This thread clearly shows why we desperatly need a new flightsim that caters to all pretend pilots, not just the computer savvy ones. FSX was never designed to be an ultra realistic graphics and gaming experience. Still, third party developers have managed to push the boundaries of that engine to its breaking point - for good or bad. For some it works like a charm, for others it means an endless series of problems. Most people aren't even able to optimize their computers and operating system, yet they cling to the fantasy that they'll make FSX run like clockwork with countless addons installed and uninstalled, not to mention the blind faith in miracle fsx.cfg tweaks. There is a lot to learn from Umbertos generous replies in this thread, but it also shows how far apart developers and some customers have grown. For the novice user it is a pretty steep climb up to FSX heaven.

 

 

FSX is the only program I have installed to date. Along with FSX, I installed the PMDG 737 and 777. I also installed all of the FSDT airports

 

Did  you install fsx and all other addons using  admin rights  with your avg  disabled.  And  have you installed  fsx  in its on root  drive  since  some users have  issues   with it being  installed  in the default location.   And  is  your  uac  turned off as well when installing

 

 

There is a lot to learn from Umbertos generous replies in this thread, but it also shows how far apart developers and some customers have grown. For the novice user it is a pretty steep climb up to FSX heaven.

Very good cogent point.

Agree with Rick, excellent point there Simmerhead.   :cool:

 

It is clear that Umberto cares about these issues and is spending a lot of time providing explanations.  But then on the other side of the fence it's still the case to a lot of us that his whole approach to his products, their delivery, their updating, their authentication, etc, has become very complex ;  some would say unnecessarily so.      

But then on the other side of the fence it's still the case to a lot of us that his whole approach to his products, their delivery, their updating, their authentication, etc, has become very complex ;  some would say unnecessarily so.

One of the previous posters rightly suggested that FSX has gone very close to its breaking point, due its 32 bit architecture and its outdated graphic engine, which force unnecessary oops to do things that should be way simpler.

 

But the issue us, which I've tried to explain multiple times, is that what might be labeled as "unnecessarily" complexity, it's DRIVEN by the very need to find ways to allow those products to fit into that limited platform.

 

If users don't understand this, we would end up in Catch 22 situation, when nothing more can be added to FSX without risking OOMs, but any measure will try to fix that, would obviously require "complex" methods.

 

This doesn't obviously have anything to do with the way the software is activated.

 

I'll repeat my previous example of the FS9 version of the Addon Manager: it uses exactly the same activation method (in fact, if you activate under FS9, the same activation will work with FSX), but it doesn't create any of the problems discussed here.

 

What's the difference, since our own code is obviously the same ?

 

The underlying platform and its increased dependency from several additional Windows technologies and components ( no Simconnect, no Side-by-side, much simpler shaders and less memory requirements), which is also WHAT makes FSX so flexible to begin with.

 

Speaking of real world example: today I've got an email from an user who was enraged because our downloads links were not working. Checked the links, and of course they are working fine, and downloads stats on the server shows that people are downloading them without any issues.

 

Made additional questions, and it turned out to be (guess what...) that pesky Norton 360 that decided to DELETE the installer as soon the user tried to download, so it looked like the download link didn't work.

 

I did the "right thing to do", and sent (AGAIN) another sample of the Couatl.exe file to Symantec, they first replied with:

 

"Having reviewed the information provided we are unable to reproduce or confirm the issue described. Please ensure that you are using Symantec's latest virus definitions for detection."

 

So, they denied the problem exists. I've tried to explain the issue in more detail with a further email, and then I've received it another one, 2 hours later:

 

"After re-checking, we confirm that this file Couatl.exe(MD5:B29049B92527C6E74D007FE3B92D94B3) is not detected by our product now. Please confirm with your customer if the detection still happen."

 

So, the admitted their fault, and it SEEMS they fixed it NOW. Until the next update...

 

But it gets MORE interesting:

 

it's not this issue is something that affects "just" us. The false positive issue IS a serious issue that is affecting thousands of legit programs using absolutely normal security features (just have a look at the PMDG forum here, they have the same issue with their Operation Center), but antivirus programs have a difficult time sorting out the real malware from the legit security products.

