>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 Sliders>>Steve 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 Innovation>>The 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!) >>Expectations>>The 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.Wow I was about to jump into this post, but you said it all, for me atleast, well said :)

>No, not in the beginning - after all,>innovation was the means by which Microsoft came to rule the>software world. But once they became God, they took a well>planned 180.>thats actually a 180 from the truth, infact Microsoft stole the idea of DOS and Windows among other things. Once they became more powerful, instead of creating ideas, they just went out and purchased companies that had them, then watered them down for long term commercial use.I dont think anybody is knocking ACES, I think the biggest knock comes on Microsoft not spending enough money towards the development team and budget, and their overall bully tactics towards other software companies who threaten their profits. But it isnt just Microsoft, look at what Electronic Arts did when they had competition with another company with their football video game, they went out and made a deal with the league to have exclusive rights. That is how Microsoft became big in the first place.And XP being popular and Windows being the dominant system only means people have no other choices when they want to do things like play games and do basic home office work

I've flight simmed since sublogic days and owned every version of MSFS. MS has made some innovation since they acquired the program, but the original poster has a point: It has slowed recently. MS needs no defenders.The real creativity has been in the community and add-on industry. These guys innovate! MS has brought its formidable resources to FS9 and this has resulted in FSX. It can help but be better as a result. But innovation? Not really as far as I can see. I'm counting on MS to keep improving the basic platform and add-on developers to be creative. Currently, I have add-on terrain mesh, add-on landclass, add-on airports and scenery, add-on ATC, add-on flight planning, add-on weather, add-on traffic, add-on moving maps and flight data recording, and i fly only add-on aircraft. I rely on add-on programs to manage my fleet, debug scenery, create audible checklists and crew communications, fill my plane with passengers, evaluate my flying, calibrate my joystick, edit panels and guages, build traffic, tweak my system to maximize perfomance, fix the time bugs, use the program over a networked computers, edit configuration files, and on and on. The only time I really "see" MSFS 9 is at the splash screen and the Select a Flight screen. I'm hoping MS has given us a better platform in FSX but nothing I've seen suggests that they were innovative (and indeed they seem to be oriented toward the arcade vs sim crowd). If they have improved the basic engine and graphics, I'll be thankful. But doing something innovative? I'm counting on the the add-on developers for that. I figure it will be months before i can afford a new computer to run FSX, and in that time I look forward to what the add-on developers do.

Actually, FSX is FS9 with roads, coastlines, forests, textures, and multiplayer. 3rd party add-ons, brilliantly done as they are, have created a clever illusion to us that "this" is the state of the sim...that is, FS9 looks like it does with a half-dozen add-ons running in concert with it. Because most people that really enjoy Flight Simulator regularly purchase these add-ons...and just as regularly forget they are running them...it's easy to think of your installation of MSFS as where the quality of the sim is.But the add-ons are pushing at the limits of what FS9 can do. Sure, some very innovative people have come along and done things with FS9 that we didn't really think was possible at the beginning. But there's only so much they can do with the software, and they've been clamoring for a better way as much as we've been clamoring for a better experience. SimConnect is huge. Add-on vendors have been tapping into odd bits of code in the sim for years now...finally they will have the ability to properly connect to and control what occcurs in the FS environment. This will be a major change in the way that add-ons look and feel, and it's something that you'll never be able to advertise on the box. We're not buying FSX for today, we're buying it for 6 months, 1 year down the road, when the hardware and the software become available to really show what FSX is capable of.But I really can't find fault with the people who don't want to change from FS9 to FSX. Because FSX is a long-term solution, there will be plenty of people (as these forums have seen) that will be perfectly happy with their copy of FS9 for months to come. It's comfortable, it's stable, and it's optimized for their hardware. Why are we angry that some people are happy where they are at? All indications are that they will not be "missing out" right at the launch of FSX...if the computers they're using will only run FS at FS9 qualities, and no new add-ons will be out for FSX for some time, they will probably be happier staying with FS9. I'm sure that at some time down the road, the situation will change for most of the people in this camp. They'll buy new computer hardware, or find a new FSX must-have add-on, or they'll find that one of the features they overlooked about FSX is more exciting than they anticipated. Whatever the case, if these folks don't run right out on launch day and pick up FSX, how does that hurt anyone?I know it doesn't look like there's been much innovation over three years. We Flight Simulator addicts have been spoiled by having some truly gifted people that are always willing to push the bar up, and gifted that we have a development team that is willing to allow us that freedom. But there is really more innovation in this title than you give credit for...multiplayer may yet turn out to be a major turning point for MSFS, SimConnect promises huge leaps in what add-ons can accomplish, and we are pushing the very limits of what our computers can accomplish graphically. Nobody can see what lies ahead for Flight Simulator a year from now...not really. ACES will be the first to admit that their users have taken Flight Simulator in directions that even they never anticipated. But with a committed community, anything is possible.-Ivan

