Sign in to follow this  
Guest OneTinSoldier

MS Design Team - Hardware

Recommended Posts

Probably super secret information, maybe redundant post (sorry).So what hardware is actually used in the design & testing of FS up in MS land ?They must use graphic cards - do they make their own ? Processors ? Is it all proprietary stuff - 2 years ahead of what we have available ?Just curious "what hardware" is actually used to design, develop, and test...... other than beta crew - recognize that is an assortment.Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

They probably use 2.0gb graphic cards, 8.5gb PVII processors & 6.0gb of ram on systems that are design for Flight Simulator use only.:-lol Because I have a 64mb graphics card, P4 2.0gb processor & 1gb of ram with nothing running in the back ground and FS2004 doesn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really think MS engineers ran the simulator on their machines? Sorry mate they are designers and s/w engineers and not some lowly junkie simulator crazy fans like us. Its below their dignity. They wrote the codes, designers designed the bmp files and the QA guys ensured there are no spelling mistakes. Product team selected the beta testers and they said great product to all of us so the marketing team sold us the lemon...simple. Somebody wrote the lines, somebody else told us that the lines are great and we got suckered and uncle billy went to bank laughing ear to ear. End of story...go home and tweak away to glory!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Do you really think MS engineers ran the simulator on their machines? Sorry mate they are designers and s/w engineers and not some lowly junkie simulator crazy fans like us. Its below their dignity. They wrote the codes, designers designed the bmp files and the QA guys ensured there are no spelling mistakes. Product team selected the beta testers and they said great product to all of us so the marketing team sold us the lemon...simple. Somebody wrote the lines, somebody else told us that the lines are great and we got suckered and uncle billy went to bank laughing ear to ear. End of story...go home and tweak away to glory!!"Sheesh, yep it was the long term corporate model... let's develop a next generation sim to fleece the small market of hardcore simmers out of their $55. That "uncle billy" is a shrewd dude, alright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>Sheesh, yep it was the long term corporate model... let's develop a next generation sim to fleece the small market of hardcore simmers out of their $55. That "uncle billy" is a shrewd dude, alright.<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, "So what hardware is actually used in the design & testing of FS up in MS land ?They must use graphic cards - do they make their own ? Processors ? Is it all proprietary stuff - 2 years ahead of what we have available ?"Same thing as Fs2002!Try to run Fs2002 at full details, high frame rate with these available belowFs2002 System Market before the Release late years 2001:-Low system 450mhz, 3d card tnt 32 mb, 64 ram-Mid system 700mhz, 3d card gforce2 64 mb mx, 256 ram-High system 1.2ghz and more, 512 ram.. gforce2 64 mbThe -High system 1.2ghz and more, 512 ram.. 3d card 64meg was not even able to run at full details.What's it's new here?Fs2004 run better than fs2002 with details at full right with the actual high end computer, compare to f2002 high end system market above from the past from the late years 2001.I have ONLY a mid system and I do not have problems. All fs2004 at full expcept all shadow.-Mid system P4 2.5ghz, gforce4 Ti 4200 128 MB, 512 ramFs2004 before Release:System Market-Low system 1.2ghz 3d card 64 meg, 256MB ram-Mid system 2.4ghz 3d card 128 meg, 512/GIG ram-High system 3.2ghz and more.. 512/GIG Ram, 3d card, 128MB/256 mbSolution: Use the slider according to your system!ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Somebody wrote the lines, somebody else told us that the lines are great and we got suckered and uncle billy went to bank laughing ear to ear. End of story...go home and tweak away to glory!!"Blah Blah Blah.... The great conspiracy. Those of us who were in the test were "hand selected" 'coz we'd throw a big snow job on all the community? You haven't an earthly clue of what you're talking about. There's a few beta testers who I admit are such die hard fans, and so worried about not being picked for the next test, that they won't say anything negative about the sim and their sole purpose is to debunk others who cite issues. They are a minority.But if you've read my posts prior to users receiving the product--which obviously you haven't, you'll note I mentioned the concerns along with the things to look forward to. And I still share the concerns in the forums today. I'm not talking about scenery flaws, or one cloud pack vs. another....just issues that seem to happen that would benefit from Microsoft's attention.Still--given that most people