Time for a reality check.

[Guest FPSFREAK]

>>Yep, the clouds have flat bottoms.>>>>Frenchy -- Out.>>Hey, Flat bottom clouds make the rocking world go>roun...Sorry, sorry. Sorry Eddie! RIP!Now Paul you really dissapoint me :( It's Freddie Mercury....Not Eddie !!>>Yep I for one am for an FS9 update and if it does come I think>it will come this month. >>Not saying I know something, just putting some peices together>and it smells like patch.Better than smellin' like somethin' else ;)Bobby

[Guest wathomas777]

I am not against patches, for the most part, they are improvements. What I am against is the undisiplined call of some of our more vocal members who make generic claims about "performance" but fail to mention exactly what the cause is. Bugs in code, need to be explained, qualified, and if possible placed in easy to reproduce steps. Calling on the developer to see what the user see's as "obvious performance issues" is really useless and generally gets ignored. Thus it is nothing but a rant.An example of a good bug, is a report of a missing scenery segment, or if it is performance related, setup a scenario and make qualified statements and use facts. For example, the GPS eats 4 frames when active. This can be reproducable on most all systems and can be qualified.There is another thread in which people are doing "test" runs to give substance to the performance issues. I have not chimed in on that thread, as it is a very productive activity.What is not productive is consitent complaints by people who are unwilling to troubleshoot their own systems, unwilling to make reasonable upgrades to existing equipment, or unwilling to move the sliders a bit to the left because they are convinced that if their 1Ghz Thunderbird with Geforce 2 MX440 card can't run this sim like a bat out of Hades, then something is obviously wrong in Redmond.This coming from a group of people who claim that they are more savy then the "average" users. If so, then I expect them to understand the nature of the computer industry, and apply some good ol' common sense, not some tired ol' Anti-Microsoft rhetoric.

[Guest JonP01]

Performance isn't the only reason people should be vocal about any shortcomings in Fs9. In that respect, I chose neither to upgrade my system, nor go back to FS2002. I simply reduced the slider settings even further than the MS default settings, and performance is quite good considering. But as I get deeper into FS9 I'm finding a few issues, which unexplained or unresolved, are to me quite serious. They have nothing to do with performance.

[Guest PaulL01]

>You will never see a>patch for cosmetic visual/scenery visual improvement/ or new>scenery added.Then how is it that we got a patch for FS2k that gave us back Aircraft and scenery shaddows? besides a coastline switch and a gauge switch...

[JimmiG 244]

There is a bug in FS2004 with regards to how Autogen data is handled. This results in slowdowns after flying for a while (you can find countless topics about this here and at Flightsim.com). This bug NEEDS to be fixed since it wold improve performance significantly. If it were not for this bug (or whatever you want to call it), FS2004 would perform only slightly slower than FS2002 did.

[Guest cwright]

>I start my flight>and look up in the sky and the clouds all have flat bottoms.>Not very realistic.Richard, when I first ran FS2004 I was disappointed by the clouds - because of the flat bottoms. But after a couple of adjustments they look great. Check the cloud percentage setting (under options/settings/display). The default setting was low, maybe 30%, but after increasing to 60% they look - well, great! Also check you have detailed clouds selected. I get excellent results with the three other sliders - sight distance, cloud draw distance and cloud coverage density - fully to the left. Overall the new clouds are a huge improvement. The fair weather theme looks beautiful but with a minimal frame rate impact. Best regards, Chris Wright

[Guest OneTinSoldier]

