Suppose there comes an update to the graphic engine that makes Flight run okay on only the fastest available systems... That wouldn't be nice! I already wonder how new DLC and enhancements will make the game run slower...

 

I agree that would be a disaster, but the developers have already said they weren't going to do that. They talked about how if new DLC and enhancements made the game run slower, they'd make changes to keep the performance acceptable. Mostly they were talking about various optimizations, and there's still a lot that could be done.

 

Just a wild guess here, but we know they're running DX9 so Flight will be compatible with older systems. If they enabled DX10 or DX11 or whatever for systems that could handle it, they could optimize processing quite a bit. Systems running XP might not see any improvements in that case, but hopefully wouldn't see any degradation.

 

Hook

the only thing I'm interested in is if Mr. Howard and Microsoft think Flight is successful, because they're the ones who will be making the decisions to go ahead or cancel Flight.

 

Says it all.

 

But managers don't let themselves get into the kind of positions where they're leading a failure, as it affects their future opportunities.

 

Mr. Howard said it was doing better than expected, they had to expect it to at least break even and maybe make a small profit. Therefore, Flight is succeeding. Maybe not wildly, but succeeding nonetheless.

 

I think Hook knows what he is talking about.

Its not that easy to just first release core product and then do major overhauls to graphics engine later by releasing them as updates or DLCs. It would mess things up pretty much and would be really take lots of work.

 

Actually... it's been done before.

 

For an imperfect example (due to it's subscription-based funding and totally different nature), the original Everquest has received, I believe, two complete graphical engine replacements during it's long run. I was there for one of them (before I got tired of fantasy MMORPGs) and I seem to remember it being a very smooth transition from the user's point of view.

 

Overhauling the engine didn't automatically do much for the older "scenery" areas, but it sure made improvements possible in the new areas.

 

In a product that not only continues development, but continues paid development, pretty much anything is possible.

In a product that not only continues development, but continues paid development, pretty much anything is possible.

 

Thanks Ray, you are my hero. That's exactly what I've been trying to get across all along and I'm glad to hear you seem to feel the same way.

 

There are implications here. If Flight is successful enough, it's very likely to grow into something recognizable as FS11. Right now, what we've got is a prototype. A proof of concept. It will grow.

 

Hook

I don't know if anyone posted it here at AVSIM, but MS has an opening for a "LEAD DESIGNER" for the FLIGHT project. Not sure if that's to fill Mr. Howard's job. But the job description sure sounds like it. Perhaps that is a clue to a possible change in direction with the product? Who knows..

No, Lead Designer would not be Mr Howard's job. He is a little higher up the totem pole I think.

 

Btw - Welcome to the forums!

If it isn't, the role sure sounds like it would have a lot of power in the "vision" of the product.

If Flight were a box release with two updates and it was done, you'd be right. But with the current DLC model, we'll be getting program updates and enhancements for the life of the product. We already know this for certain because the developers have said so in response to questions about how Flight would handle performance when we have additional complexity.

 

Hook

 

Yes I seem to recall reading a statement by someone on the Flight team to that effect, while it was optimized fairly well, it can certainly be optimized even better going forward.

I know Flight makes better use of the video card than previous MSFS titles, however it still does use the cpu pretty hard. I know my core temps while running Flight, get up there about like they do when running FSX. Not as consistantly up there as when I run FSX, but briefly they certainly do get up there. And compared to some of my other flight simulators, the cpu gets much more of a workout in Flight than the others as well.

 

So I wonder if some of these further optimizations that can be done, would be in regard to offloading even more from the cpu to the gpu. I know with my GTX 560 Ti 2gb card, the gpu only spikes into the upper 90% usage range when over dense terrain, and the max amount of ram used on the video card is usually around 768 mb...

Are you Russell B. Davis by any chance? :Thinking: