Flight! could be the Windows7 after Vista for FS...

[dmaher 0]

I think the confusion is I believe DX is capable of doing the rendering (translation and lighting, ect)But from what you’re saying they’re not using it that way.The other thing is when people say ‘engine’ they sometimes mean 'game engine'A whole lot of things like, sound, physics, AI, streaming, rendering, and so on.

[Geofa 108]

A question since we see this complaint of "obsolete" fsx engine, etc. from a few all the time.In this thread:http://forum.avsim.n...__fromsearch__1Aerosoft who is trying to develop a new sim is quoted as saying:"But when we ask these companies to show something on a round earth, with sight lines of 100 miles, using DX11 and not using more then 30% of resources (we also got to do flight modeling, weather, user interface, online stuff etc etc) you will get a lot less enthusiastic response"Now this response was written rather recently-4 years after the release of fsx and with knowledge of current computer hardware.Yet we are flying in fsx on a round earth with sight lines of 100 miles , granted not using dx11 but with flight modeling, weather user interface and online stuff. Lockheed Martin and a few others like Redbird and Flight One are using esp (which is fsx for commercial development) for their latest "serious" simulators-and again today despite the fact fsx is now 4 years old.Have they all and those that have been using fsx fine for 4 years somehow missed this inefficient programing that some claim?

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

Even Microsoft knows this is far from the truth in which they need to go back and fix many things... :(

Yeah there maybe some things that need to be fixed, which ones I am not aware because mine works fine and is stable. The only time mine doesn't work fine is when I do something stupid like have more then one afcad for the same airport or something like that. Maybe there are things that could be fixed to improve performance futher, but as it stands personally the performance I get is fine and stable as well, if it weren't I wouldn't have invested all the money I have into addons for it and would have stayed with FS9.

It did indeed, Martin at Fly Tampa hated FSX, all the others love the development of FSX but understand there's a fractured community that needs to come together to make it easier for all of us.Look it's apparent you really like FSX like so many do but not acknowledging every valid point or short fall of FSX is fruitless (yes I was going to convert to the perceived last version but that ended with Flight!). Just because after 3+ years FSX can finally run to some reasonable level doesn't negate the shameful condition this release was and is. I don't want this to turn into an FSX validation/bashing thread because some come in here and state facts and others dismiss them because their new machine runs FSX decently now. Some among us have never used any other version besides FSX so they don't know any better. The bottom line is FSX is one of the worst releases we've ever seen in the franchise that's why the community is split today (this never happened before even with FS2000 which held a record up until FSX. That fact alone deserves some kind of acknowledgement). At least with FS2000 we were all under one sim. Many say even with today's hardware they still have problems with FSX.

Yeah I know Martin hated FSX in the beginning since they kept changing the rules and releasing new service packs until the final SP2. However I think the fractured community is not because FSX was a failure but more because of the following reasons. Some people just didn't want to repurchase all the addons for FSX, some people didn't want to upgrade their hardware, some that did upgrade their hardware still couldn't get the performance they desired so they returned to FS9, or any combination of these things. I would imagine that when Flight comes out their will still be a split community because of some of the same reasons I listed, unless computer upgrades are not needed and FS9/FSX addons are backward compatible. However, if backward compatibility is broken, then there will still be a lot of people remaining with FSX or FS9 because they either refuse to repurchase addons or financially cant, then we will have a 3-way spilt community between the FS9'ers, FSX'ers, and the F'ers. However to say that FSX is a failure I will agree to disagree with you on, especially with the points Ryan made here with the exception of the post count thing he mentions since the FS9 forum was merged with the FS9 forum.

FSX was not and is not a huge failure. Look at the total post count in the FSX forum here vs. the FS9 one - notice anything that might contradict that notion of yours? ACES themselves specifically stated before they dissolved that FSX actually outsold FS9. It was one of top selling PC games titles of that period. ACES directly stated that the closure of the studio had nothing to do with FSX's sales numbers. Do you really think high end developers like us, Aerosoft, Carenado and multiple others would have staked the survival of our businesses on supporting a failed sim?