 

In 2011, the IEEE and several antivirus vendors announced a joint project to finally put an end to this problem, and have a way to identify digitally-signed products to always considered safe, if they are signed in a specific way. This initiative is called Taggant, and should hopefully fix the "false positive" problem:

 

http://standards.ieee.org/news/2011/icsg_software.html

 

They launched an RFP in 2011, but after 2 years, is still not available to be used by developers, so we simply must wait for it, to fix the antivirus issue at once, we'll surely be the first in line to use it. Until then, we can only hope users will properly configure their antivirus, or use less aggressive products, that don't need any configuration to begin with.

Quite the insight on how the antivirus affects you addon devs. My guess would be that the other one is that admin rights thingy in Vista and later, no? Things which are there to 'simply' protect sometimes over-protect. Now that's a bit political, innit? Eeek. ^_^

 

I'm adding a bit of a positive point when it comes to your mighty Couatl, Umberto. It was ported over to P3D in no time while the folks running airports based on Vistamare soft are still waiting. And may do for some time to come. Missing features.

 

This may not address the valid concerns of Couatl digging rather deep into the flight sim structure, or even the OS one, but it shows that you keep up with the pace.

My guess would be that the other one is that admin rights thingy in Vista and later, no?

Those are far easier to deal with: just respect the Microsoft guidelines on what an UAC-compliant software is supposed to work (basically, write in the correct folders and use the right registry keys), but antivirus issues are way more tricky. There aren't any "guidelines" to follow, that Taggant initiative could be a step in the right direction, when it will finally arrive.

 

I'm adding a bit of a positive point when it comes to your mighty Couatl, Umberto. It was ported over to P3D in no time while the folks running airports based on Vistamare soft are still waiting. And may do for some time to come. Missing features.

 

This may not address the valid concerns of Couatl digging rather deep into the flight sim structure, or even the OS one, but it shows that you keep up with the pace.

It's exactly BECAUSE Couatl doesn't dig in the Flight sim structure at all (as an external .EXE, it can't do that), and because we always try to follow the Simconnect standard, that we made it work with Prepar3D so easily!

 

The Addon Manager does a bit of in-memory hacking, just to provide those few things that Simconnect doesn't provide, like the actual 3d eyepoint position, the MaxTextureLoad value, the Scenery Complexity location, and not much else. So, whenever a new Prepar3D version comes out, we only need to find the updated locations for this data. Perhaps LM will add it to be reported by Simconnect officially and yes, we told them about this...

This thread clearly shows why we desperatly need a new flightsim that caters to all pretend pilots, not just the computer savvy ones. FSX was never designed to be an ultra realistic graphics and gaming experience. Still, third party developers have managed to push the boundaries of that engine to its breaking point - for good or bad. For some it works like a charm, for others it means an endless series of problems. Most people aren't even able to optimize their computers and operating system, yet they cling to the fantasy that they'll make FSX run like clockwork with countless addons installed and uninstalled, not to mention the blind faith in miracle fsx.cfg tweaks. There is a lot to learn from Umbertos generous replies in this thread, but it also shows how far apart developers and some customers have grown. For the novice user it is a pretty steep climb up to FSX heaven.

 

True.  However, the information is widely out there and easily available but they need the drive to learn it.  On a separate but related note, this is why you see the most basic posts in the PMDG forum on how to do X or Y, when all they had to do was open an Introduction Manual (and use the Search function) that was written expressly for answering basic questions and issues you may have.  People want to be spoon-fed the answer so that they don't have to put forth any effort.  You can't expect meaningful results that way, yet many do.  As a result, many people will spoon-feed those answers; so at the same time we are encouraging it.

 

Anyone that has been involved in flight simulation for more than a month knows you can't expect stellar results without putting forth any effort to learn and tweak.  It's a reality of the hobby that we are all a part of.

I would like thank (almost) all those taking part in, what has actually become, a pretty good thread, despite the few who'd like it not to be

 

I do however, still feel it to be a great shame that the developer, obviously a very talented man in his field, continues to believe there's nothing wrong the the software.

 

Although a million miles from Umberto's talent and experience, I've always known enough, since the early days of Windows7, and FSX, to ensure that a), FSX is NEVER installed to anything other than it's own dedicated HHD, and that b), After installing Windows and all its updates, the VERY first to do has been to disable both UAC and Windows Defender.  FSX and its addons are also installed and tested before ANY antivirus software too.  This means is neither a UAC nor permisions issue.  At least not my PC anyway.

