People would not have screamed if FSX had run fluently from the start but it got of to a bad start, and don't even get me started on autogen popping.They better have that under control for Flight or I'm out straight away.Bryan.

Mine does run fluently out of the box on default settings.

Mine does run fluently out of the box on default settings.

We are talking about "did" not "does"And in any event it depends where you fly and with what.Bryan.

MS wants us to use default display settings…and then reduce them as we add more complex add-ons.

MS would have to be rather stupid to think we would want to do that.

Agree, what a terribly backward way of doing things.And if thats how MS really thinks no wonder they got performance so wrong with FSX.

:( I don't want to run lower settings...it's just a law of nature ;)This comes down to whether we think FSX was targeted at casual users or advanced users.Casual users see the sim as a complete and closed system.Advanced users see the sim as a platform and system to be expanded with higher detail content.Aces did tell advanced user FSX is a 'platform', but its performance has been tuned for casual users.I don’t see a lot of overhead in the default tuning to allow for this higher detail content.As advanced users, if we add detail in one area we have to reduce in another.It’s a zero sum game, and if we ignore that the system is pushed past its designed limits – easily.Generally games are tuned to the limit – they want to look as best as they can within the FPS target.The role content plays in performance is massive.It’s far more critical than the reasonably sound engine; which can only be squeezed so much for more.The importance of limiting the content isn’t some sort of strategy, it’s an engineering reality.I don’t think FSX gives us users the tools to do this properly.And I don’t think FSX was able to really hit this message home for the average advanced users.Getting games to look good and run fast (as best I can) is my day-job, so I’m sort of stubborn on this stuff.

:( I don't want to run lower settings...it's just a law of nature ;)This comes down to whether we think FSX was targeted at casual users or advanced users.Casual users see the sim as a complete and closed system.Advanced users see the sim as a platform and system to be expanded with higher detail content.Aces did tell advanced user FSX is a 'platform', but its performance has been tuned for casual users.I don’t see a lot of overhead in the default tuning to allow for this higher detail content.As advanced users, if we add detail in one are we have to reduce in another.It’s a zero sum game, and if we ignore that the system is pushed past its designed limits – easily.Generally games are tuned to the limit – they want to look as best as they can within the FPS target.The role content plays in performance is massive.It’s far more critical than the reasonably sound engine; which can only be squeezed so much for more.The importance of limiting the content isn’t some sort of strategy, it’s an engineering reality.I don’t think FSX gives us users the tools to do this properly.And I don’t think FSX was able to really hit this message home for the average advanced users.

Well wether one thinks the FSX engine was a good engine, or a poor one, one thing is for certain it was and is on it's last legs.Thats why MS want to build from the ground up, and if a top of the line computer can run Flight all sliders maxed (which MS seem to have inferred) then that surely leaves some headroom for add-onsBryan.

We are talking about "did" not "does"And in any event it depends where you fly and with what.Bryan.

Out-of-the-box and default settings give a pretty good clue??

Out-of-the-box and default settings give a pretty good clue??

Still depends what you fly and where, it's not complicated.Bryan.

Still depends what you fly and where, it's not complicated.Bryan.

Default B747 out of default Heathrow and over default central London.

Default B747 out of default Heathrow and over default central London.

Well there you go, one would think MS would know that eventually some customers would like to fly a high fidelity aircraft in high density scenery and actually enjoy the experience.Oh wait, you actually could eventually, just a shame it took quite a few year to do it eh?Bryan.

name='bsmfinegan' timestamp='1307126772' post='1992751']Well there you go, one would think MS would know that eventually some customers would like to fly a high fidelity aircraft in high density scenery and actually enjoy the experience.Oh wait, you actually could eventually, just a shame it took quite a few year to do it eh?Bryan.

Exactly - and Microsofr can decide it isn't too concerned about the small (very small) number of customers who want io load it with very detailed aircraft, scenery, AI , et. Especially when the add-ons come l from a variety of sources with varying quality standards?

Exactly - and Microsofr can decide it isn't too concerned about the small (very small) number of customers who want io load it with very detailed aircraft, scenery, AI , et. Especially when the add-ons come l from a variety of sources with varying quality standards?

I think they are concerned this time though, seems like they have a change of heart don't you think?Bryan.

I think they are concerned this time though, seems like they have a change of heart don't you think?Bryan.

Not really. Microsoft's own words show it's shifting its emphasis with Flight to the wider audience ie casual users.

Not really. Microsoft's own words show it's shifting its emphasis with Flight to the wider audience ie casual users.

Hasn't MSFS always appealed to the casual user?One thing is for certain, if it runs like a dog casual gamers won't be impressed, they expect a bit more these days you know.Maybe they are a more discerning crowd, unlike us simmers that will accept anything that MS decide to offer up.Bryan.

Hasn't MSFS always appealed to the casual user?One thing is for certain, if it runs like a dog casual gamers won't be impressed, they expect a bit more these days you know.Maybe they are a more discerning crowd, unlike us simmers that will accept anything that MS decide to offer up.Bryan.

Microsoft itsself doesn't think so."Many of you are concerned that because we want to appeal to a wider audience, we must be building an arcade gameWe don’t need to create an arcade game to welcome a wider audience. But we do need to improve the total user experience if we’re to be successful in welcoming new audiences into the experience of Flight. The passion and fascination of flight is powerful, with so many different aspects to aviation and different levels of enjoyment to experience. There is distinct value and strength to be gained by welcoming a wider audience, and we can’t claim to have done the best job of it in the past."http://www.microsoft...s/flight/#news2

Hasn't MSFS always appealed to the casual user?

What exactly is a "casual user"? Flight sims have always been niche products.

What exactly is a "casual user"? Flight sims have always been niche products.

Surely that's the problem from Microsoft's point of view - it isn't earning its keep in comparison with its other games?