have systems far faster than mine, I see no reason why they should choke in performance, other than people who are being over optimistic with sliders, screen res, etc. Some people feel since they could run maxed in FS2002, why not FS2004? Coz there's more scenery detail, more textures to load (if you use the weather engine), more complex code (AI and A/P being redone).Beta testers do not have years to test the products they are asked to test. And contrary to what you'd hope, their priority is to report as much as they can to get the product out the door. While they act in the community's interest, they are mainly responsible to the company that asks them to test. That doesn't extend to lying on behalf of the company or delivering a ruse against the community. But certainly they are going to champion what's best in the product. It's the least they can do for the privelege of testing free software. If you think that's bad, well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to have it. But as I said, you haven't looked at my posts, and I was on the testing team.BTW--I must have been hand picked because I have the fastest system here...A P3/800, GeF 4 equipped powerhouse ;) LOL....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"go find an OS and a flight sim from a little "mom & pop" shop, but don't come crying back here."YAHOO!!! EXACTLY!!Microsoft may not be the BEST company in the world but I have made a living as a professional with Microsoft Software development products and I am tired of hearing that all the time! THE SAME people making money and working in an industry BECAUSE of Microsoft. If playing with computers is so horrible then maybe working in the sun all day out on the streets would be better suited to you. I am in no way putting down that kind of work but I will be the first in line to say there's no way I would be outside digging ditches and laying asphalt all day.Better yet, go get a MAC because it's PERFECT! Funny though, the same people want to run Microsoft Applications when they switch to Linux or Mac saying that WINDOWS is so horrible and unstable. For the AVERAGE user it may SEEM that way I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well written and right on. I'd like to start picking exclusively on the flaws too so we can get closer to the next version of a more perfect sim (I spent the last 6 months doing just that)-but when often some of the critiques are so baseless and unfair - the product ultimately needs to be defended-and it really shouldn't have to be. Unfortunately, people tend to home in on the negative more than the positive-a trait of human nature of course. But being around a long time I have seen a lot of great sims meet their end largly from negative hype which often spreads like venereal disease,is often not justified or downright false-and we simmers lose out as a result.FuIII, pro pilot, and the Fly series are gone now. MS despite the M$ hype and conspiracy theories is not invincible either. As far as the "we got suckered"- that statement would saymore about the "sucker" than anyone else. It also seems rather egotistical and naive to assume because one either doesn't like a product or has troubles with it-that everyone else is of the same mind-and that anyone who is not is in a conspiracy backed by an evil greedy money making empire. It does sound like "sucker" logic though....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/Geofdog2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Luhiss,Maybe my sarcasm didn't come across... but I happen to share your perspective on this subject. I find it comical that some would think MS has a great plan to steal the hardcore flightsimmer's money.The narrow minded attacks on the developer, and especially attacks on the beta testers of the new sim is childish at best. Sadly, such rants about MS and the testers only proves that there are indeed many "tykes" in this hobby.Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that most of the problems that(some - maybe one in a hundred) people have with FS9 or for that matter FS2k2,FS2000,FS98 etc etc etc are caused by the software between the ears of the users .I'm absolutely certain that 90% of those who have bought FS9 are having fun with it with little or no problems.Here I have it running just fine provided I don't ask more of my PC than it has the ability to deliver.Sure - I can make it crash if I push things to far- I could do that back in 98 when my PC was only one tenth as powerfull as this one.I'll probably still be able to cause system crashes in 2010 if I push things to far on my 10GHZ AMD with 100GB DDRAM and a 25GB Vidieo card ( or whatever).Although I don't make my living in the computer world,I spend a fair amount of time fixing problems for friends and relatives,and I have found that most of the problems are caused by the users either expecting to much or not reading the instructions.Regarding the cost of FS9 and what one might expect for it($50 or