>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.>The demo was very helpful to me in convincing me that my old machine will run FSX. Sure, I can't push the sliders full right on my current machine, but I get a "better than FS2004" appearance on an old machine with acceptable frame rates. Later on I'll update the hardware to take more advantage of the "eye candy". I flew approx 20 hours in the demo to get everything adjusted to an acceptable performance level and be able to truely evaluate it. Because of the time limit and limited geography of the demo, I went back to FS2004. I still love it...but am greatly looking foward to getting FSX. I think after the Avsim library starts filling up with new missions, and the forums discussing Sim Connect and Multiplayer, a lot of these "nay-sayers" will sneak down and buy a copy to see what everyone else is so enthusiastic about. Regarding Microsoft's monopoly on the marketplace.....no comment. I love the fact that they keep making SDKs available for everyone to contribute so many great add-ons. Hardly monopolistic....they could generate a lot of revenue selling their own add-ons. Nope.....I'll save my rant time for the pharmacuetical and oil companies!

This is obviously a Microsoft basher post. As soon as you bring Bill into it, you give yourself away.If I had been first responder, I would have posted TROLL ALERT.Cal

Rest assured, we didn't cut them much slack either, but more so, I think they were harder on themselves then we ever could have been. There's always going to be the seemingly simple issues that will make us wonder, no doubt, but overall, we'll have more fun all over again.It's alot harder to try and sum up the whole thing in just a paragraph or two, but I truley think that with this release of FSX for XP/DX9 is well worth it and any DX10/VISTA version that may come will be just icing on the cake. Even if it doesn't we'll still have a great new release.Someone also mentioned that the hobby is getting more expensive. That's the one thing I think we can all count on as we need more and more stuff just to make our flights more realistic. The NavData issue which I'm trying to work on is just one example. I can tell you though that it won't be for profit based on our part, but any costs merely passsed on as cheaply as possible. We got spoiled in a little way with DAFIF and skirted having to pay for data that everyone else has long been since paying for, but now it's catching up with us.It's the nature of the beast. Not the rosiest scenario out there from a cost standpoint, I know, but there will be a benefit.

Well since everyone seems to be putting in there two cents why not mind.i have been using micro since 2002, and i will tell you i try to keep the best machines possible to run them, i upgrade all the time , and this is what i find that the ratio from upgrade to upgrade has done little for me as a good frame rate. when fs9 came out i upgrade my machine again to 3800+ 1 gig 80 gig hard drive and the best vid card , you know the same old grind, and i find the framemrate does not change that much.my average frame rate with all of the fixins. is about 10 frames per sec.im into sim flying a lot, to much in fact, i have a eight monitor set up with six computers all networked toghether.this is my set up.main com 3800+, 7800gs vid card, 80 gig sata,gigabyte motherboard.all the rest are between 1.8 and 2.1 gig computers with above average vid cards in them.software that i must have to fly.1. FS9, radar contac, active sky, fstimkeeper, ultimat traffic, ground enviroment, Indy city 2005, indy city airport, night enviroment, voice buddy, level d 767, ifly, atr 72, various ground enviroment add-ons, fsnavigator, fs2crew, not to mention all the , wideview, ficuip, widefs, these are a must for me to fly.Im not for sure what demands FSX will have on me and my nerves, oh and my machines, but i will find out because i must stay current.Now some of you will say 10 frames wow what a slow machine, trust me i have all the latest drivers , tweaked , double , tweaked, dumped and re-loaded, im even going to try that company that claims he can get more out of your machine with all sliders turned up. (oh and they are all turned up).and i will bet you when i go out and get the latest cpu and vid card my experiance has taght me that you are about to spend alot of money for maybe about a 5 frame rate maybe 6 or 7 improvement.i dont use default planes , if i did frame rate will go to the ceiling but i dont. im hooked on add-ons.So the bottom line is that the first post the guy is correct, on how they will have to do business. In my opinion Microsoft flight sim must go after a broad market , they must go after the kid that is ten, or a teenager or somone that is fifty one like me , tring to get real serious with it, or just someone that just wants to jump in and fly right away.And here is key, Microsoft has a lot of money to throw at it, so competitors dont have a chance.FS9 and im sure FSX will be a great product, and here is one that is a fact, microsoft is way at the top with no one to worry about yet , but if there competitor starts producsing a sim that, starts tapping into Microsofts sim market, does anyone want to bet that they will start making it even better faster.I wish i had the money to throw at X-plane, my opinion of course is if X-plane had more money there product would be a threat to FSX.I will continue to buy Microsoft because right now it is the bestsim out there with alot to offer.But i still would like a competitor to come close to Microsoft, and then you will start to see some drastic improvments in the sim world.My humble opinion..................Robert

