I apologize in advance for 2 things: 1) This is probably not the right spot in the forum for this topic/question but nothing really fits the bill in terms of where to place it2) This topic may be covered already in detail somewhere else in the forum but I couldn't find anything using the forum's search field. If so please just point me to it with my thanks.I am in healthcare and only have a cursory knowledge of computers in general. I would prefer to just have computers and the software work. I love flight sims but from a practical standpoint as a hobby it had certain problems that I personally found difficult to overcome. As flight simulation evolved over time it became this amazing plug in program where you could download planes of every description, scenery, terrain mesh, weather programs, you name it. It got to the point where I was constantly trying to figure out how to either get more performance out of the computer I had, how I was going to keep upgrading to a new, (i.e., faster more powerful computer), or what new software I was going to purchase to make the flight sim experience "as real as it gets". And then of course trying to get it all to work together without crashing, hanging, or slowing the sim down to a slide show. I closely followed the forums which had tons of information (but sometimes it was like reading a dialogue between the Hatfilelds and the McCoys with lots of animosity). This is a hobby where having a deep background in computer science/engineering can be very helpful (Think NickN). I often felt like I was a dunce in math listening to an Einstiein. For me 10% of the time was spent flying, the other 90% of the time fiddling with the upgrades and add-ons making the actual hobby not that of flight simming but one of trying to run the flight sim to optimum performance. Finally my PC tower died and that forced me to take a serious look at my needs. I loved flight simming but was it really worth it? The trend for me was for reduced costs, easier to use hardware. If I wanted a game (vs a sim) just get a console like a PlayStation of XBox and get a laptop for your everyday computing needs. Why go out and spend $2500 for a new tower (yes I know you can get a lower cost one that will do ok with FSX as long as you don't overload it and have realistic expectations about its performance) plus peripherals and add on software when it seemed like the vast majority of the time was spent trying to get the thing to work properly. It ultimately forced me out of the hobby when I just couldn't afford to keep up.My question is this (and to many of you this may seem like a question only an idiot would ask), but why not move flight sim to the internet cloud and put it on some sort of subscription basis? Seriously, how many more people would the hobby attract if every tweak, program, add-on, plane, scenery enhancement, weather program, all of it engineered to work well together, were in one place on a server and anybody with a high speed internet connection could log in and fly when they wanted? No more hardware worries, no trying to figure what add-ons will work and what won't, what will slow your computer down, etc. I don't really know how many people in the world would try to fly at the same time, if the model is scalable, practical from a computing standpoint or if this would just be one more huge burden on the internet, etc. Or if it would be prohibitively expensive to create the program and servers needed without making the subscription cost too high. But it would seem to me to solve many of the problems the flight sim hobby has at it's core.Any feedback would be appreciated and please no flames. Now about that new PC tower . . .

I know enough about this stuff to be dangerous..lol .. But here's how I understand it (I could be mistaken)..The problem is... that the virtual world that you fly in, has to be generated locally. There isn't an internet connection fast enough bring you all that graphical data in real time. And even if that aspect could be done.. the "server", would have to have enough computing power to cater to every, individual subscribers session.. pretty much a whole computer dedicated to every "player".Ponder subscription services like Steam.. even when you have 32 players interacting.. it's not like one game that several people share. Each player has to have the game environment generated on their computer.. and then the server shares just the data about the other players.

Interesting view points. I certainly agree that people with computer science background have a lead, but am also in healthcare myself (will graduate with my M.D. in 3 months--likely going in to orthopaedic surgery) and have found flight sim to be very approacheable and along a similar line. I think if you follow the lead of others like NickN to get yourself in the ballpark and then do a little bit of experimenting on your own with our particular system you can get a very good result. The key is to stick with more global themes that get you a lot of mileage for you money. Sure, maybe changint his bgl or that one can get you a tenth of an FPS, but if you play with the global settings you can get much more. Search the internet discusions around NickN's settings and FSX tuning and I think you'll find a lot of very good advice.

As an IT student, cloud computing scares me. I absolutely despise the idea.If/when it happens, I'll be switching careers. Mailman anyone? :(

My question is this (and to many of you this may seem like a question only an idiot would ask), but why not move flight sim to the internet cloud and put it on some sort of subscription basis?

No. I am sorry, but I hate that idea. Subscriptions and Internet clouds would create numerous problems and it would take away a lot of the freedom we have to modify our FS to our specific individual wants. Freeware customization would become a thing of the past. Also I do not think we have the global hardware network infrastructure to do this effectively anyway.

As an IT student, cloud computing scares me. I absolutely despise the idea.

I agree.

........For me 10% of the time was spent flying, the other 90% of the time fiddling with the upgrades and add-ons making the actual hobby not that of flight simming but one of trying to run the flight sim to optimum performance. I loved flight simming but was it really worth it? The trend for me was for reduced costs, easier to use hardware. If I wanted a game (vs a sim) just get a console like a PlayStation of XBox and get a laptop for your everyday computing needs. Why go out and spend $2500 for a new tower (yes I know you can get a lower cost one that will do ok with FSX as long as you don't overload it and have realistic expectations about its performance) plus peripherals and add on software when it seemed like the vast majority of the time was spent trying to get the thing to work properly. It ultimately forced me out of the hobby when I just couldn't afford to keep up.