 

Much as you really do seem to know your stuff Umberto, and I do respect that, IMO, the enormously long posts here still fail to address the issue that SOME, even if only in a minority, have serious issues with the software, that are not all related to a problem with their (and my) machines.  Even after after new builds, with new hardware and OS, the problems persited for me.  So much so I no longer have ANY of your fine work on my setup.

 

I would RESPECTFULLY ask that although there arn't that many of us with persistant issues, surely we're not all wrong or going nuts :lol:

True.  However, the information is widely out there and easily available but they need the drive to learn it.  On a separate but related note, this is why you see the most basic posts in the PMDG forum on how to do X or Y, when all they had to do was open an Introduction Manual (and use the Search function) that was written expressly for answering basic questions and issues you may have.  People want to be spoon-fed the answer so that they don't have to put forth any effort.  You can't expect meaningful results that way, yet many do.  As a result, many people will spoon-feed those answers; so at the same time we are encouraging it.

 

Anyone that has been involved in flight simulation for more than a month knows you can't expect stellar results without putting forth any effort to learn and tweak.  It's a reality of the hobby that we are all a part of.

It's not quite so easy Greg. It takes years of computer and flight sim experience to separate the wheat from the chaff. Information is out there, but most of it is useless rubbish. Just look at all the nonsense miracle tweaks of the fsx.cfg.

 

People want things spoon fed because the world has moved on from traditional PC usage. People today don't need to know about hardware setup, OS configurations etc. because they are a non issue on tablets, smart phones and gaming consoles. Installing a new app is done with the press of a button...

 

It is so much easier for us who grew up with MS-DOS. i remember tweaking my config.sys and autoexec.bat to free up as much base memory as possible to get certain games to run. Those whete the days when learning the inner workings of a computer system came naturally. Now most things are hidden and much more complex. That said, I owned several Amiga's in the 1980s/early 90s and they really understood usability. Best fusion of console and home computer ever made.

It is so much easier for us who grew up with MS-DOS. i remember tweaking my config.sys and autoexec.bat to free up as much base memory as possible to get certain games to run. Those whete the days when learning the inner workings of a computer system came naturally. Now most things are hidden and much more complex. That said, I owned several Amiga's in the 1980s/early 90s and they really understood usability. Best fusion of console and home computer ever made.

 

lol at least you had MS-DOS.  Some of us 'poor' folk had to make do with the like of that Amstrad equivilent lol

To me, any argument 'For'  the "need" for Couatl or the AM software, can be countered by the question;

 

"then how come I get to enjoy other scenery from other developers such as FlyTampa, Aerosoft, etc, without "needing" Couatl?"

 

I guess all it ultimately comes down to is that Umberto is entitled to stick to his position, and consumers are entitled to support it, or to vote with their wallets.

"then how come I get to enjoy other scenery from other developers such as FlyTampa, Aerosoft, etc, without "needing" Couatl?"

We have already been over this, and I thought it was clear enough what features we have that those sceneries don't. Someone suggested that we could do "lite" versions of our sceneries, and as I've said, we did that, you can see the results in FS9.

 

For example, our KLAX scenery is FASTER in FSX than it is under FS9, and of course it looks way better in FSX.

 

This because, in order to reproduce something that in FSX we did we shaders (only possible with native code, which is not usable without additional help from our software), we had to ADD polygons and textures. For some objects, we had to split in parts, because they won't even compile.

 

KLAX for FS9 is an example of a scenery that in FSX relied heavily on such methods that requires our support modules, so you can take it as an example of how a scenery could have been, if we kept using the old plain .BGL methods, at THIS level of complexity on the same place.

 

And of course, we get full DX10 compatibility without any issues. This is getting more and more important each day, and it's good that many users realized that.

 

It was right to push to use native FSX code entirely, it was right to rely on our modules that allows this, and this will be even more obvious, when P3D with DX11 will be released, since I don't expect it would support something that is not 100% native FSX code, not without a huge performance hit anyway.

 

So no, although it's still possible to do fine sceneries using just plain .BGL format with lots of FS9 code (it's not that our FS9 sceneries look "bad", it's just the FSX version is much better), it won't last long, and we need to find ways to move forward and not being bounded by a file format which hasn't changed that much since FS4.0.