Dear Geofa,Well I can't say I was aware of "positive lateral stability" nor am I familiar with the lateral stability the dc3 had. I'm no expert pilot and am not even a incredibly experienced MSFS pilot. Nevertheless, I do have some experieince. ;) But I think there is some differences in behavior between FS2002 and FS2004 in this regard that should not be happening. I was making my observations about default FS2004 aircraft behavior based up the posts of another person in another forum whom I believe to be pretty knowledgable about such things. This guys makes and post MSFS files, does reivews for www.simflight.com, was an official FS2004 Beta tester, and apparently knows how to edit .air files, ect, ect. From his posts I noticed what he said was true. He has also been lucky enough to actually have time behind the yoke of the real thing in real life, as in, a real DC-3! His name is Trev Morson. After reading his posts and then seeing/experiencing the differences between FS2002 and FS2004 for myself I happened to think he is correct. Here are quotes from the thread...-----------------Reading this thread with interest. But there are some *serious* fundamental flight dynamic problems with some of the aircraft in FS2004.Aircraft levels out on its own during a turn and bank.. this is a fundamental parameter that poses a severe problem. It's a basic parameter that was obviously overlooked and not fixed during Beta. For anyone, even the most inexperienced of simmers, this would be a noticable bug and most certainly an issue with regard to the term 'as real as it gets'There is no drag with the use of Cowl flaps, perhaps not fundamental on this issue, bot nonetheless, it needs to be fixed in the FDE.. I think the question is 'how' are they to be fixed?.Iv'e been tinkering around with the FDE using FS2002's FS Edit or manual entry direct into the aircraft.cfg and yet I still cannot fix the most fundamental and basics of flight that are apparant in some FS2004 aircraft.I will tinker some more._________________Regards.. Trev.Trev,You had cowl flaps simulated, but the FDE dont have a seperate cowl flap drag entry. Only by using the spoilers for example can simulate them.The leveling out issue: I tried some airplanes from default COF, and when I turn they do not level out by them self. Unless the a/p is on. You can set the wingleveler on or off in the cfg section, so it doesnt let the a/p work as a 747 a/p does.use_no_default_bank=1 // 0 = Default to Wing Leveler mode, 1 = No default bank mode.The actual finetuning is in the airfile itself, see section 451.Johan_________________Phoenix Simulation Software PSSok thanks..Try the DC-3, no ap. Do a 30 degree bank and turn, tell me if it stays in the turn please.Thanks!_________________Regards.. Trev. That was the last post in the thread. There was no response after that. Check out the entire thread here if you want. It was actually started by him and is titled "FDE tweaking not easy"http://forums.simflight.com/viewtopic.php?t=10008Regards,Jim

[Geofa 108]

You might want to check this out:http://142.26.194.131/aerodynamics1/Stability/Page3.htmlhttp://142.26.194.131/aerodynamics1/Stability/Page5.htmlI am going back to 15 years ago in my primary training in a C152-but I recall my instructor demonstrated that if you did a bank of less than 12 or so degrees the plane would gradually right itself back to zero-postive lateral stability. Past 30 degrees or so-the plane would go into a a steeper bank-negative lateral stability. If an aircraft stays at the bank without increasing or decreasing it is called neutral lateral stability. Stability of all types of course affects the other axis's other than lateral, and is different from aircraft to aircraft depending on design/designer and faa regulations.It is my understanding that most light aircraft in general exhibit neutral lateral stability. I don't think however one can make a generalization that applies to every aircraft.The lateral stability is all influenced and helped by: Dihedral High Wings Swept Wings What a dc3 does-I don't frankly know. I am not an engineer, and I have never flown a dc3 -but my question is before calling the positive lateral stability you report for the dc3 a bug is has it in fact been verified that a dc3 does not have postitive lateral stability? By the way fs2002 did exhibit this-xplane never has(at least up to version 6.0)-and I always complained myself about the lack of stability in any of the axis's in any of the xplane flight models which felt wrong to me.Is it a bug or more likely an incorrect design parameter-perhaps? But I have been around long enough to see many improvements or added reality called bugs that really are not.The wing leveler on the autopilot which is still being disabled by many is probably the biggest example of oneimho....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/Geofdog2.jpg

[Hornit 3]

JonPO1, I am curious about what you are seeing, I too have noticed some pretty glaring things that have not one thing to do with performance of the sim. The weather while looking great seems to have some pretty big problems with how it is SUPPOSED to work. Just one issue I am seeing. Seems a lot of things with ATC did NOT get changed with this version also.Hornit

[Guest OneTinSoldier]

Hi Again Geof,>Is it a bug or more likely an incorrect design>parameter-perhaps? But I have been around long enough to see>many improvements or added reality called bugs that really are>not.>>The wing leveler on the autopilot which is still being>disabled by many is probably the biggest example of>oneimho....Ok. Thanks for that info. That helps clear some of my observations as to what I felt was incorrect behavior, espcially when making the 30 bank as suggested. There's just so many variables to take into consideration that it boggles my mind a little! At any rate I really appreciate your reply and and helping me to understand the behavior here. ;)Cheers,Jim

[nudata 10]