It's not really that expensive - you can get a decent PC tower (that would run FS fine) in the UK for around 400-500 pounds sterling (that's around $700 US, based on the current exchange rate of '1 British pound = 1.5248 U.S. dollars'). Desktops are becoming cheaper and cheaper every year, as well as faster. What kind of tower are you looking at that costs $2,500 (roughly 1,640 UK pounds sterling)? - I haven't seen that kind of a high price for a PC for a long time (laptop - yes, but for PC - no). Joysticks and rudder pedals are not prohibitively priced and there is a ton of fantastic freeware add-ons available. Also there is a great selection of payware too. Putting all this on Subscriptions and Internet clouds would make it more expensive in the long run.In my case I spend around 20% of my time tweaking with FS and 80% flying in it. Once you are familiar with the process, adding new aircraft and scenery is not hard - you do not need to be an IT expert to do it. Over the years I've added 60-70GB to my initial FS installation and I don't find it difficult to do. At any rate by doing it yourself and fixing all the issues that come up (or trying to) you are learning a lot.

Something similar for general gaming exists, GameLive, and from what I've heard, it has major lag issues because the internet isn't fast enough to handle the game at a fluid rate. Remember that unless you have a dedicated line, your internet speed is shared with everyone else in the area using that line.

It's not really that expensive - you can get a decent PC tower (that would run FS fine) in the UK for around 400-500 pounds sterling (that's around $700 US, based on the current exchange rate of '1 British pound = 1.5248 U.S. dollars'). Desktops are becoming cheaper and cheaper every year, as well as faster. What kind of tower are you looking at that costs $2,500 (roughly 1,640 UK pounds sterling)? - I haven't seen that kind of a high price for a PC for a long time (laptop - yes, but for PC - no). Well, I'd certainly like to see the spec of the

Well, I'd certainly like to see the spec of the

Thanks for the link...interesting. Given the fact that my higher spec rig gives only "adequate" performance with FSX, I find it hard to believe I'd be happy with the lower spec. without spending more on beefing it up. I'm not saying I would'nt...just hard to believe. I've SUPPOSED to have tweaked it correctly....but maybe I have'nt. If not, I've probably made an expensive mistake. We live and learn. (and get poorer)Russell.

Thanks for the link...interesting. Given the fact that my higher spec rig gives only "adequate" performance with FSX, I find it hard to believe I'd be happy with the lower spec. without spending more on beefing it up. I'm not saying I would'nt...just hard to believe. I've SUPPOSED to have tweaked it correctly....but maybe I have'nt. If not, I've probably made an expensive mistake. We live and learn. (and get poorer)Russell.

I can run FSX fine on a slightly slower machine than the 3rd choice in that link (which is the most powerful of the three). I haven't migrated from FS9 though, I still prefer it because of all the add-ons I have in it. For FSX I think it is important to have a powerful graphics card and lots of RAM (both in the system and graphics card), if you have a reasonable dual core processor or better and those you should be fine. Also I think FSX works better with some graphics cards than others, that would explain why some people with really powerful PCs have a low performance in it (but this is just my theory).I'm surprised you're having problems with a i7-960 system, with a decent graphics card and plenty of RAM you should be OK - I expect you have those in abundance on a i7-960 system for

Yes, I'm not surprised you're surprised...so am I. 6G DDR3 1600 and a GTX260, chosen for the very reasons you mentioned about the top end cards not sitting well with FSX. It could well be that I don't have it set up properly, though I've tried every tweak I know. I have to say I much prefer FS9, and only made the switch as I'm helping beta test a new aircraft. I'll get there in the end no doubt, but did'nt expect to have to do all this prodding and cajoling. I much prefer flying.Russell.

I just bought a 220gt and it's making the sound crackle .. somethi8ng maybe with the buffer pool in the config....and if any have an opinion thats it's not buffer pool I don;t care really...I think my PC is begging for ...... oh look at that .. I am / was in multifly and I cashed do to a C++ run something or other,perfect timing . :( I may have to put it down, on line gaming ?.. the cloud thing... I'll find another hobby , thank you No

In my opinion cloud gaming for Flight Simulator is not a good idea. I bet they company will charge expensive monthly prices just to play, or they might even do something like hourly rates, or some other method. America's internet right now is just too slow in general, and many internet connections today still cannot receive a 720p (1280x720@60Hz) unless the image and sound is compressed. It also isn't the speed that counts. Some internet connections are very fast, but they have high ping, or their connections are shared with main terminal for the neighborhood or area, causing slower connections at peak hours. So you would get lag after your inputs (i.e. When you turn your yoke, joystick, or whatever to the left, there would be a delay before it reaches the server.) The problem with this also is that compression takes time. Unless there were a super efficent and fast video and audio compressor today, it would take a long time (In technological sense) to compress the image and audio then send it out. Right now its either fast compression and low quality image and sound, or slow compression but higher quality image and audio. Then there is the problem of add-ons and customization. How would you implement this? It would need to be well thought-out, and it would consume a lot of additional space on the PCs they have, all adding costs. Everything revolves around money.What about demand? Is there really enough demand for FS over the internet to generate revenue and satisfy many people, or will it be a low user game and just be a waste of space on the servers?There is a service coming soon called OnLive, but I am not exactly sure if it will support FSX.These are just a few of the problems. Then there are the problems of the headaches the techs will have to go through at the company to get FSX running smoothly with hundreds, maybe even thousands of people!. :(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnLive

Yes, I'm not surprised you're surprised...so am I. 6G DDR3 1600 and a GTX260, chosen for the very reasons you mentioned about the top end cards not sitting well with FSX. It could well be that I don't have it set up properly, though I've tried every tweak I know. I have to say I much prefer FS9, and only made the switch as I'm helping beta test a new aircraft. I'll get there in the end no doubt, but did'nt expect to have to do all this prodding and cajoling. I much prefer flying.Russell.

I prefer FS9 too, even though I can run FSX I don't see myself switching anytime soon.I haven't got a clue why you can't run FSX smoothly on such a powerful system. The card sounds alright and you got plenty of RAM. Maybe someone on the FSX or Hardware forums can help, it might be worth posting about this there. Tweaking hardware and software does get in the way of flying, I try to avoid it whenever possible or keep it at a bare minimum.