 

That's about sceneries.

 

Something like GSX couldn't possibly be made without the Couatl program, since it's running entirely *inside* of it (which also means is running *outside* FSX), and GSX is BY FAR our best selling product, so much that we might even stop doing sceneries altogether, and doing JUST expansions and upgrades to GSX. This, just to put things in perspective...

 

So yes, people HAVE "voted with their wallets", and our most successful product is the one which is entirely dependent on the Couatl module and couldn't be possible be made in any other way and, more important, it has an almost unlimited room for growth, especially in features, since its code can incredibly complex, and not taking a bit of memory from FSX THANKS to Couatl.

 

 

and GSX is BY FAR our best selling product, so much that we might even stop doing sceneries altogether, and doing JUST expansions and upgrades to GSX. This, just to put things in perspective...

 

Oh no, please don't ever stop doing sceneries! 

 

I can honestly say that all the FSDT sceneries I own have contributed to the most enjoyment in flight sim I have ever had as far as addon airports are concerned. The fact that you guys have done some of the biggest and most important hubs in the US like DFW, LAX, ORD, and JFK, all while either maintaining or exceeding the FPS over the stock airport, says a lot.

 

Being here in Dallas, when DFW was released I couldn't have been happier since that is more or less my home base and the stock DFW was an absolute FPS killer that I had to turn the scenery sliders down so low just to enjoy it. Then you guys released DFW and it was never better. Your DFW give me 25+ FPS in all situations including PMDG aircraft and lots of AI. I couldn't even get this performance with the stock DFW unless I pared the scenery settings down very low, which of course made the experience less enjoyable. Your FSDT KDFW has provided me more satisfaction than any other addon scenery I have ever bought, going back to FS9. Many times I land or start a flight there thinking how happy I am that you guys brought this airport to FSX with such great performance and stunning visuals and I smile with satisfaction every time I am there.

Same could be said for all your other major hubs, generally much better FPS and performance than the stock equivalent.

 

To say that you guys might get out of scenery development would be a big blow to those of us who rely on the sceneries that you bring to the table. Much like the KIAH that is in the works, many of us are looking forward to the next big airport that will come after that. Although we/I can be happy with all the great works you have given the community so far, I genuinely hope the we can look forward to many more creations after KIAH and that you guys don't get out of airport development to focus solely on GEX.

Oh no, please don't ever stop doing sceneries!

We don't plan to. My comment was what a "bean counter" would likely suggest, the same one that might suggest that Microsoft should concentrate on cellular phones and Xbox games instead of Windows PCs...

 

 

Being here in Dallas, when DFW was released I couldn't have been happier since that is more or less my home base and the stock DFW was an absolute FPS killer that I had to turn the scenery sliders down so low just to enjoy it. Then you guys released DFW and it was never better. Your DFW give me 25+ FPS in all situations including PMDG aircraft and lots of AI. I couldn't even get this performance with the stock DFW unless I pared the scenery settings down very low, which of course made the experience less enjoyable. Your FSDT KDFW has provided me more satisfaction than any other addon scenery I have ever bought, going back to FS9.

 

Thank you very much for these comments. KDFW was our first "next-gen" scenery, the first one that used entirely native FSX code for ground, with shaders, and it's the first one that entirely relies on what has been discussed in this thread, which is Addon Manager + Couatl.

 

The difference in performances compared to our previous scenery, which was KLAS, is quite clear. Sure, KLAS looks nice, but KLAS is a scenery that COULD have been made without the Addon Manager/Couatl, and it would have lost only some interactivity features such as docking systems, dynamic cars, opening hangars, etc., not so much, because it's still an hybrid FSX/FS9 scenery.

 

KDFW, instead, is the first one entirely reliant on the software modules, since they must manage the appearance of the native FSX ground layers, which would otherwise flicker horribly if they were "just" .BGL.

 

We also used an interesting trick at DFW (Couatl, of course...) to optimize fps and texture memory: since 3 of the main terminals are VERY similar, we modeled and textured just one, and instanced it 3 times, adding only the parts that were different from a terminal to another. This resulted in a significant saving of texture memory, video memory in general and system RAM too...