>No comment on FSX, innovation and Microsoft's marketing>model, but the said marketing model is certainly used by>NVidia and ATI. Case in point, the refusal of NVidia to use>universal shaders in its first DX10 card.Which is why I'll be buying the AMD card - haven't been all that happy with my 7800 anyway - Nvidia's drivers have gone down the toilet as of late...

I never tried Sierra's Pro Pilot but I can relate to what you're saying. A few years back we had Sierra's Pro Pilot, TRI's Fly2, Flight Unlimited 3 and X-plane. All with their own unique features, pro's and con's. MS had to work hard on FlightSim to make it compete with the others. It was the time we made the jump from Fs2000 to FS2002.Now most competitors have gone and we have only FS and X-plane to choose from. Since FS2002 the FS codebase was tweaked and adjusted. Nothing major was added. We got pretty clouds in FS2004 (that ate our processor cycles), ATC (Fly2K already had this), an improved GPS and a slightly beter VC. FS-X gives us more eyecandy, higher scenery texture res and again a slightly beter VC... what is it that is revolutionary about FS-X? Moving cars and AI birds? Fly2 had AI birds... FS2000 had moving car headlights on every road. Missions? Pilot Wings 64 for the N64 had great missions. We are shopping for features creating a sixed leg for an already 5 legged scheep.The only possible draw that FS-X could have for me is more stability, less blurries and better performance. Until now I only have promisses that this version will perform beter. It almost looks like performance was an afterthought, it appears as if new features where bolted onto the old code and only after that there is the bug fixing and finaly a performance improvement. All the while at least 2 key project members seek new challenges or leave Microsoft. None of the improved performance code is in the Demo or the Beta3. I have to trust somebody from Microsoft that says things will be beter, performance will improve and the patch (DX10) will come. I'm very sorry for the Aces guys but my many years of experience with Microsoft has trained me not to trust Microsoft (I mean the company nothing against the new improved communicating with the fanbase ACES guys) on such claims. So basicly I want proof before I buy.On my current machine I run FS2002 (Dreamfleet 737), FS2004 (great scenery add-ons, Real Air aircraft, PMDG 737), Fly!2K (superb panels, great GA aircraft, great Ruhr scenery), Fly2 (superb panels, great GA aircraft, nice, easy & free scenery development) and X-plane (great tinkering, making your own aircraft) regulary.If only Fly2 had been developed further (with a beter budget and more time). The Fly community had the great always listening to the fanbase Richard Harvey. There where developers like Real Air and PMDG making the greatest add-ons.

So Steve, you use a poor screenshot from a simmer running Windows 98, on obsolete architecture, who obviouly doesn't know how to get the best out of his setup, using an old version of Flight Sim, to justify your opinion of FSX, which you've only tried on an incomplete demo, which is accepted as being bug-ridden and pre-beta, and with that amount of blinkering you think you're entitled to a World View about Microsoft and the future of the Flight Sim franchise? Best laugh I've had all week! Then I read you're a Linux user. Man, I just fell about the place.:)Thanks for the opinion.Allcott

Mention the improvements you have from FS2002 to FS-X. Pay attention to the fact that the poster of that screenshot has to get a new top off the line computer to run FS-X and then he can judge if its worth for him...You might want to try to counter Steve's posts with facts. Making him look ridiculous is a bit below the belt and it doesn't add anything to the discussion. Calling the demo a bug ridden pre-beta is nice but we have something called BETA3 that shows similar bugs and performance issues. Let me see BETA3 must be even beter then just BETA?FS2002 - FS2004 - FS-X I see only small evolutionary steps between those versions. Only the 3rd party add-ons made upgrading to FS2004 worthwile (for the way I use the program). That is my personal opionion and I'm willing to discuss about that.

I think that in a free conversation, everyone

Re FSX, I may pass on it, I'm overdue to skip a version anyway. Two major innovations in FSX, ie enhanced multiplayer and missions, are of no interest to me, that leaves graphics.I'm essentially a heavy iron gate to gate vc man - traffic, wet surfaces, wet water :), greatly improved terrain etc are all truly fantastic but simply do not justify (in my situation) the cost of a h/w upgrade. Nor does it justify trying to start all over again with a limited FSX on my current setup.I may just get GE pro, suck salt and stay behind the curve on this one - just maybe.regards,MarkXPHomeSP2/FS9.1/3.2HT/1024mb/X700pro256

