC is hopeless at handling AI. I also have My Traffic 2010, which has an option to disable jetway animationsFSX has bad coding, but it is nothing that cant be fixed. I mean if someone started from the ground up, they would never be able to create as many functions as FSX had, so its always best to improve on an idea.

[Guest GMM]

By the way has anyone heard of the Cascada Game Foundary, who just launched, made up of previous designers for ACES Studios and other leading titles?THey plan to produce simulation based software

[Guest AVN8tr]

Yeah it's sad FS never did a code rewrite.. most software companies are on their 3 or 4th generation engines while FS still registers itself as FS98 code base.