Let's see, portray myself as a long time member but I was around in 2006 when FSX was released. Before that I must have been around in the days of FS2k4 which would mean around 2003. My profile shows I joined in 2002 but I'm 'portraying' myself as a long time supporter of the franchise...

Now think back to when FS2004 was first released. Didn't it also have the same type of performance issues with anything but current hardware of the time also when settings were set high or maxed? The only real difference was the ACES setting the Jetways active for all AI aircraft, which made it seem performance was worse then it was. The problem was people saw that and immediately uninstalled and went back to FS2004. Once that was realized and that option turned off in AI planes, Performance was no worse relative to when FS2004 was first released. If you had a current system, you had adequate performance, earlier weaker systems suffered, just like with FSX. I have one of the higher performance systems at the time of FSX release A 3Ghz E6850 C2D, and with default level aircraft I get about 25-30FPS at JFK, In the teens with more complex aircraft. Now with the I7 2600k, people are reporting frames that I got in FS2004 around the time of FSX release. I can only imagine what FS2004 is getting now with the I7's. At the same time, you got to recognize that FSX is capable of so much more detail than FS2004 is. Higher texture resolution, more dense scenery, and autogen, more traffic, higher resolution water, and weather textures, the capability of Shader 3. FS releases have always been released with future hardware in mind, the problem happens when people try to implement these features before they have the hardware capable of running them. I do blame MS/Aces for this, because they built this functionality within the GUI, especially with FSX. They should have set the GUI to the limits the hardware of the day, and put the setting to unlock the future capability in the config file. They actually did do this in regards to autogen, but they made the default settings too high.

 

On the subject of Free Flight !One of the really nice features of MSF is that you can place your plane anywhere on the MAP page and dependingon the topography of that area, you will automatically be placed 1000 ft above it with any heading you like and in a shallow climb.To do anything like that in FSX would be very tedious to say the least.ORClick on any airport/airfield and be placed on the runway of your choice, unlike having to scroll through an alphabetical list like in FSX.( The MAP page has got to be the best designed piece of UI software I have seen in any flight smulation program including the level-d stuff )( It is the central HUB of the program and you can get to EVERYTHING from that one page. 10/10 )Fred.

Right, so if I tell you to meet me at HI49, how do you find it?Perhaps we should leave these kinds of posts until the 29th when everyone can poke holes in your statements about Flight.

Now think back to when FS2004 was first released. Didn't it also have the same type of performance issues with anything but current hardware of the time also when settings were set high or maxed? The only real difference was the ACES setting the Jetways active for all AI aircraft, which made it seem performance was worse then it was. The problem was people saw that and immediately uninstalled and went back to FS2004. Once that was realized and that option turned off in AI planes, Performance was no worse relative to when FS2004 was first released. If you had a current system, you had adequate performance, earlier weaker systems suffered, just like with FSX. I have one of the higher performance systems at the time of FSX release A 3Ghz E6850 C2D, and with default level aircraft I get about 25-30FPS at JFK, In the teens with more complex aircraft. Now with the I7 2600k, people are reporting frames that I got in FS2004 around the time of FSX release. I can only imagine what FS2004 is getting now with the I7's. At the same time, you got to recognize that FSX is capable of so much more detail than FS2004 is. Higher texture resolution, more dense scenery, and autogen, more traffic, higher resolution water, and weather textures, the capability of Shader 3. FS releases have always been released with future hardware in mind, the problem happens when people try to implement these features before they have the hardware capable of running them. I do blame MS/Aces for this, because they built this functionality within the GUI, especially with FSX. They should have set the GUI to the limits the hardware of the day, and put the setting to unlock the future capability in the config file. They actually did do this in regards to autogen, but they made the default settings too high.

Tom I'm not quite following the first part of this post but I will reference allot of this when I do my upgrade to FSX. I do think your over simplifying the problems with FSX as some are still reporting issues with the latest machines today but this is a good post. Thanks. :(

Edited February 12, 201214 yr by Dillon

It's this new thing called 'free flight'. :)

Just drop the plane in the sky like a Bell X-1 test over California's Edwards AFB and fly off, o.k... :Whistle:If one wanted to can one do a cold dark startup at an airport, taxi to the runway, and takeoff? Can one also land at an airfield taxi to a parking spot and shut engines down? All this in a functional virtual cockpit?Nothing too serious just basic stuff as some people would like to fly to a location not drop in out of no where from a map function...