For several years, I favored Pro-Pilot over MSFS. I was also known as a Pro-Pilot shill around the MSFS forums. As my interest was in accurate topography, FS98 just didn't have it.However, the Pro-Pilot 2000 Hawaii "beta" sucked; it really did! The flight models had degraded, as they started to do with Pro_pilot 99, and the 640*480 resolution still looked awful in comparison to newer sims.By that time, those "Microsoft people", had went all out, to include much better levels of data-bases, high resolution visuals, and some excellent flight models beginning with Microsoft's Combat Simulator II.To say "zero" interest on MS's part, is rediculous, and un-founded!L.Adamson --- Former Pro-Pilot shill, had a Avsim member Pro-Pilot party in my backyard, and a "end of" Pro-Pilot cemetary with tombstone, now covered by a lawnmower shed. :D

With FSX, the only things I find that are "better", at least to a degree befitting a completely new version that's been 3 years in the making, are the presence of birds, stock watercraft and the improvements in the rendering of clouds versus sky & horizon. And this shows that you don't really understand what goes on behind the scenes. I am sure if they listed all the improvments it would most certainly be a very very long list not to mention some the SDK "options" major developers have asked for. It also seems that you somehow believe Bill is sitting at the Aces desk pushing buttons which is simply wrong. This reminds me of that Apple commercial where they put down windows and then create all their newer computers with Intel CPUs giving them the ability to run Windows too ;-). Best,Randy J. Smith

I guess the thing that I find interesting is that apparently Windows Vista IS going to be necessary to get the maximum out of FSX.I saw a news blurb that said that the pricing of Vista was going to be in the neighborhood of $ 100 for an upgrade from XP to Vista Basic and that the top of the line Vista variant (where most of the bells and whistles appear to be) was going to be $259 to upgrade from XP.From what I saw of the Demo ( which I have de-installed as Not Ready for Prime Time), my machine is going to be on the low end for FSX, so if I have to upgrade my current specs ( can you spell new machine?) and then bite the bullet for an expensive OS upgrade and THEN FSX, well, then that's going to be some cause for thought to say the least.......And I thought my current setup was pretty good.....System Specs:gigaByte 8INXP HT enabledPIV@ 3.062G PC 266 DDRRadeon x850 Pro 256Santa Cruz Turtle Beach Sound3 7200 RPM HDSaitex X-45Win XP ProEd GreenKCLThttp://www.panelshop.com/Banners/DEV.jpg

---

http://www.oncourse-software.co.uk/forum_images/fdc_beta.jpg

Hi,Once more a comment by the "simmer running Windows 98, on obsolete architecture, who obviouly doesn't know how to get the best out of his setup, using an old version of Flight Sim".Well, it is not that I am stupid or something because I still use W98SE and FS8. So what is meant by not knowing how to get the best out of his setup?Let me make myself clear. I am going to purchase FSX and I am going to buy myself a new high end computer. I am even more than pleased that FSX needs the newest hard and software. That way at least, you hope you can expect something completely different from what you have now.Unfortunately, from what I have seen so far, and that is why I put the screenshot on the forum, FSX does not look so different at all.Perhaps the screenshots I have seen, were meant to state that FSX is not perfect, I do not know.That is why (amongst other things)I would like:- to see a screenshot of a real color sea or ocean;- to get an explanation about the new ATC compared to the earlier one;- to know about the new AI capabilities.All in all, MS with their FS have given me a lot of pleasure and of course we always want better. We will probably soon already look forward to, speculate about and send suggestions for FSXI. That is the way it goes.Roby

I'm not an eye candy simmer, but even I see a difference. :) The quality of this jpeg has been reduced substantially, but I feel it does show an improvement in the environment.Bob...http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/155679.jpg

