MS Flight Improvement Wish List

[Silverbird 115]

Don't forget Hyperthreading and PhysX.......:(

It would be very cool having support for PhysX. :(

[Guest veeray]

hyperthreading is part of the CPU not the codebase, Also how can it support Physx when that would means it's Nvidia only. Any other random technologies you can think of? :)

[kerosene31 349]

hyperthreading is part of the CPU not the codebase, Also how can it support Physx when that would means it's Nvidia only. Any other random technologies you can think of? :)

You're saying there's absolutely no way to get any better performance out of modern hardware than what we have with FSX? Parts of that code are 12+ years old. There are already combat sims which run better. I'm no expert on the code, but there has to be a ton of improvements with a new engine that is not limited by backwards compatibility.

[greggerm 312]

You're saying there's absolutely no way to get any better performance out of modern hardware than what we have with FSX? Parts of that code are 12+ years old. There are already combat sims which run better. I'm no expert on the code, but there has to be a ton of improvements with a new engine that is not limited by backwards compatibility.

There has to be a way to get better performance out of things, but not to a degree which is going to be revolutionary. Look at the examples laid out by Aerosoft - they are starting from absolute scratch and have already commented that they have evaluated many of the scenery and environment rendering engines on the market which have been portrayed on flight sim forums as being examples of "what could have been" if Microsoft only updated their code. On their own, the engines are beautiful! But when Aerosoft threw the rest of the requirements that 50% of the processing power remain free for the actual SIMULATION engine, each and every one of these beautiful engines crashed and burned, being too heavy and unsuitable for use in a holistic flight simulation systemJust because FS2004 and FSX have semblances of backwards compatibility and use the .BGL scenery formats doesn't mean that their core coding is ten years old. From my reading back in the FSX release days (*I wish I could find it!!) I recall Phil Taylor indicating that FSX was in fact a major modernization of the core engines, and they weren't operating on ancient code like many have postulated here. I like to say that "you can't escape physics" - Even with newly optimized and rewritten coding, new features that enthusiastic flightsimmers are clammoring for (more autogen, higher res ground textures, cloud shadows, true volumetric clouds, more/better AI traffic, better ATC, sloped runways, a true round earth, etc. etc) all will require more processing time to compute. Any coding efficiencies gained by rewriting the game will be immediately overwhelmed by the new features added, and this will lead to the game needing MORE processor power, not less. "...absolutely no way to get better performance out of modern hardware?" Not exactly - but the difference is probably quite small, and MUCH smaller than what your expectations may be. We should all place our hopes on having the developers make better use of 64-bit processing, multicore processing, and GPU offloading rather than more efficient code, but due to the nature of how a flight simulator actually works (very sequential, not parallel), these hopes should be held with a significant grain of salt, because even if we get fully optimized 64-bit multicore processing, we still might find ourselves at the mercy of sequential processing needs.

[Guest veeray]

I think this could be best explained by look at XP-10 and the global illumination renderings they have there. If you haven't seen the latest renders do so now. Notice how theres way more lighting and how the lighting interacts with the textures? That's a perfect use of actual hardware accelleration that everyone here is calling for, and I would put that in the category of revolutionary. It's one step towards 2020, not back to 2006. Now if we asked Aerosoft to do something like that they wouldn't or claim it to be to complex as I've seen them claim even simpler things like procedural texture to be impossible in a flight sim, even though we've all seen the Outerra engine. Microsoft guys would just say that's another departments job, we don't do graphics research here we just implement what's already well known witthin the company, ie DX11.That's my argument, it'll happen, but it will take more time for FS. The hardware exists, the code simply doesn't.

[kerosene31 349]

There has to be a way to get better performance out of things, but not to a degree which is going to be revolutionary. Just because FS2004 and FSX have semblances of backwards compatibility and use the .BGL scenery formats doesn't mean that their core coding is ten years old. From my reading back in the FSX release days (*I wish I could find it!!) I recall Phil Taylor indicating that FSX was in fact a major modernization of the core engines, and they weren't operating on ancient code like many have postulated here.