However a difference of opinion is ok, that's one of the things that give us individuality. Frankly,I don't know what metric you would use to quantify FSX being a failure? a. The fact that not everyone is using it? - Not sure if that means it failedb. The fact that some don't like its appearance? - Not sure if that equals failurec. The fact that it was one of the best selling titles of that period and a few years later they had to make more? - That seems like a success otherwise they wouldn't need mored. The fact that some devs dont develope for anything else but FSX since it has more options/features than can be implimented? - Seems like a success againe. The fact that FSX addons are generally out selling FS9 addons? - Somewhat successfulYeah you could say I like FSX. I was an FS9 user for all the years that FS9 was out and continued to be until after the final FSX service pack was issued. Given that I have the time and financial resources to use any sim I want, I chose FSX because for me it works equally as well as FS9 does and provides more appealing graphics, animations, and eye candy (the EMB bloom was the icing on the cake). Although to get there it meant a fair amount of money at the time to upgrade systems and buy addons.Like you said this isn't about FS9 and FSX anymore but the new sim, Flight. I hope that Flight provides an even better experience than FSX and FS9 does, although if it ends up being a game like some think, personally I think it will be a sim as we know it just with more game/mission features you can use it you want, then I will most likely get it. The main thing I am really hoping for is that they improved the weather/atmosphere with volumetric clouds rather than the rotating bmp's that we have had all this time. If not I will be happy to remain where I am now and wait for whatever may come out in the future.While we can agree to disagree with FSX and whether or not it was a failure really doesn't matter. I think we can both agree that we hope the new sim is the best one yet.Regards

[Dillon 2,198]

then we will have a 3-way spilt community between the FS9'ers, FSX'ers, and the F'ers.

I think you meant to say FS9'ers, FSX'ers and the 'MF'ers'... :( :(

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

I think you meant to say FS9'ers, FSX'ers and the 'MF'ers'... :( :(

Nah, I'd rather be known as a F'er than a MF'er :(

[Hugo346 13]

DX11, Tessellation, Multicore (6+)& SLI support is all I hope for.

[siggy 154]

The exclamation mark (!) after 'Flight', this is something that was appended on the AVSIM front page, but is not part of the official name it seems. It would make it look a bit similar to the old 'Fly!' by Terminal Reality, which is probably not intended.Cheers,Siggy

[Tierborn 191]

I will say this -- I have high hopes for the new Microsoft Flight - If Microsoft will keep money and time budgets away from this project then it will be a great success. If money and time budgets are the priority then I promise it will fail.

I disagree .. every software title released (not including indie titles)  has money and time budgets that they work against... Yet, we have tons of successful titles in the marketplace.  In fact, each of the MSFS releases to date have had a money and time budget to work within.

[Dillon 2,198]

The exclamation mark (!) after 'Flight', this is something that was appended on the AVSIM front page, but is not part of the official name it seems. It would make it look a bit similar to the old 'Fly!' by Terminal Reality, which is probably not intended.Cheers,Siggy

I add it in forum discussions to accentuate what I'm talking about. The word 'Flight' in general is what it is 'flight' but when you write 'Flight!' people know exactly what your talking about. One could also make it easier by just calling the sim FS11.

[Qatsimo 7]

Nah, I'd rather be known as a F'er than a MF'er :(

:( lets call it MSF.Gerrit

[paracines 0]

It did? You better call the folks over at PMDG, ORBX, FSDT, FlyTampa, and alert them to this before they waist anymore time with their current projects. :(

Please tell me, if you know where the development team of FSX went and why? -- Please tell me if you know why scores of simmers use FS9 still? Please tell me , since you laugh, that your job or income is 100% secure because you say it is. I tell you that it is not and I'm correct, just like Im correct in saying that FSX failed and the chain was broken -- Please talk to the developer of FSUIPC and how he may need to (if he chooses to) totally redo this interface again - His kindness to the community has surpassed most others because with out his paitents and long suffering most other add on titles would be useless.BTW have you tried Multiplayer? Is the gamespy interface a success? I get dropped every time I wish to change to another host. I say its half done....that is not my opinion it is a fact.I review carefully what I say prior to posting and much of what I say is not understood - you should think before you post and especially think before you mock one you do not know.