First off...By ranting about Microsoft stifiling creativity, ranting about Windows security, admitting to being a Linux guy, and generally blaming Bill Gates for the direction of Flight Simulator, I can't help but profile you into someone who will never be happy with Microsoft no matter what the result. You might as well have referred to them as Miro$oft to complete the package. Perhaps you would be better suited flying with "Flightgear", as you will be unincumbered by the apparent axis of evil that Microsoft seems to hold over your computers. After all, Flightgear is a community based project and like Linux, is free from the man's corporate meddling. If you find innovation is absent in the Linux world of flight simulators, perhaps it's worth looking to see why (*innovative things are happening elsewhere, perhaps?). But I digress...The Myth of the SlidersSteve wrote..."Of course, there are a million and one new options available that provide for increases in level of detail for various aspects of the FS world, but when one is unable to set any of those options to levels beyond about 50% of what can be achieved with FS9 without bogging a cutting-edge box down to about 5 FPS or worse, all those neat little "wish-list" options are nothing more than a sickening, frustrating tease."(*based on old test code)Let's make this *reaaaal* simple. If Microsoft were to design a simulator that would perform smoothly on today's high end computers at its highest detail sliders, you would have something not much better than FS2004. You can't get better detail and higher-quality visuals for nothing and software optimizations can only take you so far.Unlike some other game producers, MS has done VERY well to design simulations that truly shine on computer systems a generation or two down the road. This is a brilliant plan! It gives the community a new program to use and enjoy for a few years while they work on a new one, and allows us as users to reap MORE benefits of hardware upgrades down the road rather than just getting the same old visuals for 3 years. The current slider settings not withstanding, Microsoft has gone further an indicated that FSX will eventually be made to take advantage of DirectX 10. Even without DX10, FSX is a huge visual leap from previous versions. But true to form, Microsoft/ACES has plans to insure that today's program will eventually be able to take advantage of tomorrow's cutting edge hardware... which will turn into "next week's" common hardware. (*sidenote - you are all aware that DX10 cards at the time of their first release will probably cost more than today's bleeding edge fastest gaming cards, right?) Putting the slider situation another way:If you put FS2004 and FSX head-to-head with equal perceived performance values (smoothness and frames), FSX looks superior. Improvements have been made to landclass and roadways, texturing, the feeling of flight (flight models), environmental effects, autogen, weather, and a host of other things - all of which make for a better experience. Sure, your sliders in FS2004 may be 100%, but the equivilant setting in FSX may only be 50% or less! The position of the slider doesn't matter, its what is being driven by it that counts.Now, if you were indeed stuck with that experience for another three years on three more years worth of hardware, it would be fair to complain that Microsoft didn't do enough to improve the product. But wait! They had the foresight to make the program extend beyond what today's computers can easily render!! As time marches on, those who buy their first computer, or us enthusiasts who upgrade their existing one will be able to tick up the settings a few notches and have an even more rich experience. Invisible InnovationThe platform as a whole has improved, too. Scan through the SDK discussions... developers, novice and expert alike, are abuzz about how Microsoft has created a framework to open the architecture of the simulator. Innovation doesn't need to be in-your-face - this backside improvement will undoubtedly lead to addons and utilities which will make FS2004 addons PALE in comparison. Even with the beta, armchair programmers are taking to creating new missions and learning some of the interconnections that can be made with the new connection API's. Additionally, some of the new features simply can't be taken advantage of today such as the capabilities of FSX to display extremely high-resolution ground textures. This opens the door to amazing photo scenery possibilities. Although FSX will ship with 1m textures, the sliders seem to indicate the possibility of dropping into the centimeters range! You can't see with your eyes now, but just IMAGINE the experience. (*and imagine the terabyte SAN your desktop would need to support it!) ExpectationsThe common theme of those disappointed with the new version seems to revolve around performance. Unfortunately, I don't feel all that sorry for them... Even in it's unfinished, unoptimized and buggy state, Microsoft has created a program that performs better than the previous version with the same visual detail. At the same time, they've both created a platform which extends to tomorrows technology, AND significantly improved or created new ancillary details with their multiplayer system, connection API's and mission system. To think you would get a "full-slider" experience with the SAME hardware you have now is simply unrealistic. Even if you look to previous MSFS versions, they were designed around this same premise. I distinctly remember people who didn't get it grousing about FS2004's performance, but many of those same people today on their new computers think that those programs run like the cat's meow... (because they do!) As many have, I've witnessed the progression of computer hardware over time since subLogic FS II on my Commidore 64. From the C64, to EGA, to VGA, to SVGA, to 3-D acceleration, as well as the CPU power changes at each step. Lately though, it can be said that display technologies have become less exponential in their improvements, and more sublime - visual renderers improve their polys per second and texture fill rates, but they don't have the same generational rate of change that we saw in the past. To expect some sort of major generational *pop!* change for this new version of FS doesn't fall in line with how the computer hardware industry is working these days (*Intel itself is dropping workers, and industry experts are lamenting a stagnation in HARDWARE innovation which is driving computer costs downward). Will DX10 change that for the gaming world? It remains to be seen.STOP feeling like you are missing out by not running 100% sliders. NOBODY will be able to run at 100% on October... consider that extra range on the slider to the right as "Settings Savings Account", and you will reap the benefits down the road. Tailor the experience to run well on your PC in the fall, and simply enjoy... or stick woith FS2004 and wait on FSX until you have a PC capable of running FSX the way you wish it to... the choice remains yours. But to declare the prgram as stale and stifled because you don't grasp the concepts of designing a program for future capabilities is an unfortunate way to approach any new version. Bravo, Indeed!You are being offered a program that improves the flight simulation experience AND insures that the experience will continue to improve as your computer become more powerful. If you are happy with your FS2004 performance, then by all means remain with it - there's nobody forcing your purchase of anything new. But if you are interested in a more detailed world, noticably better flight dynamic improvements, missions to excite your flying experience, multiplayer fidelty rivaling that of LOMAC, modern-day graphical engine improvements, and add-on possibilities that exceed our imagination, then look no further than FSX.Innovation indeed. Truely,BRAVO to ACES.