CowlFlaps...As I read your last paragraph, I'd have to say nothing could be further from the truth. Now it's time to reel you in a little and get your head back on straight :-)The graphics and scenery environment alone are the biggest improvments. If you haven't seen that thus far, then I honestly don't know what to tell you. I could go into all the technical details about more seasonal changing ability, 10X the amount of just about every other level of terrain and scenery, but I'll leave that up to ACES/Mike, because frankly I'm too lazy to sort it out for you.ACES aren't gearing towards the arcade style gamer crowd, despite what everyone thinks. they are simply trying to get new people into the hobby.

>my average frame rate with all of the fixins. is about 10>frames per sec.>im into sim flying a lot, to much in fact, i have a eight>monitor set up with six computers all networked toghether.>I have the same add-ons as you and have significantly higher performance. There are tweaks you may implemented that have negatively impacted your performance. You may want to back up your FS9.cfg and explore your scenery library-- you shouldn't be getting performance that low on your hardware.One thing to remember is the tweaks we've received over the years within the forums are not necessarily cummulative-- in fact, some tweaks undermine others. I'm sorry you're getting poor performance. That's never fun.

Very thoughtful post SK,Even if I don

HI jeff. maybe I wasn't clear: I was being optimistic that MS has provided a very solid engine and improved graphics and add-on developers will push the limits of what is possible (innovation). I was just distinguishing between evolution (even large incremental change)--which is easy for MS to do given its resources--and innovation (revolution). The add-on community can be counted on for the latter, as long as MS countinues to allow and encourage them (as they seem to be). In my experience it has been the add-on developers and user community that has shown MS what is possible and "could be", not the other way around. When the first generation weather programs came out, for example, MS later added weather. As ATC add-on adventures emerged, we got ATC in FS. Textures, aircraft, airport mods, mesh, flight logging, flight planning, FMCs, etc. etc., MS always seems one step behind the add-on developers. Perhaps as it should be. Cheers.

I'm in the same camp. FSX is the first version of Flight Simulator that I'm not too excited about. Something about the graphics and little else improved that doesn't quite sit well with me... I predict due to the cost and Vista being way off in the future, I won't have FSX up and running before next summer. By that time most of my favorite add-ons will be upgraded/updated. Hopefully hardware will have advanced to a point I don't have to play the slider game most will be playing this fall...Seeing this is the most lackluster releases I've seen in the history of FS, it might do developers good to stay off the FSX bandwagon for a little while longer. FS9 will be on many simmers machines for some time to come, at least until Vista arrives...

<>Ditto. Nice reply.

>I'm in the same camp. FSX is the first version of Flight>Simulator that I'm not too excited about. Something about the>graphics and little else that doesn't quite sit well with>me... I predict due to the cost and Vista being way off in the>future I won't have FSX up and running before next summer. By>that time most of my favorite add-ons will be>upgraded/updated. Hopefully hardware will have advanced to a>point I don't have to play the slider game most will be>playing this fall...>>Seeing this is the most lackluster releases I've seen in the>history of FS, it might do developers good to stay off the FSX>bandwagon for a little while longer. FS9 will be on many>simmers machines for some time to come, at least until Vista>arrives...> While I understand your frustration, I'm afraid that those clinging on to FS9 will be left without many ( if at all ) addons. It would be a horrible business decision to continue to support both. That's a LOT of work to make 2 versions with very little income coming from the outdated version. Once FSX is released I doubt anyone will create any new products. You may see one or two being released afterwards due to the amount of time it took to develop ( I mean, if someone started in January to release something for FS9 why wouldn't they finish it? ) and the fact that for the first month or two there will be a small market left for FS9.Time will tell but I'm willing to be that's the way it will unfold; especially when the developers truly grasp what FSX ( SimConnect ) has to offer.My $0.02.