Latest update

[PhilTaylor 45]

here.http://www.futuregpu.org/2009/02/end-of-er...re-updates.htmlnet-net, go back to flying and wait and see what MGS tells us about the "new flying game" because until then we do not know how this major event fully plays out.

[Plainplane 6]

You are definitely right, it seems like too many people are focused on what will happen later on instead of taking the time to enjoy the great software that we have now.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

here.http://www.futuregpu.org/2009/02/end-of-er...re-updates.htmlnet-net, go back to flying and wait and see what MGS tells us about the "new flying game" because until then we do not know how this major event fully plays out.

"I'll avoid singing kumbaya and asking for a group hug now. :-)"I cannot, for the life of me, see a time when you and I would hug, kumbaya or otherwise. :( Seriously, I know you have it right Phil. Everyone take a deep breath and let's see how this plays out. FSX and FS9 are here for us for a number of years yet, and the landscape could change in a heart beat. Albeit a bean counter's heart beat.

[Guest magnum_force]

"I'll avoid singing kumbaya and asking for a group hug now. :-)"I cannot, for the life of me, see a time when you and I would hug, kumbaya or otherwise. :( Seriously, I know you have it right Phil. Everyone take a deep breath and let's see how this plays out. FSX and FS9 are here for us for a number of years yet, and the landscape could change in a heart beat. Albeit a bean counter's heart beat.

I am still having too much fun with all the FS versions that are out right now for years to come, maybe forever.I like all the free ware airplanes and packages and flight plans everyone gives away freely to worry about newer versions of MSFS.It would be fun to sing kumbaya because I don't know the words to it.

[PhilTaylor 45]

I am still having too much fun with all the FS versions that are out right now for years to come, maybe forever.I like all the free ware airplanes and packages and flight plans everyone gives away freely to worry about newer versions of MSFS.It would be fun to sing kumbaya because I don't know the words to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumbaya, see section 3 for lyrics

[Palebushman 0]

"I'll avoid singing kumbaya and asking for a group hug now. :-)"I cannot, for the life of me, see a time when you and I would hug, kumbaya or otherwise. :( Seriously, I know you have it right Phil. Everyone take a deep breath and let's see how this plays out. FSX and FS9 are here for us for a number of years yet, and the landscape could change in a heart beat. Albeit a bean counter's heart beat.

"FSX and FS9 are here for us for a number of years yet," :( Well said Tom, and with AVSIM and its ever growing Library, FSX has an awesome companion too. :(

[Ray Proudfoot 8,954]

There's a lot of water to pass under the bridge before the future becomes clearer. FSXI wasn't due out for at least another year anyway so as far as I'm concerned nothing has changed in the short-medium term.In the longer term I think the critical element will be 3rd party developer's attitude to FS9 and FSX. If new products continue to be developed for these (FS9 especially) then I'm happy to stay with that version for the forseeable future. Frame rates of 35+ at the most complex of airports are wonderful. Finally the hardware has caught up with the software. In 3-4 years the hardware available then will probably have caught up with FSX and that version could enjoy the same life cycle FS9 has.I suspect Microsoft have been taken aback by the reaction to this decision. The thought of paying while I fly is a non-starter for me and switching to an X-Box is equally repugnant. If necessary I will stay with FS9/X for as long as currrent PCs are capable of running them.

[RatRace 4]

Finally the hardware has caught up with the software. In 3-4 years the hardware available then will probably have caught up with FSX and that version could enjoy the same life cycle FS9 has.

Oh brother, i'm certainly not the first to say this, and unfortunately i won't be the last FSX would definitely benefit from increased processor speed but in the future increased processing power will mainly come from more cores, not clock speed. it feels like talking to walls sometimes :(

[Palebushman 0]

There's a lot of water to pass under the bridge before the future becomes clearer. FSXI wasn't due out for at least another year anyway so as far as I'm concerned nothing has changed in the short-medium term.In the longer term I think the critical element will be 3rd party developer's attitude to FS9 and FSX. If new products continue to be developed for these (FS9 especially) then I'm happy to stay with that version for the forseeable future. Frame rates of 35+ at the most complex of airports are wonderful. Finally the hardware has caught up with the software. In 3-4 years the hardware available then will probably have caught up with FSX and that version could enjoy the same life cycle FS9 has.I suspect Microsoft have been taken aback by the reaction to this decision. The thought of paying while I fly is a non-starter for me and switching to an X-Box is equally repugnant. If necessary I will stay with FS9/X for as long as currrent PCs are capable of running them.

:( Your feelings Ray, are also being echoed in Richards thread here http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=243527 It truly is amazing, just how much this one program/application from Microsoft, has created such a dedicated and discerning following from so many people around the globe. :(

[Geofa 108]

Oh brother, i'm certainly not the first to say this, and unfortunately i won't be the last FSX would definitely benefit from increased processor speed but in the future increased processing power will mainly come from more cores, not clock speed. it feels like talking to walls sometimes :(

I guess I am a wall then. I went from a single core to a dual core and my fps went from 15-20 with no autogen and settings low to 30-40 with autogen and a good deal of settings maxed. A friend of mine who got a quad core gets 40-50 with my same settings, and even more maxed.So better hardware does make a better performance increase. The fsx board is now filled with users who said they couldn't use the sim the first couple years that are now due to newer hardware, and getting fine performance. Better hardware=better performance-even if the cores are not utilized in the way you would wish.

[Mike... 7]

In 3-4 years the hardware available then will probably have caught up with FSX and that version could enjoy the same life cycle FS9 has.

No chance. FSX was the first step in moving away from simulation and into gaming. It was with FSX that MS already lost a significant portion of simmers. Although I admit that the performance issue was there as well, it is not the key factor holding many people back. But let's not go over that again.With the next step being a "flying game", MS will lose another portion or perhaps the rest of us "legacy" simmers. Instead of waiting and seeing it is now more than ever before time to look for a replacement sim. Or better yet, it is time for the most talented third party devs to get to together and build one from scratch! Let it cost $100 or more, it they can get it right and actually listen to what we want, I'll gladly pay, a one-time fee...MS clearly insn't interested in us, that much is clear from their actions and BS statements. Why should we be waiting to see how this all pans out and what they come up with in the future?!No, I have always been a supporter of MS, but with FSX, Vista and all the Live stuff (try and get a standalone/offline installer for the latest Windows Live Messenger...), they're losing my support. MS is FUBAR. Unfortunately, there are too many people who simply do not care or are just plain ignorant, so it'll get worse before it'll get better, if at all.Time to move on.:(Although for the time being, FS9 and XP will do just fine. On hardware that would run FSX and Vista just fine, I might add...:(

[Geofa 108]

"No chance. FSX was the first step in moving away from simulation and into gaming."In my opinion-FSX was the first version of fs that concentrated on GA flying in its long history, and the first that did not place its emphasis on "heavy iron"-which in my perspective is gaming.I don't use games.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,954]

Oh brother, i'm certainly not the first to say this, and unfortunately i won't be the last FSX would definitely benefit from increased processor speed but in the future increased processing power will mainly come from more cores, not clock speed. it feels like talking to walls sometimes :(

Ratrace,I thought Phil Taylor said it was very difficult to write FSX to take advantage of multiple cores. FSB clock speed and processor power remain the two most important factors for me. But this is not the place to discuss what has been chewed over countless time before.The point I was making was that there is plenty of life left in FS9 and FSX so I see no need to jump ship to alternatives. If you've invested a lot of money in FS what would be the point. Nose, cut and spite spring to mind. :(

[RatRace 4]

I guess I am a wall then. I went from a single core to a dual core and my fps went from 15-20 with no autogen and settings low to 30-40 with autogen and a good deal of settings maxed. A friend of mine who got a quad core gets 40-50 with my same settings, and even more maxed.So better hardware does make a better performance increase. The fsx board is now filled with users who said they couldn't use the sim the first couple years that are now due to newer hardware, and getting fine performance. Better hardware=better performance-even if the cores are not utilized in the way you would wish.

You're not being very fair, Geoff, because i never said better hardware doesn't increase performance. Did your move from a single to a dual core also involve an increase in clockrate? Did you and/or your friend also buy a new graphics card? Did you simply replace the CPU, or the entire system? And yes, FSX SP2 does take advantage of multithreading, but FAIK only as far as eye-candy (texturing) is concerned (better ask Phil Taylor about that, after all, he's the expert). So yes, moving from an old PC to a current one would of course entail a (significant) increase in FPS. I never denied that. All I'm saying is that FSX won't make optimal use of the future technological CPU and GPU developments, because the FSX core isn't optimized for multithreading (amongst other things). So basically, you can buy the best hardware available today (as you and your friend did apparently), and what you get now won't be any better than what you might expect the next 3 or 4 years. :(

[RatRace 4]

Ratrace,I thought Phil Taylor said it was very difficult to write FSX to take advantage of multiple cores. FSB clock speed and processor power remain the two most important factors for me. But this is not the place to discuss what has been chewed over countless time before.The point I was making was that there is plenty of life left in FS9 and FSX so I see no need to jump ship to alternatives. If you've invested a lot of money in FS what would be the point. Nose, cut and spite spring to mind. :(

Fair enough, Ray. No use fretting over something we'll never know. :(