People tend to forget that the reason we have FSX in its present state was the cost of replacing FSX's terrain/graphics engine. Phil and crew wanted to rewrite it, but MS nixed it on cost grounds. That alone causes most of the headaches in running FSX. The graphics engine is still a mish-mash of FS 7,8,and 9 code at its heart. Using the same engine would NOT solve anything as it is a SOFTWARE renderer not a HARDWARE renderer. That is why FSX and previous editions are so CPU dependant. This time, I hope MS has learned it's lesson and gives Flight a hardware driven graphics engine(like every other PC game out there) so that it will work much better across a wider rande of PC/Windows platforms. Will

Well said Will -- I agree and I want Microsoft Flight to be a great success -- even a 9th wonder of the world

[paracines 0]

I guess…But I think DX10 is a good example of what I mean. It’s the designers and producers job to assess if the feature should go ahead.Using their best information they set out a budget and expectation of quality.That’s very hard to do well – and they live with a lot of stress :)When they are mistaken they release a substandard feature, or more likely cut the feature altogether.This stuff that ends up on the cutting room floor is all paid for.It’s paid for with money that might have been allocated to improving other features that did make it into the box.Honestly in the run of a project there are many hundreds of these types of gambles.You just hope the wins outweigh loses.Obviously developers don’t have unlimited funds for investing in a product.They do have to be cautious or else lose big time. - and, hurt many thousands of people.So budget must be the first priority. (That’s the real world, right?)Although producers do try to shelter the rest of the team from it, so they can concentrate on the task at hand.So you’re right in that budget is not everyone’s first priority :)But it’s the fuel that drives the engine.

The problem is that the money and time budgets are the first priority before the project is even concieved. That is why companies have so many problems and have to gamble their way through a project causing all the stress - they put money "before" quality and if the opposite were done money would not need to be an issue at all. It is a certain thing that people will pay top dollar for quality -- just think if every company thought like this - there would be no layoffs - unemployment would be so close to 0% it need not be mentioned..... instead of using time to figure out how to patch a program a software company could focus on better ways to serve their customers -- instead of having repair places the people who would repair are involved in development of greater services and products. This world does things backwards so it remains is a state of fixing failures much more... lots of time and effort wasted because of greed.

[paracines 0]

I disagree .. every software title released (not including indie titles) has money and time budgets that they work against... Yet, we have tons of successful titles in the marketplace. In fact, each of the MSFS releases to date have had a money and time budget to work within.

To you, success means to release a software title with a price tag and collect money for that title -- then weeks later release SP1 to fix some broken things - and then SP2.... that is success to you because you love money.I hate money.... a successful title to me has no need for a PATCH ....."SERVICE" PACK is named as such to fool people who love money and possesions - it will not fool me because I love when people care about each other even when they are in a company not just at church or a funeral.You need not be fooled by greed. Just put people before money, then you will understand and agree with me.... but 98% of the population of the world will disagree with me -- its ok I'm used to it, but it does not make me wrong.

[Glynn 405]

To you, success means to release a software title with a price tag and collect money for that title -- then weeks later release SP1 to fix some broken things - and then SP2.... that is success to you because you love money.I hate money.... a successful title to me has no need for a PATCH ....."SERVICE" PACK is named as such to fool people who love money and possesions - it will not fool me because I love when people care about each other even when they are in a company not just at church or a funeral.You need not be fooled by greed. Just put people before money, then you will understand and agree with me.... but 98% of the population of the world will disagree with me -- its ok I'm used to it, but it does not make me wrong.

HelloI bet your great fun to have around at a party paracines :( Back on topic how do you feel about this new sim?

[TheFamilyMan 281]

Ok, I'll be positive. If MS did nothing but took FSX and refactored its code base to efficiently use N cores (whether 2 or 64) and modified its graphics engine to take advantage of the latest graphics technologies, they'd have a runaway hit title that'd fly off the shelves (pun intended) the day it was released.