so,my question to u.is it really that much to ask to the devs that deliver us a product which we can run at maxed settings with all our beloved addons & still maintain a reasonable min 30 to max 60 fps? i mean it's 2016.i don't think it's that much too ask.even if they fail in the end.we won't complain.if they come closer to accomplish that 

 

I think it's reasonable to expect 30-40 fps with all the add-ons you'd want to use at medium settings for eye candy, and not totally maxed out.

 

Maxed out should kill the frame rate, but there's a reason for that. It allows the user a way to further boost performance by purchasing stronger CPU/GPU hardware when it becomes available. If it's 3 years between major numbered versions of the flight sim, then that's 3 years you have to buy a new computer or graphics card and get a little closer to maxed-out performance.  :smile:

 

That's basically the design philosophy of X-Plane, as I understand it. The devs have said that their aim is always to build in features that the strongest current CPU/GPU can't run at maximum settings, as a form of future-proofing between versions.

 

So I think that's the way to go -- build for the future, and not for what today's hardware can run. But make darned sure the sim can at least run at a smooth stutter-free 30-40 fps at medium settings. That's a minimum requirement, and the eye candy should at least be commensurate with what we see in other contemporary flight sims (including the more advanced combat sims). 

I think it's reasonable to expect 30-40 fps with all the add-ons you'd want to use at medium settings for eye candy, and not totally maxed out.

 

Maxed out should kill the frame rate, but there's a reason for that. It allows the user a way to further boost performance by purchasing stronger CPU/GPU hardware when it becomes available. If it's 3 years between major numbered versions of the flight sim, then that's 3 years you have to buy a new computer or graphics card and get a little closer to maxed-out performance.  :smile:

 

That's basically the design philosophy of X-Plane, as I understand it. The devs have said that their aim is always to build in features that the strongest current CPU/GPU can't run at maximum settings, as a form of future-proofing between versions.

 

So I think that's the way to go -- build for the future, and not for what today's hardware can run. But make darned sure the sim can at least run at a smooth stutter-free 30-40 fps at medium settings. That's a minimum requirement, and the eye candy should at least be commensurate with what we see in other contemporary flight sims (including the more advanced combat sims). 

i guess u r mixing eye candy with realism ?

i'm dreaming of default airports layout updated with airac data, do you think it's possible ?? (and also, ground markings, with taxiways and gate numbers based on airac charts data)

i guess u r mixing eye candy with realism ?

Please feel free to use all the letters on your keyboard when typing your replies. We don't charge by the character after all...

Please feel free to use all the letters on your keyboard when typing your replies. We don't charge by the character after all...

Sorry,my mistake.You know texting habit

I've started to post several times on this thread, but each time I keep getting interrupted, and tell myself I'll come back later.

 

Well, I've come back, but this is after one of the best flying experiences I've had in quite some time: Version 3 of the freeware Douglas C-47 from some of the fine folks that hang out primarily over at SOH, available in the library here too, I believe.

 

This has once again thrown into disarray all of the things that I thought were going to be important to tell regarding my stance about what 'options' I want in a new flight simulator. It got me thinking, reminding myself that one of the reasons I enjoy flight simulation so much is because of all of the things that people have created out of love for the hobby. It reminded me of the numerous airports I've created, for myself, as well as part of a team effort. It reminded me of the countless hours so far that I've spent trying (without a heck of a lot to show for it to date) to build a workable sim model of the Rutan Q1 Quickie.

 

We forget sometimes, what with all the wonderfully marketed products thrown at us, that this hobby starts and ends with the community. I'm forever grateful to the individuals who have spent the time to give something wonderful back to the simulation community. The amazingly superb C-47 that I've just flown is a stark reminder of just why the community is so great, and so necessary.

 

So here, here's one major item:

 

I want the option to create and distribute my own products, to share such products for free, to ask for donation, or to sell for reimbursement as I see fit, where I see fit, based on an open, unlocked, simulation platform.

 

Anything less, and Dovetail Games will not only not get my support, but I will actively voice my disapproval in every community I am part of (which are many), in every form of media I have available to me, to every person I know (some of whom are surprisingly well known with the larger 'gaming' industry, in both creation and in mainstream gaming media).

 

Please don't fail us in this regard. Please continue to provide a reason and purpose for freeware libraries such as the ones here at Avsim, at SOH, at OZx, and elsewhere. Please continue to provide a reason for the healthy competition that currently exists between payware aircraft and scenery developers, between open and independent distributors such as Just Flight, FSS, SimMarket, and elsewhere.

 

I do not feel I'm asking for much. This is the legacy of the Flight Simulator platform, it is what endears it to so many of us, and it is what has made it into the extremely rich and varied entity that it is. My statement is what exists as status quo today for the majority of our simulation platforms that we use on a daily basis.  Dovetail games, if you attempt to pass off anything onto us that is less than what we currently have, you will assuredly create your own failure.

