When then did you claim "they are not allowed to make performance improvements"?

 

When?

 

Like a couple of hours ago. Says so on my post.

 

And I didn't claim anything. I repeated the answer from an official DTG member. Seriously, what is up with these questions?

Jeez, this thread is turning into an "outsmarting everyone by quoting others" competition... 

 

Let's try to steer it back to the original question:

 

There is only ONE THING that decides if a piece of software is a dead-end or not. It's US. We're voting with our purchase. That's the ONLY reason FSX is still alive, and even new developers are joining the bandwagon. 

 

It's a business.

 

If we all stopped buying add-ons for FSX (either version) it would die...simple. And this rule applies to all the other sims...

 

If you don't like a certain product or add-on, don't buy it - that's your vote right there...

 

What Dovetail did with this $5 FSX:SE business was a simple poll-survey to see how well it would do in the future.

By going onto Steam, just like X-Plane did, FSX will now have a wider market, a market, who otherwise probably wouldn't have even known it existed. This simple fact (for me) means that FSX still has plenty of life left in it, and for developers, it's still worthwile creating addons for it. P3D is completely different and it's not something that's going to appear in a gaming store or on the gaming shelf of a computer store. The more people who use and buy FSX and addons, the more chance we have of seeing a new simulator.

 

Despite the fact that they can't make core changes to the application, people seem happy with it and are reporting slight performance improvements (Maybe placebo, or maybe the compiler optimisations really have worked). With FSX SE, P3D 2, X-Plane 10, and development on Outerra, FlightGear and AeroFlyFS 2, it's again a great time for this hobby (Like it was when FSX came out years ago). I think we should all appreciate the fact that FSX is still alive, and all of our addons/investments will continue to work after so long, and it's going to be around for a while yet and more addons will be appearing.

Well, for what it's worth, I've been using P3D pretty much exclusively since version 2 came out, and I hadn't been thinking at all about FSX SE until I started to read this thread - hadn't been following it closely and hadn't been aware of any performance optimizations.  But if performance is in fact improved, I'm willing to have a look.  

 

Relevant to this possible change of heart: I came here directly from a thread about the upcoming P3D 2.5, where I learned that most of the update is focused on revisions to Sim Director (the scenario development interface), rather than on OOMs or graphical improvements, and that no patch will be provided - it will be a full install.  That makes me wonder (note: not conclude, just wonder) whether LM's focus might be shifting more to institutional professional users - those using P3D for in-house training, and who have relatively clean setups, not volumes of add-ons that need to be re-installed at every update.  The information is thin, so this is just a line of speculation, nothing more.  But the result is that this particular user is suddenly thinking that a performance-optimized FSX, with comprehensible licensing terms, might be sorta kinda appealing in its own right.  

 

With P3D, it's good to have a sim in development, but who knows where that development will end up?  With FSX, there won't be any major alterations.  But  some third-party developers have told us that stasis, aka stability, is a good thing.  So a better-performing FSX might have points in its favor.  Again, I'm not deciding anything but I'll think about it.  Thanks to everybody in this thread for (re-)opening the door, for me anyway...

 

 

That makes me wonder (note: not conclude, just wonder) whether LM's focus might be shifting more to institutional professional users - those using P3D for in-house training

 

This is not really any surprise. P3D was never intended for home users or casual simmers, so their commercial customers will always come first. That's not to say it's a bad thing, it's another sim being actively developed and things are getting fixed, but people seem to forget easily that this isn't FSX and LM are aiming for a different market.

Tonywob, I have heard the argument that Steam exposes more people to FSX, and more is better.  As a current user of FSX,  I'm not sure I look positively on an infusion of new people into the hobby who have such little interest in flight simulation that they've only heard of FSX because of Steam.  I hope it doesn't lead to a dumbing down of add ons to appeal to that more casual market.  That isn't the first time I've made this comment, so if I sound like I'm repeating myself, it is because I am.

