FSX and the Mathijs Kok Interview

[Guest RobertAlley]

I contracted with www.fs-gs.com to pick my components and optimize my computer. This was several years ago and to this day I have no urge to tweak FSX to make it run better. Mike could guide you into the optimal performance/price balanced rig for today; or if you contract with him to optimise it the following components are doing just fine for me and are now *very* cheap...Widows XP (Mike refuses to work with Vista last I heard)Asus M2N32-SLIAMD 6400 CPU2 gigs DDR2 RAM (forget other specs for RAM now)1 EVGA 8800GT video card750 watt power supply (Mike said it was the absolute minimum for this rig)

I started to listen but then I got sidetracked, maybe tonight...The other problem is you need a lot of cash to get a really solid FSX system. Especially now it can be difficult to get that accomplished. My system is getting near the low end of medium haha but I've made some compromises such as disabling road traffic in UTX, running high (not max) cloud coverage and normal-dense autogen depending on where I fly. FSX can be very enjoyable on my system, for the type of flying I do - GA singles/twins and the occasional bizjet (F1 Mustang)

[markturner 0]

I just listened to it as well, and found it very interesting and informative. I reserve judgement on the graphics card bit though, there is a sliding scale of performance that people report on this and other FSX related forums and, generally the experience is that the better the card, the better the performance. There will be exceptions to this due to badly set up systems etc and well tweaked systems, and I am also aware of the fact that a less powerful card is usually to be found in a less powerful system, so its difficult to say. In my experience, better graphics cards have always resulted in better performance in FSX, but what do I know?

[flyerkg 62]

Ab-so-lutely! I could not have put that better myself. Microprose, Spectrum Holobyte, EA (with Chuck Yeager & Jane's) and all those other great flight sim options... man, oh, man...Jeff ShylukSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

Now we're talking. I would do anything to see a remake of Microprose "Fleet Defender" or Spectrum Holobyte "Harrier Assault" Flying Nightmares with today's sim technology and graphics. Keith

[ramsa329 0]

Fs-gs service is available for Windows Vista 32 and 64.Michael Greenblattwww.fs-gs.com

[jackcnd 0]

Thanks for the tip on the interview, very interesting.The (best for FSX) video card he was talking about is the very low priced ATI 4650 of all cards!I can't imagine how it could compare to a GTX280 or GTX285 using NickN's suggested nHancer settings in variety of weather at 1920x1080 + in FSX .Does it?( Don't want to get this thread off topic so I started a new one in the Video Cards section )http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=254821

[Dillon 2,198]

Mathijs Kok Quotes:"Two years ago it was easier for a talented guy to create add-on scenery but today that's different""Microsoft has told all venders they will no longer make Flight Simulator""There's not a chance in hell getting an X-Plane add-on box on store shelves"With these kinds of challenges FS9 will be around for quite some time... The tools needed to properly develop for FSX is considerable. Hobbiest have an easier time making add-ons for FS9 versus FSX which is a mixed blessing. The bottom line to keep our hobby going is to make sure both sims get their proper due. We need budding developers making products for FS9 and when they get advanced enough switch over to FSX development. I remember talking to Mathijs and his main points as to FSX sales over FS9 was the fact FSX box titles sold more. If it was left up to downloads FS9 would win out. Now that Microsoft has pulled the plug all add-ons on store shelves are no more for the most part with the exception of stores like Micro Center. I see from Mathijs's comments finding X-Plane customers is an even greater challenge. So both sims today from MS equally have their place which overall is a good thing. FS9 is more accessable on so many fronts than FSX which gives us all alternatives for different reasons. On a side note, it's sad access to American airports is getting harder and harder these days (which is expected after 9/11. I don't know how FSDreamTeam is able to pull off their work). We have three good sims plane and simple (FS9, FSX, and X-Plane). We need to fully embrace each of these titles from here on out for their strengths and move forward with an eye towards the future. FS9/X-Plane for budding development and greatest number of add-ons, FSX for more advanced developers and those that can run it reasonably (looks like we might not ever see FSX run to it's fullest potential like FS9 does today). We're going to have our hands full getting two of these sims (MS titles) to run on OS's in the future if we don't find a viable alternative to Flight Simulator. That's where our work will really begin, we need not squabble about which sim is better anymore. X-Plane will be the only officially supported sim in the future depending on how well Aerosoft's effort does. As of now I'm just glade we have options mine being FS9. I hope through all this we don't keep hemorrhaging developers like DreamFleet and Feelthere because FS is not cost effective anymore (both DreamFleet and Feelthere aren't gone but their teetering). We have to find creative efforts in keeping our hobby going. For me it's buying every 'decent' FS9 add-on released whether I'll use it allot or not. I'd say the same for all you FSX'ers out there.... Support our community so we continue to have a community and hope like hell things improve in areas like the economy for instance in the next few years.