Whilst all this is happening, the CPU also has to perform complex fluid dynamics calculations in three dimensions in real time.

 

FSX & P3D? Uses tables afaik. So does X-Plane to some degree. You're making it sound like these sim's are virtual wind tunnels. Not even close.

What people are hoping for from DTG is something that works @ 60fps, looks smashing, is close enough to real physics or at least we can fool ourselves it's real (suspension of disbelief).

That's all I'm looking for in any sim. Currently I get that via X-Plane and to a lesser degree DCS. 

 

If DTG come up with a product that ticks those boxes that's cool I'll buy the product. But I sure as hell won't spend a brass razoo on any developer who labours the point on why they DON'T supply a feature.

 

 

Please feel free to use all the letters on your keyboard when typing your replies. We don't charge by the character after all...

 

Is this actually a rule here @ AVSIM?

Please feel free to use all the letters on your keyboard when typing your replies. We don't charge by the character after all...

 

I like that Bill!

 

Made me smile. :smile:

 

Kind regards,

 

 

Is this actually a rule here @ AVSIM?

 

Not sure, but it is always good manners.

 

 

Not sure, but it is always good manners.

 

In fact it has nothing to do with manners  .. or with the topic.

 

 

 

I want the option to create and distribute my own products, to share such products for free, to ask for donation, or to sell for reimbursement as I see fit, where I see fit, based on an open, unlocked, simulation platform.
 
Anything less, and Dovetail Games will not only not get my support, but I will actively voice my disapproval in every community I am part of (which are many), in every form of media I have available to me, to every person I know (some of whom are surprisingly well known with the larger 'gaming' industry, in both creation and in mainstream gaming media).
 
Please don't fail us in this regard. Please continue to provide a reason and purpose for freeware libraries such as the ones here at Avsim, at SOH, at OZx, and elsewhere. Please continue to provide a reason for the healthy competition that currently exists between payware aircraft and scenery developers, between open and independent distributors such as Just Flight, FSS, SimMarket, and elsewhere.

 

I think this post cuts 2 the heart of successful simming.

 

Ultimately the FS program will only b as gud & successful as the community, given the opportunity 2 build 4 it.

Is this actually a rule here @ AVSIM?

Of course not. On the other hand it is difficult enough to read every post* without having to mentally "translate" what folks have written.

 

*Nota bene: as a moderator I have to read every post, every day in multiple forums.

Of course not. On the other hand it is difficult enough to read every post* without having to mentally "translate" what folks have written.

 

*Nota bene: as a moderator I have to read every post, every day in multiple forums.

 

Roger that! This I can understand and respect; and thank you for responding, I will comply .

Thanks!
 
(sent from my keyboard by SpasticThumbs®)

The answer to this is very obvious and simple - like any other game we need settings available that affect the performance most to be able to run reasonably on wide range of hardware and situations. The developer is to know best, unless they just look to superficialy rehash an old program based on existing user feedback not interested in diving to its core to improve by making significant changes (in which case older performance settings will not necessarily apply or need to be asked). That is why I think it is being taken in negative way.

This is a fascinating discussion; and it's interesting to see the tweak/no-tweak debate. For the anti-tweakers, consider that the SDK that came with FSX was essentially an open invitation to tweak; and it is certainly the case that in the interests of optimizing their customers' experience of their products, third party providers have been actively guiding the community under the hood of the fsx.cfg file for a pretty long time (I'm thinking of two of the best, PMDG and ORBX). However, I also think new customers aren't coming to the sim to fiddle with how it works; and indeed, I'm like a number of people in this thread who have grown tired of the necessity of tweaking altogether.

 

I think in respect to the GUI, the best idea is that DTG should strike a balance that satisfies both camps. I think Paraffin's suggestion of an "Advanced" tab that opens up the sim on a granular level, like X-plane, is a really good idea. This would satisfy the sim-vets who do enjoy poking around under the hood . For the "basic" settings, maybe two or three presets that balance altitude, speed and amount of ai traffic (air, surface, and water).  These presets might be further categorized by the complexity of the aircraft the user intends to fly; I can hurl around at a pretty maxed-out low altitude in Dino C's Goshawk, but in something like Aeorsoft's F16, I have to dial scenery complexity way back to do the same thing. (Perhaps, if you embedded aircraft complexity in the presets, it becomes your third-party providers' responsibility to test their bird in the sim and recommend the best preset(s)).

I want the option to create and distribute my own products, to share such products for free, to ask for donation, or to sell for reimbursement as I see fit, where I see fit, based on an open, unlocked, simulation platform.

 

Anything less, and Dovetail Games will not only not get my support, but I will actively voice my disapproval in every community I am part of (which are many), in every form of media I have available to me, to every person I know (some of whom are surprisingly well known with the larger 'gaming' industry, in both creation and in mainstream gaming media).

 

 

So if a developer doesnt appease your personal demands and/or desires for a new sim, you will defame them as much as possible? Wow, they seems quite ridiculous. Seems like more of a threat than a request.