Sign in to follow this  
n4gix

Expectation?

Recommended Posts

I have been reading all these posts lately, and some of it leaves a bit of a bad taste in the mouth.From a lot of the posts MS is made out to be this big bad behemoth corporation that does not give a stuff about its users.This is definatly not the case.The patch WILL install correctly, if you only follow the instructions.I am not sure what people were expecting from this update, but the fact that there has been an update means that the MSFS team are listening, and do care about the user.Bottom line is, MS have delivered an EXCEPTIONAL sim.Where is this life can you find a $50 product that can give you so much enjoyment?, nowhere.It seems that the ungreatfull/selfish feeling is growing, and I think thats sad.Dan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Microsoft is damned if they do and damned if they don't. It's ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expected the patch to fix all problems MS said it would fix. It did not.Readme sais:"Fixed Autogen performance degradation "My findings are that this bug remains. This is one of the fixes I was looking forward to the most so of course I'm a bit dissapointed. I tend to dislike companies that lie to their customers. This is why I dislike most companies :)At least the patch restores support for 19m mesh scenery and brings FS9 scenery to the same level as that of FS2002.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MS says that the patch will install correctly if all the files are default, and in the correct place. There is plenty of evidence that is NOT the case.No-one's trying to make out MS as the Great Satan or any of that nonsense, but if their patch doesn't work as advertised who is to blame? The Man in the Moon?I think MS are getting what they deserve. No more, no less. No-one is exactly overwhelmed by the fps increase, few are actually convinced of the full fixing of the autogen bug, fewer still are impressed by such a long wait to fix a few bridges, and they've still missed some important ones. Finally, the installation is flawed on many users systems. And it took them all this time to do this?If MS can't make a batch routine work right, then who can?Allcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>My findings are that this bug remains. I think there may be confusion what constitutes the original bug. At least for me I was not "measuring" the bug by drop in fps or amount of stutter - inherently unreliable metrics. I was monitoring the size of the page file. With the bug the page file would grow and grow the longer you flew eventually bringing your system to a halt. Classic case of a memory leak using programmer's terminology. This is no longer the case after the patch. The page file remains constant - I verified it during a combination of a long flight and hours of slewing above the terain. My autogen is set at absolute max. So they did fix it - at least as far as I am concerned. One remark - I do use USA Roads, which may have some effect on the issue but I am not sure how and where.And I still think that most installation problems come from folks who did not bother to read install instructions. Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2, Omega 2.7.90 (4xAA 16xAF)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"With the bug the page file would grow and grow the longer you flew eventually bringing your system to a halt."I think you're confusing this bug with the landclass+texture bug, which is a memory leak. Maybe they fixed it with this patch but I don't know. As long as you keep your landclass bgl files in a folder without a Texture folder it's not a problem anyway. If you do not, pagefile usage will increase steadily at maybe 1MB/s until you run out of virtual memory and FS9 crashes.The autogen bug never caused a memory leak. The autogen "bug" is just that some autogen objects (those defined in the default.xml file) would remain for too long. Those objects only get purged once you are over 20 miles away from them but they *do^* get purged, eventually. This is why, if you fly straight forward, you will never notice the bug, but if you turn 180 degrees, there will be a slowdown because the objects come into view and eat CPU cycles (but not RAM).Pagefile usage is around 400-500MB (depending on scenery, aircraft etc.) and stays there, both before and after the patch was applied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2 cents (if it is worth that).I am happy we got a patch. I honestly never, ever thought we would get one. I do think the patch is way too long overdue. I understand that MS is a big company, and that fs2004 is a small product relative to the others. However, these bugs were fatal crash bugs, and crashes are the kind of things that should get fixed in a hurry. It isn't like these issues were nitpicky. That said, I don't get upset at Microsoft. There is no point. They provide a great product at a very reasonable cost. I don't know if any other company out there could provide us with the same kind of sim at the same price. Anyway, I think another factor is the great service we receive from our addon developers. Most of the bigger payware vendors provide excellent and prompt responses. On forums we can have a direct link to the developers of these great addons. When we require support, we often receive direct e-mails from the actual programmers of the product, often in a matter of hours. Obviously these companies are relatively small and can provide this level of service. On the other hand, with MS, the communication is not there. We have a one-way street as far as communication. We never get feedback from our problems. Of course, we can complain and get upset about it, but there is no point. MS is a huge company, and things are not likely to change. I don't attack them, nor do I defend them. I just accept things as they are, knowing that things are likely not going to change. What I do know is that I am happier with fs2004 installed on my system than I would be without it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Firstly, I have a MASSIVELY changed install to the default, I have probably one of the most modified installation possible.I followed MS's instructions