> And this shows that you don't really understand what goes on>behind the scenes. I am sure if they listed all the>improvments it would most certainly be a very very long list>not to mention some the SDK "options" major developers have>asked for.He is talking about the thing HE finds better. So technical improvements behind the screens? I couldn't care less.... There is little major headturning new in this release that I (personaly) can't do without. It will depend on the FS-X add-ons that actually use the super duper behind the scenes function you mention to deliver add-ons that surpass the current FS9 add-ons... The one thing I hope they get right in FS-X is good performance out of the box. The Demo and BETA3 are a dissapointment when you look at performance. If they make good their promis of more FPS and less blurries FS-X might get intresting. But only as a base for 3rd party add-ons. (just like every other FS200x release)

Having been on 2 betas now (FS9 and FSX), I can tell you without a doubt as far as the ACES/MSFS team members go, they are giving 110% and then some. They are in it for the long haul, and if you're in these forums, then you're more then just an user yourself and I think we all owe some sort of respect to those folks over there.Putting all the technical issues, troubles and worries, and in's and out's of the sim, new OS, etc. aside for just a sec, let's take an objective look at things for a sec.I've been watching and listening to not only the daily dev stuff but all the other daily grueling tasks they are doing as well, like making numerous FS conventions in mutiple countries. I can tell you I wouldn't want to have their schedule.I don't think most of you realize the actual firsts we've seen here outside of the actual dev process:1. The first and most significant one being that they actually got to personally get out into the community and talk directly to you and take all your crap that was normally reserved for people like me.2. The second one being, they went physically out to the community in mass this time, even to smaller events.3. They provided an enromous amount of information through personal blogging.Now does all that sound like a team that doesn't care?Let me say this in general about our hobby the way I see it:1. Most of us here, me included, have been so engrossed in FS and add-ons, etc., over the years, that it's very hard sometimes to look at a new version and see major improvments without taking a serious step back and doing an actual comparison between the previous version and the new version.2. The availability for anyone to produce high fidelity add-ons for FS is pretty much now getting to the point where we CAN in fact come very close to simulating just about everything we can imagine given the technology of computers in general. What this means is that people are NOT going to understand why certain little things can't be done no matter what you tell them. People are going to automatically assume that each and every add-on should simulate 100% what they're buying. The lines are going to get even more blurry after the release of FSX. Sticking with FS, more on the add-on debate for a later time. I can't say that I blame the general end user either, because we're at the point now of pretty much needing real world charts, navdata updates, hardware and visual systems, etc., just like real world pilots need for when they go into level D sims. The only difference now is that we can just about do it all from 1 PC. This is going to make it really hard for most users to understand because we've made it so convenient to have an all in one package that's just about as real as any other training device. Now you can tell me that's BS about my referencing level D sims, but I'm not talking about the motion and actual cockpit environment, but more along the line of what we actually simulate (not physics) in terms of 'how' we fly around the world in our sims. Take an actual look at what you're doing on a day to day basis, and what information you need to actually complete a flight, and you'll see how I'm referencing our sim here. Maybe someone can better express what I'm trying to get at.The new sim iteself:A few general notes and disclaimers here. EVERYONE including the ACES team aren't going to get everything we wanted. I'm sure even a few key issues may be left out or not enhanced/updated. 1 or 2 maybe will be major enough to require 3rd party developers to create or modify them. That's nothing new there, however,...by NO MEANS will they be show stoppers....and to boot...we also now have the ability through the VERY powerful SimConnect which is 10X of a more powerful tool to now interface with the sim itself, will prove to be perfect method as we go along, to make further adjustments and enhancements to the sim. The ACES team is fully committed to SimConnect and its future. Personally I was against backwards compatibility simply because only maybe only 1-2 total people are running FS98 and/or 2002 combined. FS9 uses GMAX/photshop (or similar) to generally make models and texture them. The new FSX is the same way, so what was the purpose? All that would be needed for an add on to convert their add ons over would be to jerk out any old SCASM/ASM code or whatever then adjust for the new features and new compiling techniques as needed (in laymans terms), so why not concentrate on enhancing other areas? Other than that, no real changes would need to be made to make new stuff for FSX because we're already using GMAX/3ds and PS. that's 99.9% of the whole deal right there when you get down