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the unintended responses bashing MS, which was NOT the purpose of my post, I did have genuine interest and curiosty about equipment used to test. I've consistently supported MS to the extent I feel they offer great products and service. Still endorse the company & FS9.Nor do I think any of the FS releases have been "only" $$$ oriented.Obviously, I posted the wrong question for this audience.I respect many here that are in development, and thought someone would know what systems - propietary or not - top end developers use. Was not an effort to bash MS for developing on systems not "yet" available to the public - was sincerely interested in how they do it - mechanically ? Although I'm wrestling with a few problems common to many of us, I'm enjoying daily flights with FS, and will continue to enjoy the sim.Excuse the opening of pandora.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it is a wrong or unreasonable question.Unfortunately, once again beta testers are not to comment on the beta testing process by nda.However, not based on anything or this beta cycle-I would think it would be reasonable that most software companies would test on a wide variety of machine types and equipment.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/Geofdog2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,I agree. I don't think it is a wrong or unreasonable question. I wonder myself why MS always releases Flight Simulator in such a fashion that a brand new version of it cannot be run at full quality(all sliders maxed) on the latest hardware available. But, that viewpoint by me may be a little bit relative on my part, at least this time around. I have seen a number of people with lesser specs than mine that say they have all slider pretty much maxed out. But then, they might have thier AA turned off and be running at a lower resultion than I am. Many time those posts don't give full details. I don't have the latest hardware(I got my computer in January), but I am at least 'able' to run with sim with sliders maxed out. The following is a little taste of my experience with FS2004 so far. But many things vary. Like I seem to get a considerably lower FPS in the 2D console than in VC(using the PMDG 737TNG). And if in 2D console, it goes even lower if I press W. But then it shoots up to my locked value if I hit W again and get rid of the instruments shown in the first W viewscreen. Wierd. This was a reponse in the PMDG forum to someone asking about framerates with it.Hi,Here's a little info from me, and opinion, from me. Not sure just how helpful it'll be though. I got my computer in January and it was the latest and greatest at that time. I'm a freak for the visuals and don't want my sliders turned down either. I run with my sliders MAXED! :-sea Except, in Weather, visibility is set at 100 miles, Cloud Coverage density is on High(not Maximum), and Mip-Map is at 4. A given about a new version of MSFS is that current hardware will not run it with settings maxed out. I knew this so realistically I wasn't expecting to be able to run it with settings maxed out and get good framerates. But, the only time I get bad framrates is when I'm in/near or looking at a large urban areas. I just started out at the default airport in Seattle with the Virtual Cockpit & Cabin model(the heaviest hitter), MyTraffic at 100%, static weather with clouds at 3/8 set at 12,000' to 16,000' feet. When I started out on the runway, FPS was at 8. I get better FPS in in the VC. Spot plane view seemed to give just a little bit higher FPS. As I flew towards downtown and looked at it my FPS would vary some here and there. It was at 7.5 - 8 with it dropping down a little when it varied, then coming back to 8. I live with it and get all the details. And it's great if I want to take screenshots. After I passed downtown my FPS rose a little, like to 9 - 10. As I get towards the outskirts of town my FPS starts to go up. Once outside of town my FPS goes up to my locked setting of 22 and pretty much stays there. It varies a little with it being at or near the locked value of 22 most of the time. This includes when being over and looking at mountains(3D landscape). If I'm over flatland, my FPS stays near my locked(but not solid) value at 22. As I pass through clouds(using Chris Willis clouds(FSW) beta v2) my FPS drops a little. It will vary some but is around 15-17 sometimes bouncing up to my locked value of 22 or close to it. I landed at a fairly small town a few hundred miles away during which time my FPS stayed at my locked value of 22. It is of my opinion that your future Prescott system will be able to run FS2004 with Real-Time weather, the PMDG 737TNG, and 100% Ultimate Traffic just fine with acceptable or more than acceptable framerates... with settings MAXED! :-wink2 If your experience is like mine, you might find the FPS to be somewhat lower in large urban areas, but I'll bet that you get well better than my 8 - 10(sometimes a little lower).Also, I use:1600x1200 resolution4x Anti-Aliasing16x Anisotropic Filtering (set on performance, not quality)Not much of an answer to your post, just some perspective from me on FS2004 running on 'somewhat' recent hardware. I'll bet people with 800 FSB speeds and faster memory get even a little better experience.Jimmy Richards"Variable, this is EasyRhino. Do you copy? Over." Loud and clear EasyRhino. "Do we have a gig? Over." That's a Roger, we have a gig. Target is painted, start the music. "Roger that Variable. Into attack. Pickling target. Target is acquired and lit. LGB comin' down!" EasyRhino, circular error probability zero. Impact with High Order Detonation. Thank You, have a nice day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this