Edited February 12, 201214 yr by Dillon

My impressions was that the VC's were (fully?) functional - can anyone confirm this?It's been mentioned that you can use the map interface to place your plane on any runway. Does anyone know if there is something stopping you starting at the gate?

Flight has manifestly highlighted the differences in our preferences. It seems those of us leaning towards GA are more receptive, heavy iron gate to gate ifr jocks - well, we're still :(. The initial offering is a MASSIVE backward sidestep in our view, with little to indicate it will ever evolve to the point of being a 'successor' to FSX.That said, lets see what pops for Flight - Howard says he's 'betting', so lets see what happens as FSX, and even FS9 live on.

If one wanted to can one do a cold dark startup at an airport, taxi to the runway, and takeoff? Can one also land at an airfield taxi to a parking spot and shut engines down? All this in a functional virtual cockpit?

From the UI? No. However, just as in FS9/FSX one can park the a/c anywhere cold-and-dark, save the flight, then load that saved flight anytime they wish.Unlike previous versions, Flight will always launch in the exact position and state the a/c was in when one shuts down Flight.Most of what can be done simply requires learning new tricks...

That's a real shame if when starting a new flight one cannot easily pick a parking spot or gate when choosing an airport from the UI.Part of the immersion of flying for me, as mainly a GA flyer, is taxing from the parking spot to the runway.

That's a real shame if when starting a new flight one cannot easily pick a parking spot or gate when choosing an airport from the UI.Part of the immersion of flying for me, as mainly a GA flyer, is taxing from the parking spot to the runway.

<sigh!> You can still do that if you wish. You just have to do it in a different way! Does nobody actually read what I write?I have many saved flights using each of the four aircraft I currently have available (I refuse to even load the P-51), all of which have the a/c parked in a specific parking spot on the ramp in a "cold and dark" state. All I have to do is pick whatever I want from the list of saved flights, or simply create a new situation if I wish!

the four aircraft I currently have available (I refuse to even load the P-51)

That's funny...

Edited February 12, 201214 yr by Dillon

<sigh!> You can still do that if you wish. You just have to do it in a different way! Does nobody actually read what I write?I have many saved flights using each of the four aircraft I currently have available (I refuse to even load the P-51), all of which have the a/c parked in a specific parking spot on the ramp in a "cold and dark" state. All I have to do is pick whatever I want from the list of saved flights, or simply create a new situation if I wish!

I did read and understand exactly what you wrote. I do not want to create a saved flight for every parking spot for every airport for every aircraft.Or to put it another way, if I decide to buy the Hawaii pack and decide the first thing I want to do after purchasing is to start flying from Dillingham airfield with the RV7 I will not be able to easily start from a parking spot before I have created a saved flight.

Edited February 12, 201214 yr by Marith

Or to put it another way, if I decide to buy the Hawaii pack and decide to start flying from Dillingham airfield with the RV7 I will not be able to easily start from a parking spot before I have created a saved flight.

FWIW, that was among the "Top Voted" features asked for. Since no one has yet seen the release version of Flight yet, and indeed won't see it until the 29th along with everyone else, we have no clue whether the aircraft select UI has been changed...In any case, some of FSX's functionality was radically different from FS9's, so I'm used to compromise and having to find new ways to accomplish a similar task.

FWIW, that was among the "Top Voted" features asked for.

Interesting - thanks. If MS decide to include that feature either at release date or later then that will be great.

 

Flight is a joke... this crack pot development team... insane idea of a product.... amazing how idiots get in these high corporate managerial jobs that have no clue, vision, or history of the products they take over ... They get paid to screw up...

Do you ever read any of this stuff you write???? :(

Edited February 12, 201214 yr by Bert Pieke

Right, so if I tell you to meet me at HI49, how do you find it?Perhaps we should leave these kinds of posts until the 29th when everyone can poke holes in your statements about Flight.

Simple!..............I just look at the MAP !!I don't think many will be poking holes either..............I tell it as it is.Fred.