FLY!

Hi, "But I am hoping that Microsoft will see the light regarding the Flight Simulator platform and make the next version for the XBox II"You miss a very good point, how many user use the default stuff?without 3rd party, forget about any Cv flight simulator in a PC, it's not worthed.I wont happend in X-box games machineThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Hey Micheal,I am proposing that the XBOX II would be fully integrated, and would be nothing like the current XBOX. Because of the nature of FS, a new design would be required. Again it would have to support USB controllers. The big advantage would be the all hardware (graphics, etc) would be optimized for this configuration.Again, it is just a proposal, but it would provide some standardization and every FS on the XBOX II would run the same..Now the challenge is to put together a performance work horse for $300 - $400, which might leave high end Intel processors out of the picture. Maybe if you are talking about selling millions of units, Intel would custom design the device for stellar performance. Combined with the right talent pool of developers, it would take FS to a completly new dimension. Then the life cycle starts again. Unit + Software.Barry

Hi Greg, "No Tweaking? NO TWEAKING??? What would we do then?"Bad news, no 3rd party addons also.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Chris,Third party add-ons can be part of the spec. Internet connectivity, support open system, etc..If you really think about it, with the right set of developers, and if the re-design is done correctly, there will be more a/c available in the base system. It would be like having to buy a spelling checker or any third party add-on for Microsoft Word. The core product satisfies 99% of the market.We have to change your thought process here. If you have the right talent pool of developers, you can generate a pretty comprehensive Flight Simulation environment. I think the "open system" concept still is the best. But at what cost? I have read threads on AVSIM that deal with the level of quality of third party A/C. And some of the A/C ported to FS 2004, doesn't seem to perform the same as they were in FS 2002. Some A/C developers are starting from scratch!A vast number of Add-Ons just fill gaps in the core system. With the exception of Aircraft, because of pure numbers. But as the core system improves, the need for add-ons should diminish (and has).The problem is over the last 4 versions (98, 2000, 2002, 2004) the ratio of improvement hasn't been fully realized. This is driven by marketing! Pushing back the fixing of flaws, and or introduction of new features, which relate to flaws not being addressed in previous versions.If Microsoft can address the ATC issues including A/I sequencing & Flight Planning, refine the graphics (introduce photo realism), produce realistic aircraft panels and flight models and keep the quality of everything else in FS 2004.. That would TOTALLY JUSTIFY the $300-$400 price tag for a completely integrated system! Take 15 planes from from the various classes and start from there. Maybe three heavies, a couple of business jets, a couple of high performance twins, and maybe 5-6 single engine including amphibious. All with realistic panels, that is the key.FS 2004, the stock a/c were greatly improved right out of the box.In conclusion, FS 2004 especially the weather engine has provided a tremendous amount of complexity to add-on developers. If you look at the big names in the industry Flight One, etc the number of add-ons still in "upgrade status" is amazing. Why is it taking so long to get these upgrades out the door? Because FS 2004 is much more complex. Which really justifies pushing these efforts / features / tasks back to the "core" development. Ultimate Traffic?? Can it be done for FS 2004? With ATC now sequencing the A/I traffic, and all the issues I have noticed with the hand full of planes in the air and the hit on FPS, it will be interesting to see what finally hits the market as UT for FS 2004.Just my thoughts... Barry

I'm a bit confused, Hornit. My post said that I do get fps in the 30s in some scenarios. This is with 8x aniso and 4x aa.Jim

I bet these Pentium 5s and 6s are VERY expensive!With regards to X-box .... consoles may offer smooth graphics, and 100% software compatibility, BUT they are WAY too restricted! I have over 300 planes in my collection, and I'm pretty sure that a console version wouldn't have a MiG-21 in it! :(http://album.atomic-systems.com/showPic.ph.../AAV_banner.jpghttp://www.aavirtual.com :)

"You wil notice on each Msfs release the product is created for later computer then the actual release system market."Not the case with FS2004. Except for the autogen/library objects bug, freamrates are higher in FS2004, especially over complex mesh scenery.

Barry,I can't agree on the XBOX thing...I have a XBOX right now that runs many games very smooth and great quality with a GF2 and it is a PIII, so you are right about optimizing the game to the console, but....FS is going far than a simple console, here I'm building a home cockpit and I have 4 networked computers for now, many external devices, a projector, USB and serial devices, keyboard emulators and many people are using EPIC cards to integrate the cockpit, can I do this in a console ? I don't think so...When you are a flight simulator user that needs advanced functions, you need a system as open as possible.I know it is a small group situation, but not so small :)Ulisses

JC2, I guess I reread your post and saw this after i posted. I just thought 60 was, well, way too high!!. Actually I can get over 100fps if I look at the sky...with no mesh/terain/autogen :) Hornit

With a refresh rate of 75 Hz, how can I get more than 75 fpsMaybe Im being "allowed" or should I say fed 100 fps, but my monitor is only displaying 75 of these?

From 02/14/2003 http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/news6410.htmlThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

>With a refresh rate of 75 Hz, how can I get more than 75>fps>>Maybe Im being "allowed" or should I say fed 100 fps, but my>monitor is only displaying 75 of these?Any fps over your current monitor refresh rate is not being seen no matter how good the numbers look at the top. If your Monitor refresh rate is set at 75mhz the the screen is being redrawn at 75fps. Getting 100fps or 300fps(in Quake)means nothing.David

Jim,How is that Abit IC7G Motherboard working for you? I've been eyeing one for a couple days now...Thanks!Bill

You must be crazy... How in the world would you get on the internet and download addons like PSS A320 or FSUIPC??? Can any of you imagine being forced to use the default installation of Flight Simulator? That would help nobody but Microsoft... I for one hope they don't read this thread...