to it. The other 1% are in the new tools and SDK's. Maybe a little bit of a learning curve and "Arno-ization" here and there as with any new platform but no big deal. Acutally it will probably be easier with FSX. Along the same lines I was against the DX9/XP version all together. With VISTA and DX10 so close, why not just wait, push it back till just after the new year and just do 1 version for DX10? I'm sort of glad now that there is a DX9/XP version because it gets us off the beta and back to the business of making add-ons which we so desperatley need to do. It also looks like the time frame for DX10 and Vista might be larger then we thought originally. It also gives us sort of a jump on whats to come with a possible DX10 version actually making it a little easier, 'potentially', in hopefully cutting our dev time down once we've converted our FS9 stuff over. So in short, maybe it's not that big a of a deal.The timing of the marketing made it a little difficult for everyone that got the File Planet Beta/demo to not only see the improvments in the sim, but understand what was actually done to improve the overall quality of the new FS despite all the blogging by ACES.1. The hardware versus software catch up paradox. Which comes first now? The chicken or the egg?The new FS is kind of in a strange position because it's coming out in a time where we're supposed to see a whole new OS and graphics interface very soon. The problem is the dev schedule doesn't line up with the new OS or DX schedule, so choices had to be made (I assume). It seems that a choice was made to make a version which was 'vanilla' XP/DX9. That's what your seeing now minus the optimization that's already in the 'RC1' build according the blogs (Paul I think).Another problem is created because it makes it that much harder for the end user to see the actual progres already made for the XP/DX9 version thus more confusion and dissapointment set in.2. Even with this 'DX9' version the overal outside environment is 10X better. Even with the blurries, if you can't see that versus FS9 (with UT/GE pro or whatever), then you definately have a screw loose. I suggest you load up at SITKA Alaska to get a better feel for the new environment where you can 'slide' more to the right. I can't even imagine what it will look like in DX10/Vista.This alone folks, was a much needed area of improvment, even if you're a so called IFR flyer whether you realize it or not.Now, we could go on and on about all the other features, but that's not really the point. To tell you the truth, I'm starting to loose my own train of thought.What does all this ultimately mean to you? Do I need to go out and spend a ton of money on new hardware?I would say unless you have a low end to medium-low system you probably do not have to worry about doing anything for this version. Thats a hard one to gauge simply because I do not know what each of your specs are. Even if I did, it would be highly subjective because most of you refuse to understand the difference between the relationship of frame rates versus fluidity. I, personally am going to wait for VISTA/DX10 before doing any hardware upgrades, especially since it's 'seemingly' just around the corner and the DX9 version of FS should run just fine on the system I've had now for 3+ years. We'll ultimately see what happens when we all get our brand new shiney FSX.I think the other hidden gem in this new version will be the huge potential for future advancements and enhancments as we go along and get rooted into FSX. I don't think we'll fully realize them until later on.The bottom line is I think once we all get the new FSX, we'll hopefully get to see that it is actually a better sim and well worth the money. I am really looking forward to it myself.I hope I made some point that most of can at least relate to. Think about what you're trying to cram into the sim for just a second. We all know that there are some what we would call no brainers, but that's the way it goes sometimes, and no doubt the team will continue to improve and enhance. I certainly don't think it's the end of the world or simming as we know it...lol.

Ed that's what's got me holding onto FS9 that much longer (the price of admission without the availability of the next OS). Vista Basic would be comparable to XP Home which no simmer in their right mind would get. I know with every Flight Simulator upgrade there's always cost but our hobby still officially holds the title as one of the least expensive hobbies to get into (especially compared to the cost of real world aviation)...Full FSX upgrade estimate:FSX - $65Video Card - $400New Computer - $1500Upgrade price of various add-ons - $600 ($30 x 20) I know this one is personal choice but I chose 20 as a nice round figure to represent most of us.Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate Upgrade DVD-Rom - $260 if not preinstalled on the machine (this is why I say wait and upgrade to FSX after Vista. Running FSX on most peoples current box may or may not be good or at least comparable to FS9. Why buy a new machine with preinstalled XP and then pay another $260 when Vista arrives???)Total for an FSX upgrade: $2825 (Price may vary depending on whether one wants to put the effort into building a new system by hand)The original poster has some valid concerns as I too feel FSX could have offered more underlying elements after 3+ years of development. I guess like most have said it's best to hold off judgment until the final release. FSX may have more than we realize and may surprise me of all people on the performance front.