Have payware add-on developers lost the plot?

[gmoneyprs 2]

Because its much cheaper and i don't need such a sophisticated VAS hungry addon since i don't have as much time to fly as i would like.

 

From an owner of both, I would strongly urge you to rethink this. What the PMDG consumes in VAS, the CS consumes in additional CPU-intensity (read: FPS). Also, even at v1.6, the CS still has some rather unforgivable bugs and quirks. And it's not like the CS uses that much less VAS. Folks may not outwardly write this here on the forums (or be aware, for that matter) but the PMDG 777 is one of the most efficiently-written pieces of FS software I've ever seen. Considering all that is coded and modeled into it, its share of VAS and CPU resources almost defies mathematics.

 

What's the old saying? - "Buy once, cry once"? Duly true in this case.

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

I never understood why Captain Sim includes a model of the toilets and the seat backs go up and down and trays go up and down on and you can open the overhead compartments.

 

Was this really necessary???

[Milviz 919]

To add to Rob's (Young) post, clients also want the price to stay the same while we have to absorb the added cost of all these new (and costly) features... You have any idea how much a moving armrest costs to make????

[Bjoern 1,157]

Moving armrests aren't a bad feature if you need access to the middle console without moving your eyepoint. Quite easy to implement as well.

[Manny 1,293]

The OP has a valid point and I am in agreement.

 

Its where do you spend the badly needed memory...inside the terminal buildings and other non important (relatively speaking) or do you spend it on eye candy for approach.

 

Both are for eye candy but I'd rather have lots of realism (realistic autogens on approach, like city buildings next to the airport) when I am approaching to land than eyecandy after I pull over to the terminal at the end of the flight.

On an aircraft I like detailed VC and exterior..beoynd these two I'd like to get rid of all the memory consumers.. I don't care for seats and passenger area. IF there is a way to get rid of those seats on the PMDG 777 which may give me few more VAS. I'd take it. Forget about bathrooms and toilet that is silly.

[gfd 15]

I'm going to be in the minority here and say let's get all the immersion we can. I look forward to the day when I can drive to the airport, buy the razor I forgot, have a coffee, plan the flight with my first officer and hop in the plane. That is what will attract new blood to the hobby. Not the fact that my aircraft's physics are within 2 % of the real thing. That is amazing, but esoteric. It's like the debate about FPS and smooth. Note: no criticism implied. Smooth is perception. My smooth may be garbage to others. I don't care. I only care if I think it's smooth.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for accuracy, but I think folks like Orbx are making a bet on the future. They are betting that SLI, 64 bit, DX12, will offer opportunities to expand the reach of scenery. If they don't, one of two things will happen. Our hardware will advance making their scenery mundane, and someone will fill the gap. Or we will stop upgrading our hardware, because it will no longer be necessary. I don't think either of those two things will happen.

 

I think human nature, being what it is, we will be uncomfortable with the fact that our hardware cannot properly run the software we've installed on it. We will blame the extra bells and whistles in the software. Hardware will, for a time, catch up to the software. The software we were uncomfortable with, will be normal. Software will advance.....and on and on. Those of you in the computer industry would realize this is necessary for the survival of the market. Advances in software drive hardware sales. Advances in hardware make advances in software possible. Perfectly symbiotic.

 

Having said all this, I find some things seriously lacking in the way developers craft our software. Who designs this stuff from a functional standpoint? It's like a gong show. Why doesn't every aircraft developer have a utility to allow one to properly place themselves in the cockpit they so meticulously designed? You know, line something up so you are in the right place. Make something a certain size so the zoom is right. Or give us a picture of what a real life Captain would expect to see when looking out the window. I find that far more aggravating than the fact there is no wing flex in an Aerosoft Airbus or that I can walk inside an airport. Walking inside an airport will probably blow my performance down the toilet today...but not in 2 years. Why doesn't every aircraft manufacturer create variables for every one of their controls, so those of us who wish to, can assign everything to a controller?...stuff like that.

