better flight model .. FS XI ??? or never ?

[Guest Agrajag]

I can't say I disagree with your concern. We're all struggling to get more performance and now I have to worry about boats moving on a schedule, animals, birds, whales, etc.They're all nice but to me that should happen when we have resources to spare. From what I've heard from afar and heard personally at E3, this isn't the case. Every time they talk about performance I see 18-25fps and they tell me this is with top SLI Nvidia cards on a cutting-edge system. Oops.

[n4gix 4,947]

>I can't say I disagree with your concern. We're all>struggling to get more performance and now I have to worry>about boats moving on a schedule, animals, birds, whales,>etc.>>They're all nice but to me that should happen when we have>resources to spare. From what I've heard from afar and heard>personally at E3, this isn't the case. Every time they talk>about performance I see 18-25fps and they tell me this is with>top SLI Nvidia cards on a cutting-edge system. Oops.You must have not noticed from the screenshots of the various configuration menus that all of these "features" are individually controlable:Commercial Aircraft: %General Aviatio: %Cars & Trucks: %Ships & Ferrys: %etc.Each 'category' has an individual slider to provide for 'fine tuning' the levels of detail YOU want... ;)

[Guest Agrajag]

Thanks Bill but doesn't it go without saying that I want 100% of everything they have? It's hard to comment with the beta as it's beta but it's now a very LATE beta (in the sense that it's getting close to Gold time). I'd like to know what they expect performance to be like with an FS9-like presentation on decent current equipment.As I've mentioned elsewhere, when I learned they were finally going to directly support GPU's and reduce the 100% CPU-bound nature of the product I started thinking we'd finally have some resources to burn. Thus I was hoping that if FSX could present an FS9-level presentation that I'd be able to choose that plus have decent weather, a few sceneries and maybe even nice AI (though I don't use it myself right now) and get previously unreachable speeds. I'm not hearing anything like this. Hey, if the above can run without hiccups at say 30fps and all the new stuff brings you down from there then I know it's just a matter of realistic time before I can reach that level with the new features. I guess I'm saying show me FSX with an acceptable set of feature settings running WELL on a typical current setup. I'd love to see it running decently on a P4 3GHz with 1GB RAM and a normal single-card GPU that's within 2 generations of current.

[Byrna 0]

I think I understand now. Being a relative "new-comer" to Flight Simulation (since 2003), I was demanding stuff that MS could not provide it seems.Yes, FS does look like an excellent BASE platform from which to build using 3rd party freeware and payware. One might call it a "modular" program and the components can be moved around, "re-sized" (e.g. increasing scenery complexity with add-ons) and specific components changed or added (e.g. changing just the panel on the default 744).But this stuff just mentioned above about trains and ferry boats...! Oh my - who on Earth needs those? In any case, as long as we can turn them off and hopefully the performance is good (e.g. 18fps) on a medium-high end system. I for one will be upgrading in December or January to a dual-core CPU platform but I doubt I'd be getting TWO video cards with SLI - that's ridiculous and ridiculously expensive for my budget.John

[LAdamson 240]

>But this stuff just mentioned above about trains and ferry>boats...! Oh my - who on Earth needs those? Come to think of it, FX could use some moving snowmobiles, smoke from a high mountain logging camp, and maybe a few vehicles traversing those windy mountain roads. Give me that, and it will be much more realistic! At least that's what I see, when I fly! :-hah L.Adamson

[Geofa 108]

Yeah-I don't know how many birds I almost had an encounter with today when flying- and even a groundhog on the runway we took off on... (let alone all the cars on the roads and boats in the hundreds of lakes that populate my state). I guess I'll take them-anything that makes the experience more real! :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Byrna 0]

Do you fly GA aircraft or bush planes by any chance? I will probably start flying the smaller aircraft in FS but for now, I fly the commercial jets so no snowmobiles for me! :)John

[Guest Panther13]

Hello tdragger,>However, the fundamental system we have now>satisifies the needs of the very vast majority of users so>there's little benefit from overhauling it.I'm a MSFS enthusiast from the first versions (FS2) and I can truly say that MSFS brought me to real-world flying (I have a soaring license).After reading the FSX news I'm also pretty sure that FSX will offer exciting features and will be a top-notch product which continues the tradition of setting highest standards.But:The flight model IS in my opinion the biggest weakness of this sim! When flying it feels like if you are on rails, e.g. turbulences are very, very easy to deal with compared to real-life even in the most realistic settings and the worst weather possible!I understand very well that the majority of FS users cannot be confronted with a truly realistic flight model, as it will be too difficult for them and will decrease their amount of fun with the product.But the important community of real pilots (who are very important for the whole MSFS community) WILL move to other products which offer more in the field of realism if this problem is not dealt with. This would be very sad for this great international community!I think I've got a very good solution: Plan (a): I strongly suggest to improve the current aerodynamic model and to offer a new and more difficult flight model as an optional configuration setting for experienced pilots!Plan (:(: If a new flight model cannot be developed by MS, more things about the flight model should be made configurable to allow 3rd Party developers to construct more realistic flight models!!Although the 'eye-candy' aspects will bring market success in terms of sales figures for FSX, the realism aspects will in my opinion be more important for the long-term success of MSFS!I'd be glad if Microsoft could think about this again!Keep up the great work, and I wish you much success with your new product!Kind RegardsMartin Hoefs