Permit me to respond to your digest of my logic. Assume that this programming source does not offer any scaled down cheaper version of their service. One price. One style to fit all. Now assume that all that they specified was that you had to have a solid-state television receiver capable of accepting direct analog video input or S-video input. Now remember that the marketing fluff says 3d sound that surrounds you. Definition that equals off the air HDTV, etc. All you need is a television set with video input, or S-video input.You run home with the new goodie and are only able to see B&W and hear monural. That was the logic I was trying to draw. The box says that you will have the following goodies. All you need is a minimum system as follows. It DOES not tell you the compromises you will experience and there is no reduction in price for the customer that does not have a system that is fully capable and always exceeds the "minimum system" by a wide margin. The marketer assumes that the customer is knowledgeable enough to realize that their minimum system will not exhibit all of the functionality of the presented features. If not the price stands - with a return privilege in some stores.Dick KLBE

[Guest wathomas777]

Of course, the marketeers also ASSUME you have read your packaging in where it says on the back:And I quoteNOTE: The above are the specifications a computer must have to run this game. Increased performance will be noticed on more powerful systems. Online/Multiplayer requirements are not needed for single player mode. Local and long distance telephone charges may apply for online features.This is clearly visible right underneath the requirements specifications.The defense rests.

[nudata 10]

And if you do not have those specifications what functions will you not be able to use?? Such vague wording prevents the consumer from enjoying an informed decision since they have no idea if their system will support the functions on the front of the package. The issue is that a vague warning may be sufficient for the courts but it does not reveal what part of your expenditure will be unavailable. The stores return policy is your only potential remedy, plus gasoline at $1,70/gallon.The complexity of the software, the OS, the customer's PC, etc. do place software companies in a bad position. Thus we will always find some who are bitterly disappointed when they try their new whiz-bang program on home PC. Perhaps a simple statement that a minimum system (as described)is needed to fully exploit the products features. Lesser systems may be restricted as to the use of the products features. Sort of a more full disclosure.Dick KLBE

[Guest wathomas777]

That is a complete impossibility because it is all a matter of taste. If someone wants to use 3d clouds and full weather they can dial down the scenery complexity. If they would rather have 2d clouds and enjoy detailed autogen, they have that option too.And yes, even in a 400Mhz machine, they can have a little bit of everything, it is their choice.Now tell me. With minimum system specs, which part of the sim is completely disabled.Is only 1/2 the world available? Does ATC require a minimum amount to run. How about weather?Funny, but I see absolutely nowhere, where there is a warning that says. "Sorry, weather requires a 1.0ghz or better machine to function. Please try again"Guess what, the program will run on a 400Mhz machine with everything enabled. It may be slow but it will run. They have met their Minimum requirements The term "satisfactory performance" is so subjective, I find it laughable that you base your argument on it.For me, satisfactory is anything above 15FPS. And during a real rough approach, I can live with 10FPS. For others, anything below 24FPS is not acceptable.So just how then is Microsoft supposed to defend itself against YOUR expectations. Your attitude is the same attitude that awarded billions of dollars to ex-smokers because they felt it was the tobacco companies fault because they ignored 30 years of evidence and their doctors telling them that smoking is bad for your health.Please try to wake up and live in a world in which you take responsibility for your own actions, and not try and blame every bit of malcontent on someone else. Either that, or go spill some coffee in your lap and get Burger King to pay for it, because the letters HOT were not big enough for you.....

[nudata 10]

The point remains that the producer of the software does not provide a detailed warning that certain functions (usually in combinations) may not operate properly on systems below a broad level. As I said, I do not expect Microsoft to produce a multi-page matrix of various systems, versus various feartures, at various frame rates. I just wanted to point out that the warning is not sufficient to tell customers that some features may not work well, or at all, when deployed on some systems. Now, as to a "complete impossibility". There are of course compromises in the operation of the simulator that are "a matter of taste". Almost any single feature will operate ok on a minimum machine. However, most customers might expect more than one selected feature - clouds, ATC, terrain, etc.As with most legal activity it often boils down to what a reasonable person should expect. I submit that a typical reasonable customer of Flight Simulator would expect all of the features to operate to a reasonable degree. As we know, on some systems you simply cannot operte in a reasonable fashion with certain feature combinations. Once again, it would be nice if the warning carried this caveat.As to the "laughable" use of subjective perhaps you will feel more confort in the use of reasonable. Ridiculous awards do carry an underlying mesage from society. While they may border on stupid, the message is often much broader. In some cases it is saying that society is fed up with Corporate behaviors.Dick KLBE