 

I think the most fascinating thing about flight simulation, is we're always on the edge. This is not a closed system, like Apple (no criticism) would design. It is a typical Microsoft proprietary open source project. Aggravating to max and exhilarating; and it requires work...work that drives you crazy and satisfies you completely when it's done. In 10 years, when we're sitting down for a coffee with our virtual lover, before hopping in our virtual car to drive to our virtual airport, we'll be concerned because we're only getting 25FPS.

 

I salute the developers who push the envelope. Above all, I salute you guys, who wrestle with it every day.

 

 

[ANAMIV 21]

Don't waste time looking for "One FSX.combo suits all". It just ain't going to happen!

 

Anamiv

[n4gix 4,947]

This obsession with the new against the lasting is becoming the default position of some.

Does anyone remember the flushing toilet from years ago?

[robert young 2,897]

gfd: I'm not altogether sure that 64 bit will provide the magic everyone is looking for. Even if the data throughput and bandwidth is wider you still have a lot of calculations that need to be processed all at once by the processor, however wide the channel. It so depends on what is done to use the increased bit count efficiently. I hope I'm wrong.

[virtualstuff 758]

Does anyone remember the flushing toilet from years ago?

 

Even market as such   It was busy with flushing sounds in the virtual skies and wet desktop chairs because everybody forgot to visit the real toilet

[gmoneyprs 2]

gfd: I'm not altogether sure that 64 bit will provide the magic everyone is looking for. Even if the data throughput and bandwidth is wider you still have a lot of calculations that need to be processed all at once by the processor, however wide the channel. It so depends on what is done to use the increased bit count efficiently. I hope I'm wrong.

 

That's a good point. So much so that I actually fear that 64-bit will make some developers lazy, slothful or some combination thereof. Hey, no VAS restrictions here... imagine all of the "eye candy" and trivial details that will now make it in to the whole breadth of addons. Modern CPUs have a hard enough time with FSX and P3D, just imagine the ultra-detailed A380 that will come out with a VAS footprint of 12 gigabytes. Lol, no one will be able to run the darn thing. Or the brand KJFK with a VAS footprint of 32 gigabytes because it includes every fish in Jamaica Bay...

[AviatorMoser 353]

What the next flight simulator needs is good memory management above anything. 64-bit would just allow for more mismanaged memory.

[zmak 331]

Does anyone remember the flushing toilet from years ago?

The next step I fear will be the water flushing counter clock wise in the southern hemisphere only  :rolleyes:

[Manny 1,293]

What the next flight simulator needs is good memory management above anything. 64-bit would just allow for more mismanaged memory.

 

Hmmm.. 

 

We don't have enough room so someone says we will create more room..maybe lots and lots of room like....

  18,446,744,073,709,600,000 

 

compared to

 

                       4,294,967,296 

 

 

Its not double the size or triple size...or 4 times the size...

 

So whats the complain? someone is going to misuse the space? Hmmm

 

[Jimmy RFR 406]

I'm all for as much detail in the 'office' as possible, and then as much as I can see from there, within reason. 

 

Everything from movable armrests to opening glove boxes, if I can see it from the chair I'm supposed to be sitting in while I'm flying the thing, I'm all for it.  But outside of that cockpit, I'm only into it so long as it doesn't affect performance.

 

When it comes to looking outside the window, I ideally want everything to look picture perfect, but only so far as what I can actually see from that window!  And even then, I'll gladly take a reduction in realism in the modelling and textures to preserve a fluid and immersive simulation.  It's funny, the more you increase the immersion of the scenery by upping the apparent realism, the more it ends up hurting immersion by affecting performance.

 

The FTX regions are popular with me not because I can buy umpteen dozen super duper addon airports, but because they feature nicely populated two-steps-up-from-default airports.  Places that still look decent, but you never have to worry about framerates with.

 

By that same token, there are so many freeware airports that fit the bill perfectly as well.

 

TLDR version is that I'm all for as much detail in the cockpit as possible, but I'll easily pass on bloated scenery if I get the feeling that it will negatively impact performance.