I think there is wide enough spectrum of addons to satisfy nearly everyone. Newbie or veteran.

 I hope it doesn't lead to a dumbing down of add ons to appeal to that more casual market.  That isn't the first time I've made this comment, so if I sound like I'm repeating myself, it is because I am

 

I understand and agree with what you are saying. I didn't like MS Flight at all because of the whole gaming feel to it, and I'm not surprised it didn't last. However there are two sides to this, the more users buying the software (casual gamers), the more money is going to be thrown into the new addons and development of the simulator. This is exactly what happened with X-Plane 10, the gaming version on iOS funded the development of the professional desktop version, and they have just released another gaming version for iOS much to the annoyance of many users, but this will give them money to continue development.

 

However, just like my old favourite SimCity 4, which was "evolved" by EA games to the DLC-ridden, dumbed-down, online-only game it is today, and basically died because of it. Hopefully, DoveTail or whoever creates a new simulator will learn from past mistakes and not neglect the hobbyist users

So there we have it, please take note all you "Commercial Members" - why are you all pushing and promoting this new thing as the future FSX?

 

Why?

Silly comment. I make the same amount from FSX:MS, FSX:SE, P3Dv1 or P3Dv2...

 

I honestly don't care what version anyone chooses to use, and neither should you. :Worried:

To be honest I can´t  find that specific thing about the zoom and who wrote it, had too many pints of lager, sorry!

 

At least have a laugh about how Nick Needham treat this whole cirkus, wonder why he not participate here anymore???

The claim that the zoom has changed is unadulterated buffalo cookies. The only thing remotely resembling zoom is that wide-screen is enabled by default. That being so, there is actually more being seen outside the windscreen rather than less.

 

As for Nick, he made himself personna non grata some years ago.

Question for those of you who say that FSX:SE is smoother or performs better than FSX Gold or Acceleration... speaking generally, and without getting into all the different details of your setups, how does FSX:SE perform in FSX "problem areas" - say, around major cities, in particular New York, Seattle and other such boat anchors.  One of the reasons I've been more satisfied with P3D v2 is that it's allowed me for the first time to fly smoothly in the New York - Washington DC corridor.  FSX with similar settings was a slideshow for me there.  If FSX:SE does notably better, that's one more reason I'd consider it.  How's it doing for you when it comes to urban sprawl?

Yes but try running P3D with a payware airliner and payware airport ....not so smooth then...also as no dedicated full screen is used equals no NI use to assist...which is a shame as it making steps forward...however not that impressed with the run down for 2.5..more aimed at the addon develops re sim director

 

I will stick with FSX FSXSE for now and see this year where all the platforms go...it is a big opportunity for all the developers so good times ahead we hope!

 

Best

True, but for me it's smoother than FSX Acceleration with comparable loads.  Different sets of tradeoffs.  I don't fly modern airliners but I do fly A2A Accusim aircraft, which carry their own processing burden.  In FSX I had to limit autogen to get decent frames, and sometimes couldn't get them at all.  In P3D I can push autogen and get good smooth frames in the same locales, but have to hold autogen at normal to avoid OOMs.  In other words, P3D is smooth right up until the moment it crashes because it's run out of VAS.  Therefore my question - if FSX SE can get me better frames than FSX Acceleration and not crash on me, then I'm interested.  Can it?

 

 

As a current user of FSX, I'm not sure I look positively on an infusion of new people into the hobby who have such little interest in flight simulation that they've only heard of FSX because of Steam

 

Snobbery is alive and well in the AVSIM forums. After all, we don't want want  nasty gamers polluting our pure simmers do we?

 

 

 

Question for those of you who say that FSX:SE is smoother or performs better than FSX Gold or Acceleration... speaking generally, and without getting into all the different details of your setups, how does FSX:SE perform in FSX "problem areas" - say, around major cities, in particular New York, Seattle and other such boat anchors.

 

Alan

This might go some way to answering your question, worth watching