There's still a difference from "modernizing the core engine" and a brand new one. FSX had the same problems as the game has had for years. Poor FPS, blurry textures, etc. People have been tuning the same variables in the config file for as long as I can remember. There's no doubt the engine was upgraded, but even then older add-ons usually work with a little tweaking. I'm no expert on it, but I'm not talking about taking advantage of hardware as much as just making the engine brand new. Even on my new PC I still have to lock my FPS in FS2004 in the 30s. Even then, it isn't smooth. Other sims manage to be smooth. My problem with FSX was the inconsistent and terrible performance even if you cut out the CPU intensive things. I would fly without any AI traffic all alone in a static world with default scenery and the sim would still drop below 20 fps regularly with fairly simple aircraft. I'm no expert on the sim, but there has to be more room to improve. X-Plane and even Fly 2 back in the day were smooth on reasonable hardware. I never hear complains of stutters on those sims. If certain visual effects kill performance, we need to find a different way to render them or something else that works.

[dmaher 0]

You're saying there's absolutely no way to get any better performance out of modern hardware than what we have with FSX?

You’re mixing your apples and oranges a bit IMO :)Hardware has evolved.The install base of DX10 capable machines is much higher today (it wasn't very high in 2006).But yes I agree FSX could take better advantage of today’s hardware...so I agree let's have a sequel.The more direct way to put your question about FSX, is could FSX have been more efficient on hardware it was benchmarked for...circa2005?Measuring efficiency outside of ACES is damn near impossible.Without specialized tools what you end up measuring is the quantity of art/content not the efficiency.‘Parts of that code are 12+ years old.’ The moon is made of cheese too :)I don’t know why people are so quick to trust information that is so obviously undisclosed.Not mention specious and misleading anyway.I’m not saying fluid performance isn’t a requirement – it is.I think Flight needs to do a better job of presenting the facts and helping us manage performance.I’m a little concerned MS will take choices about display settings out of our hands.

[Guest Surgo]

FS11 needs better coding. I dont even want to have to worry about how many trees are showing. I want an adaptive simulator to my computers performance and more gpu loading.

You know, this is extremely insightful. The fact that we still have to make manual adjustments in 2010 is nothing short of embarrassing. All the remarks about performance could really evaporate quickly if an adaptive system was put in place.It's not like such a system is anything new, either. The Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind had such a system since at least 2005.

[Guest veeray]

We do have an adaptive system in place.. it's called the sliders as found on every other game out there. Just people's own expectaction are too high...

[Guest Surgo]

We do have an adaptive system in place.. it's called the sliders as found on every other game out there. Just people's own expectaction are too high...

I think you completely missed the point. There's really no need for sliders (which ARE "manual adjustments"); games can and should dynamically adjust their detail as played to keep framerates at a certain point.There's nothing about too high expectations here. We've had systems that have done away with sliders since at least 2005 (see: my last post). It's time for developers to catch on. This is a good example of "just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't mean it's right".

[Guest veeray]

Actually no they can't... a sim isn't going to waste time optimizing something the user can already do...your solution only makes the problem worse. Because it's up to the developer and game designer what is considered High or Low detail If you play with default aircraft and scenery FSX has no issues!

[papafox1 0]

More realistic aerodynamics!* Real airplanes don't require that rudder be held in throughout a turn, and sim airplanes should be no different* Airplanes should lose energy when they slip. Slipping airplanes should track in the appropriate direction.* Stall and spin characteristics should be greatly improved. Some combat flight sims have already moved ahead in this area.Better use of multiple core processors

[mgh 89]

Sliders were originally introduced to give uses a choice so they could put emphasis on particular features that interested them individually - given that the simulation could not run acceptably with all features at their maximum settings. Adaptive systems would remove that element of choice.

[kerosene31 349]

Sliders are helpful but don't fix the problem. If I take off from KBUF (Buffalo Niagara Int'l) chances are I am not having any FPS issues. If I'm landing in Chicago or the NYC area... totally different experience. Do I tune my sliders for the New York City area and leave Buffalo with 1 AI airplane? Do I tune my sliders for the middle ground and deal with NYC not being smooth? Even turning AI off completely there are areas that just are FPS killers.

[Guest Surgo]

Actually no they can't... a sim isn't going to waste time optimizing something the user can already do...your solution only makes the problem worse. Because it's up to the developer and game designer what is considered High or Low detail If you play with default aircraft and scenery FSX has no issues!

Don't be ridiculous. Even the most strained of systems aren't going to miss the resources necessary to track FPS and guess future performance. Most games come with something that does that already, they just don't take it to its logical conclusion.The developers and game designers don't need to care what is "High or Low detail". You (the user) put in a target FPS and that's what the game does. Pretty simple, really. I have no idea how you can even think this would "make the problem worse".As for "actually no they can't...", um, come again?

Adaptive systems would remove that element of choice.

This is a failure of imagination. It's trivial to add a ranking system for various elements that an adaptive system would weigh.