to the letter, and as such the patch install went without a hitch.The "autogen" bug, this one I find interesting, as it seems it is not a "general" problem, and as such would be very difficult to solve.I have never had this bug, before or after the patch, so the only thing I can imagine is that it is system specific.Whatever, I am pleased that MS are looking to improve on, what is a very good piece of software.Dan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The autogen bug never caused a memory leak."This is how MS explained it.http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimul...9.1_english.asp------"Overview of ChangesFixed Autogen performance degradation - Flying out of an area then back to the same area may cause lower frame rates. The problem was due to a memory leak and how Flight Simulator handled autogen objects. Depending on the specific configuration and scenario, some users observed significantly lower frame rates. The update fully addresses this issue and users should have full functionality of all autogen objects without adverse performance problems."-----Kurt M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>That said, I don't get upset at Microsoft. There is no point.> They provide a great product at a very reasonable cost. I>don't know if any other company out there could provide us>with the same kind of sim at the same price. >>I don't attack them, nor do I defend them. I just accept>things as they are, knowing that things are likely not going>to change. >>What I do know is that I am happier with fs2004 installed on>my system than I would be without it. That's a very mature and commendable attitude Craig, and I couldn't agree with you more. I'm just dreading the day that MS announces they're discontinuing the sim for good. Not only will I be sorry for myself, but just imagine, if you want to, all the whining and flaming that will come from the same crowd that is so unhappy with MS now. I guess there are those who's only happiness comes from dissent. Glad I'm not one of them.Glenn"If God would have wanted man to fly He would have given him more money"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly! IMO, it's like the answer to the question "What's it feel like to be older?" "Great, considering the alternative." (I'm sure I've butchered this quote, but I bet we've all heard it).I'd rather have Flight Sim than not, and while some may consider this overly simplistic, it helps me keep things in perspective.All of my add-ons are freeware (free choice... payware is fine, too), and I can't thing of anything else that I've spent $50 on that has given me as much in return as Flight Sim! Yes, I have a laundry list of what I PERSONALLY would like that would make it better, but overall, I'd rather have it than not.I REALLY do not want to come across as "preachy," but for me, PERSPECTIVE is huge. Weigh the positives and the negatives. If the positives outweigh the negatives, keep flyin' and keep comments constructive. If the negatives outweigh the postives, and I say this with respect, decide if you want to continue using MSFS.I could go on a little bit more, but I might decide myself that I'm a little too "preachy."Here's to our common bond :-beerchug Respectfully,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Flight Simulator a great game? Absolutely. Has Microsoft done all it could do with it? Of course not. And MS isn't made out to be anything, it is a big bad behemoth corporation. Have you seen its business practices? And no, they don't care about the users, this will prove it:FS9 release date: 7/29/03FS9 patch date: 10/11/04

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>"The autogen bug never caused a memory leak.">>This is how MS explained it.>>http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimul...9.1_english.asp>"The problem was due to a memory leak and>how Flight Simulator handled autogen objects."Oh Kurt! What would the programmers at Microsoft know? They should have asked Mr. "Know-it-All..."He's smarter that the whole lot of us, or haven't you learned that by now... Just ask him, he'll tell you so!:-ukliam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>"The autogen bug never caused a memory leak.">>>>This is how MS explained it.>>>>http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimul...9.1_english.asp>>>"The problem was due to a memory leak and>>how Flight Simulator handled autogen objects.">>Oh Kurt! What would the programmers at Microsoft know? They>should have asked Mr. "Know-it-All...">>He's smarter that the whole lot of us, or haven't you learned>that by now... Just ask him, he'll tell you so!:-ukliam I am assuming that was aimed at me.Firstly, I NEVER said >>"The autogen bug never caused a memory leak."I said that there are a number of people who had NEVER EXPERIANCED an autogen memory leak, there is a world of difference between the 2 statements, and my original statement was ######ized to suit the poster.Another example of the reason this hobby is going to die on its arse one day, the purile attacks and general bad air that floats around these forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I am assuming that was aimed at me.Why? It is plainly clear to me (from quote and context) it was NOT aimed at you.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2, Omega 2.7.90 (4xAA 16xAF)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it wasnt aimed at me then, I apoligise.(note to self, don't read forums at 7.30am ;))Dan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>"The autogen bug never caused a memory leak.">>>He's smarter that the whole lot of us, or haven't you>learned>>that by now... Just ask him, he'll tell you so!:-ukliam >>I am assuming that was aimed at me.No, your assumption is false. It was aimed at the person I quoted, who's name begins with J... :-bang No harm done though, and your apology is gracefully accepted...Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" They should have asked Mr. "Know-it-All...""If you have any more personal attacks, flames, insults or other off-topic statements to make, please make them now. Once you and the other children are done, we can continue this discussion. I'm sorry if it bothers you that I know more than you do - you tend to not learn much if you spend all day at a message board insulting people.Microsoft's description of the problem is indeed baffling as by definition it is *not* a memory leak. You don't have to be "Mr. Know-it-All..." to realize that - all it takes is some basic knowledge of how a computer and its software works. If it's a memory leak, memory "leaks" - pagefile usage increases - system eventually runs out of memory and app crashes - typical example of a memory leak.This does *not* happen with FS9, patched or unpatched, unless you place a landclass bgl in a scenery subfolder together with a texture subfolder.Disagree? If so, why?Kurt - you should know that since I believe you are one of those who fully understands the bug.Keep in mind that those who wrote the readme may not be the same who actually wrote the FS scenery engine or the patch."I have never had this bug, before or after the patch, so the only thing I can imagine is that it is system specific."It's actually "area-specific" and "habbit specific". E.g. if I use 1x zoom, performance is still very good. If I use 0.5x there's a wider FOV, more objects on-screen and the framerate is very low. Some texture tiles contain more default.xml-objects than others as well. Mountain-fliers are 100% unaffected by the issue since the forest and rock tiles don't contain a single default.xml-objects. The rural and suburban tiles do contain quite a few so places like south of Portland OR (just an example) will be more problematic. Finally, if you never make a 180 turn, you will not notice the bug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Kurt - you should know that since I believe you are one of those who fully understands the bug.Keep in mind that those who wrote the readme may not be the same who actually wrote the FS scenery engine or the patch."Jimmi,My post wasn't meant as an attack or to disagree with you. I've never seen on my system any indication of a memory leak as regards the autogen issue either.I was just pointing out that MS mentions a memory leak, so it can make it confusing to people. Kurt M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all :-)I can understand Alex.Wow, they released a patch but so what? Nearly every software-company offers updates and patches, so nothing special about that (can't understand why there is so much hype about the patch on avsim).I'm really happy with the patch because, unlike on other users PC's, the patch didn't make anything worse- yippeee. The new bridges are just a wonderfull addition, although some are not correctly placed, other users are already asking how to erase certain MS bridges to get the better freeware add-on bridges back and the number of bridges added is not really immense. The lacking of some bridges is a thing which finally had to be fixed.Concerning the other fixes, I can't comment on them, I'm just happy that I didn't need to re-install everything.In my point of view the only good thing is that MS did release a patch which is like a new philosophy regarding customer support. The patch itself is a bit ridiculous...compared to patches done by smaller companies and even one-person developers (Bill Grabowski, PSS, PMDG, SSW,...)Best regards,Stefan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>" They should have asked Mr. "Know-it-All..."">>If you have any more personal attacks, flames, insults or>other off-topic statements to make, please make them now. Once>you and the other children are done, we can continue this>discussion. I'm sorry if it bothers you that I know more than>you do - you tend to not learn much if you spend all day at a>message board insulting people.>>Microsoft's description of the problem is indeed baffling as>by definition it is *not* a memory leak. You don't have to be>"Mr. Know-it-All..." to realize that - all it takes is some>basic knowledge of how a computer and its software works. If>it's a memory leak, memory "leaks" - pagefile usage increases>- system eventually runs out of memory and app crashes ->typical example of a memory leak.Jimmy, it is the tone of your writing and constant habit of using ad hominem arguments that makes me skeptical of anything you write. You make assumptions that - simply because some person doesn't "accept your word" for anything you write means they must be intellectually deficient.I don't know your background, but here's something about me. I'm fifty-six years old, and have been a professional systems analyst and programmer for thirty-seven years. Your constant "smug superiority" is quite wearing, and does nothing to advance your credibility. When you expose youself in a public forum, it stands to reason that - sooner or later - you're going to encounter someone who knows the difference between buffalo cookies and chocolate chip cookies and calls you on it.At its most basic level, what is a "memory leak?" That's simple. Anytime a programmer forgets to save the address for dynamically allocated memory, that previously referenced item is left hanging in memory. This is called a "memory leak." The item will continue occuping memory -- and you'll be unable to get rid of it -- until the program ends.Reasons for a program (or programmer) to fail to deallocate a memory address are legion, but the simplest example is this:int *IntPointer;IntPointer = new int;*IntPointer = 3;IntPointer = new int;What happens when the last command is executed? The IntPointer had been set to 3, but the last command wipes out the address from IntPointer, and now whatever had been stored at that address remains in memory, but because IntPointer no longer stores that address, you have no way to access it, OR delete it.How can the above be fixed to avoid the problem to begin with? Again, the solution is simple, but when you're dealing with mega-thousands of lines of code, it's easy to overlook:*IntPointer = 3;delete IntPointer; //delete the contents of memoryIntPointer = 0 //clear the pointerIntPointer = new int;It seems self-evident that the unloader function used by the autogen procedure contained one or more poorly written statements, that failed to delete AND clear the pointer... hence, a slow but steady decrease in available memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this