Microsoft Only Gets a "C" from this Long Term User

[Guest]

Putting aside some messed up systems where no game can operate properly, The overwhelming majority of users should have been able to run this beast right out of the box. We cannot blame the beta testers. If we could read all of the Beta reports I venture to guess we will read the stuff of this forum. It was ignored.No, what happened is that MS released a product not ready for prime time. I say this openly at the risk of being called a troll as I have been a month before the release of COF by the usual suspects. On June 28 I reported the missing bridge at Chesapeake Bay and the inability of setting the spot plane view from the full display. Troll Alert was the response.I have been purchasing and using FS from day one from the Bruce Artwick first offerings. MS has made a mint of money over the years from this community. While the gurus of this community can tweak and driver this beast into submisson the regular buyer cannot.I am sorry to report that this latest MS effort falls short of a quality product. I don't care if it only costs $55, it does not cut the mustard. No, I am not going to sell it. I am going to live with it. But the honest review will say, eyecandy notwithstnding, that COF only deserves a "C."Old Alive Navy Pilot

[Guest WorkingStiff]

Geez, all you had to do is cut-and-paste this thread: [a href=http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=121&topic_id=118913&mesg_id=118913&listing_type=search] "A Couple of Bugs I Have Heard Of - First Bugs" [/a]

[John_Cillis 2,406]

It's funny how perspectives differ. I invested $80 in more RAM, and another $90 on another video card, after I received the gold release. I wouldn't have invested that money in my system if I thought COF didn't "cut the mustard." As for what went on during beta testing, that I can't tell you and I won't take the bait this time either. You inasmuch suggest that testers were ignored. Speculate away if you want. What I can tell you is what the job of any tester is--to make comments and observations in the best interests of the company that invites them to participate. Common sense says that means the company should deliver for the customer, but the other half is what is reasonable to accept to get the product out the door. 100 pct. perfection? No product on the market is perfect. Do missing bridges mean hold the presses? Personally, I would have been happy with none, since third party designers have more time and thus can do a better job. Now I have to write stupid exclude statements for those bridges I don't like :)It's funny that you have been around the sims as long as you have, yet really you introduced yourself to this forum by your first thread, and now this one. I think that's why you got slammed with the troll label. There's people I respect in these forums who have real issues with the sim, and I do too. I doubt I'll ever remove FS2002, but FS2004 still has a place. IMHO, COF's a VFR/Bush sim, and FS2002 is an IFR/Heavy Iron sim. COF has the potential of becoming both with third party development and support from Microsoft. But everyone here would also agree third party support alone kept FS2002 alive in the absence of Microsoft's attention.What's really funny, and it goes back to the first thing you mentioned--I was able to run this beast "out of the box", on a system running 98se and rather old hardware. And as I discussed in another thread, nine out of ten users here got up and running w/o issues. Those with problems have to speak up to get attention and help, but that doesn't mean they represent the majority. Other than the two items which you repeated from your last thread, what are some of the other issues you've seen? Please back them up with screenshots if you can. Screenshots speak louder than words, and tend to quiet those who run around accusing others of being trolls..... -John

[michal 44]

>I reported the missing bridge at>Chesapeake Bay and the inability of setting the spot plane>view from the full display. These two items would not even make my list of 50 most important features of the simulator. Apparently they are super important for you - fine. But don't be surprised if most don't give d*mn about them.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

[Guest PaulL01]

100% agree with you. The new additions to the sim a great and welcomed for sure you have to love all of that, great job there! But also as a long time user there are certainly enough issues right out of the box on just to many systems for an application that gets this much distrubution and all at the same time with so many resources available to avoid this, whoever made the dicision to put it out like this...well, that doesn't matter the fact is it is not going very well. 3rd party support? I won't go there.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Paul...I'm really curious though. You are as fluent in systems as I am--wouldn't that make you expect that some of the issues are the result of the hardware on the other end, vs. the software? What do we really know as far as the shortcuts some mfrs have taken with their hardware and with their drivers? Just browse the release notes for Nvidia's latest driver set--and I'm not picking on Nvidia. But I do think a 5xxx, 4xxx, 3, etc.... should act the same way given the same software program. Do we make it Microsoft's job to bloat the sim with so much card specific code, that we end up with half of today's performance? I thought that's why we have a DirectX standard...Since FS2004's release, I've seen these issues reported as "fixes"--none of them being Microsoft's problem:-MB chipset drivers out of date-Reinstall of DirectX-Update of drivers and/or removal of hacked drivers-People tweaking cards, and tweaking them incorrectly-virus/Spyware/Trojan infection-People moving system folders around w/o making the right updates to the registryI don't let Microsoft off the hook, but I think this sim has no more issues than FS2002 did. We heard the same issues, had the same installation woes, and had to apply heavy tweaking to get what we wanted from the sim. I've had the label troll applied to meself many times, but in my favor I did own the sim and I didn't make my statements based on hearsay.I think COF has issues, the most serious seeming to be the performance drop some have seen around airports, but the originator of this thread?--there's issues there as well. A first time poster doesn't come in slamming a sim they don't even own, as was the case with the post which introduced "pm" to the forums...

[rhumbaflappy 113]

Hi John.If you remove all the BGLs that start with 'BR9', you'll get rid of all the autogen bridges.I actually recommend this. The default water and roads are not of the right shape/position, so the bridges could not possibly be right. They represent an annoyance to anyone changing the terrain.They can be excluded as a VTP2 layer 7, but the airport backgrounds ( skirtings ) are also layer 7.If MS gives us a timely SDK for terrain, we could replace the bridges as VTP2 lines... but for now it's impossible as the code is different than the previous SDK. Our only recourse would be to replace them as objects.Dick

[Guest JonP01]

>I doubt I'll ever remove FS2002, but FS2004 still has a place.> IMHO, COF's a VFR/Bush sim, and FS2002 is an IFR/Heavy Iron>>-JohnI couldn't agree more. Once you've tasted GA VFR flight in FS2004, it is very hard to go back, especially when flying historic aircraft. But I'll still keep FS2002, as somehow I still prefer it when flying heavy IFR. But maybe some of that has to do with the fact that getting fluid performance in a complicated IFR heavy flight scenario is harder to achieve in FS2004 than it is in FS2002. I think after my next hardware upgrade (a long time in the future), I'd be happy to use FS2004 for both.

[Guest PaulL01]

>It's funny how perspectives differ. I invested $80 in more>RAM, and another $90 on another video card, after I received>the gold release. I wouldn't have invested that money in my>system if I thought COF didn't "cut the mustard." As for what>went on during beta testing, that I can't tell you and I won't>take the bait this time either. You inasmuch suggest that>testers were ignored. Speculate away if you want. What I can>tell you is what the job of any tester is--to make comments>and observations in the best interests of the company that>invites them to participate. Common sense says that means the>company should deliver for the customer, but the other half is>what is reasonable to accept to get the product out the door. >100 pct. perfection? No product on the market is perfect. Do>missing bridges mean hold the presses? Personally, I would>have been happy with none, since third party designers have>more time and thus can do a better job. Now I have to write>stupid exclude statements for those bridges I don't like :)>>It's funny that you have been around the sims as long as you>have, yet really you introduced yourself to this forum by your>first thread, and now this one. I think that's why you got>slammed with the troll label. There's people I respect in>these forums who have real issues with the sim, and I do too. >I doubt I'll ever remove FS2002, but FS2004 still has a place.> IMHO, COF's a VFR/Bush sim, and FS2002 is an IFR/Heavy Iron>sim. COF has the potential of becoming both with third party>development and support from Microsoft. But everyone here>would also agree third party support alone kept FS2002 alive>in the absence of Microsoft's attention.>>What's really funny, and it goes back to the first thing you>mentioned--I was able to run this beast "out of the box", on a>system running 98se and rather old hardware. And as I>discussed in another thread, nine out of ten users here got up>and running w/o issues. Those with problems have to speak up>to get attention and help, but that doesn't mean they>represent the majority. >>Other than the two items which you repeated from your last>thread, what are some of the other issues you've seen? Please>back them up with screenshots if you can. Screenshots speak>louder than words, and tend to quiet those who run around>accusing others of being trolls..... >>-JohnJohn, No fight here ok? But I think you are overreacting as there are some legitimate gripes here and anyone has the right to openly express that right? forget the bridges, this game right now cannot fully support graphics cards from ATI or Nvidia and this is hardware design that was available since the beginning. It is not like FS9 is breaking any new ground here with code, You can go check out Will Rock or other new game titles for that.There are many folks that just pick this game up and do not know how to get passed the AA/menu issues alone, how the heck did that happen? How can that be defended?As far as the Beta testers go I have been told by other members of the team that there where many issues that went ignored so please don

[Guest]

This is where we respectfully differ John. I think the product was released before it was finished. Maybe it had something to do with the currency of MS ads and promotionals on the Cable channel. I think it was Wings. COF is just not a quality product for the casual user. You and I and the rest of this forum can overcome most of the shortcomings. While 9 out of 10 forum users will have no problem I would guess that many of the non forum innocent user will be taking it back because he could not get it past the splash screen on a working system and had no clue that it was AA.I have been on the forum since it started. Because the system recently reported to me that my password was no good I had to adopt a new handle. Naturally, folk assumed it was a first time non-owner user complaining. While I did not "own" COF on June 28 (as I do now) I did access the Gold version on 'Betaman's machine. Betaman reported many of these issues to MS. It seemed to me the reports went into a plenum chamber or black hole at MS.The missing bridges hit this old navy pilot hard because I used to rely on them in real flight when I was a little bit lost. All of the issues I know about are posted in the top of this forum. If I come across some new ones i will post with screenshots as you suggest.Thanks for the well reasoned comment, John.