[sipos 0]

Yes, the future of flight sim is going be interesting! FSX definitely has a couple years left in it, but over time its going to start looking really outdated compared to the new gen products/ games out there. Aerosoft talk of creating another flight sim is hard to take seriously. For a project of such immense proportions one would need resources beyond the resources aerosoft has now. I was a contractor at ACES for 6 months and I saw the resources Microsoft had. If a company like Microsoft starts a project they commit to that project and pour the necessary funds to make it work. If they need more employees, they get more employees. If they need to outsource art work they have no problem finding a company to outsource the artwork. Not only that, the work environment is great and employees get treated very well, and get paid well. Therefore the developers are obliged to putting out their best work. They are also professionals who know their stuff well. If one were to create a new simulator of the magnitude of FSX, one would basically need to invest a boat load of money (on the scale of millions), find and build a productive work enviroment, hire top notch developers (with degrees and experience in the industry) who are familiar with the technology of today, do about a year of development planning (if the project where serious, it takes a lot of planning on the part of all the developers), and execute according to plan. Do I see that happening, not very likely? Unless Aerosofts ambitions are secretly much higher then what I see now. X plane can only go so far due to the scale of their team (I believe its only like 3 people), unless Austin Meyer, their one developer, decides to stop doing all the coding him self and invest in a much larger development team! And who said Microsoft was not committed to the flight sim franchise anymore? You look at fsinsider.com and it even says We will continue to produce, sell, and support the latest version of Flight Simulator as we plan for future versions of the franchise. I dont know where Mathijs Kok got his info, but from what I know (from networking with the people at MS), there are still a handfull of fs developers working at Microsoft on a project that may or may not be flight related. For all I know it could be a project much bigger then the scale of the old flight sim? I just don't know - they keep this kind of info on the DL? So don't let your hopes down.I for one hope someone steps up to the plate to create a semi decent realistic flight sim/ or flight game of that matter. It's a big market and it's waiting for someone to grab. It's a hobby that will never stop be stoped for me!

[Guest roddymod]

FSX has only a couple of years life left.I don't think so.If you are trying to compare FSX to games you may have a point but you are comparing apples with oranges. There is no flight simulator which come close to FSX and, given the size of the market for a replacement, I cannot see anyone being prepared to make the massive financial commitment required to bring such a product to market. Why do you suppose that MS pulled the plug on FS developement. Simple economics.There is still a potential customer base amongst those who are still running FS9 as well as pre SP2 versions of FSX. There is also a vast potential for FSX addons whioch is only just opening up as developers begin to exploit some of the abilities of FSX as opposed to being stuck in FS9 mode. I think Mr Koch does an excellent marketing job for his company but I am afraid that some of his assertions about FSX and hardware performance are complete nonsense.Rod.

[jjjallen 37]

Interesting audio. It is good to hear that there are rumblings to keep our hobby alive.Regarding the new Sim Majis was talking about about: he did stress that it would be based on a commercially avalable 3D rendering engine that must account for at least 1/3rd of the required devel time of a new sim. Also, he made the statement that a large monetary investment would be required to move forward.The new graphics card / performance comment may seem like bunk but personally I think that there is some truth there because of the much higher resolutions that we are using today. It is only a guess but I'm thinking that FSX was developed on a 1280x1024 box. A 1080i resoultion has to move a few more pixels around.On the other hand, I agree with Nick that a graphics subsystem / memory / and cpu combination needs to be optimised for the best FSX experience.Finally, if you want to put a smile on while you are waiting for a future sim - invest in one of the hot SSD's on the market, install Vista 64, FSX and all your favorite addons and enjoy FSX in its current form.jja

[jrhoads 6]

From a personal point of view? I believe Joey and Rod are on the money 100%. But what do I know? :( Regards,Jim RhoadsFlight1

[Guest PPSFA]

Perhaps we now know why FSX was built for 'future systems', MS knew long ago what was coming and decided to give us something to build on for years to come, I'm just saying hehehehe

[kiwikat 529]

Exactly. I totally disagree with the statements made that newer graphic cards cause timing issues and do not work as well as older cards. Hogwash.From a personal point of view? I believe Joey and Rod are on the money 100%. But what do I know? :(

I agree with Jim (and Joey and Rod) 100%...For some reason I am not quite as optimistic about this Aerosoft sim as most other people in the community are... though I wish them luck in their endeavours.

[byork 2,260]

Fascinating interview with Mathjis that all should listen to.I agree that within the next couple years the FSX add-on business is going to get hit hard.With the apparent fall of the MSFS franchise, and the vacuum that it leaves in its wake, I think we're going to see a real cataclysm in the FS market as the market suddenly splits with new simulators coming to the fore (X-Plane, the Aerosoft thing, and others coming out).While it may make it more difficult for small indie developers (such as myself) to develop for all these different platforms, it sure does make things interesting :-)

[Geofa 108]

I agree with Jim (and Joey and Rod) 100%...For some reason I am not quite as optimistic about this Aerosoft sim as most other people in the community are... though I wish them luck in their endeavours.

I also agree. Been there and done that in the 90's...I do wish luck though.

[Guest Nick_N]