[Guest PaulL01]

>Paul...>>I'm really curious though. You are as fluent in systems as I>am--wouldn't that make you expect that some of the issues are>the result of the hardware on the other end, vs. the software?Absolutely agree with you, but given MS's ability and wide range of resources for device/driver support the big ones here with both Nvidia and ATI are way off the mark considering the importance and wide spread use of that particular hardware has in running FS9.> What do we really know as far as the shortcuts some mfrs have>taken with their hardware and with their drivers? Just browse>the release notes for Nvidia's latest driver set--and I'm not>picking on Nvidia. But I do think a 5xxx, 4xxx, 3, etc....>should act the same way given the same software program. Often one fix can uncover another problem so you will see this has a long history especially where display devices are involved, backward compatibility is at the core of this in many cases as it was with ATI's decision not to enable AAing of Alpha textures with Radeon cards.The particular issues here with just the graphic cards from both ATI and Nvidia seem to point to something bad in the beta/testing faze as there are not "older" drivers that one can go back to until a fix is released>Do>we make it Microsoft's job to bloat the sim with so much card>specific code, that we end up with half of today's>performance? I thought that's why we have a DirectX>standard...That code is in there for backward compatibility and is demanded by DX not the other way around as the DX ver.XXX specification is presented and then hashing out the details goes on with support of the video card manufactures as well as game developers before it is settled on, software is written and tested on the new hardware to support it, but that doesn

[Guest JEH]

>>whoever made the dicision to put it out like this...well, that>doesn't matter the fact is it is not going very well. >>By now, with a company as large as MS, release decisions are not left in the hands of mere creative minds like designers. Companies this size are run by accountants and I would surmise that the release date, July 29th, (give or take a week) was set as much as 18 months previously. That drove everything else. The accountants had already figured in the grosses from FS9 for the years projections. It was going out no matter what.MS knows they have a captive audience and there is no real competition. If there were, they would have bought them by now. They have no incentive to make a "no lemon" policy just as the big three auto makers had none in the 70's. And we know what's happened to Detroit in the last 30 years.Just some thought.John

[Guest JC2]

It doesn't work that way. Accountants at Microsoft don't set release dates. That's set by the product team. If they are ready to ship and a serious bug is uncovered, they delay shipment. If they are locked down and someone finds that a bridge is not in the right place, there's not a snowball's chance that it will stop shipment.Jim

[yellow5 0]

I don't understand why I am the only one that is able to use FS2004 with no problems. The only problems I am noticing is what my computer may lack to operate it, or when I try to make a dash for the runway and end up crashing due to my stupidity. Other than that I am running 25+ fps and couldn't be happier with how my addons are working. The best part about it is that new drivers are expected out, patches to my already working addons are coming out! I couldn't be more pleased with the eye candy and how things run. It took about a week for me to get used to it, but the more I fly it the better it becomes. I am very close to uninstalling my FS2002. As a matter of fact, once all the patches are released, I think I will. COF is a step forward and if you are not able to take the step forward along with it (meaning your system), then you better just settle for FS2002 or FS98, which ever works best for you. Technology is always going to move forward and we have to move right along with it. If we don't how can we expect things to work like they should. So go out and get those needed upgrades so that you can make use of the entire game. I hate to think I am the only one enjoying the heck out of COF.

[Hornit 3]

yellow5. Respectfully there are a lot of seasoned folks here and some other forums who have pointed out that even on a beefy system this sim has lots of problems running smoothly with even medium amounts of the "new" stuff turned on. With so many folks having issues with off the shelf (and definitely not new) hardware the complaints are warranted. Personally Im running a P4@2.9ghz and a GF4Ti4200, 768mb DDR ram and this sim with everything on can bring my rig to its knees. I'm not complaining either, just pointing out you are one of the lucky ones here in getting it to run smoothly. There are some FM issues which are different and a few things which are broken and I am sure they will get fixed but when guys with the fastest systems available and the latest hardware have issues with things as simple as menu screens , I have to agree, maybe this sim should have cooked a bit longer. No big problems here at this point, Im happy with it and have found some nice compromises to get this thing running nicely, but remember we are not the average users. I would bet the return rate is pretty high on this one at software stores.Hornit