Real Flight Simulation vs "Playing let's upgrade"

[MD83 1]

"I've listened to complaint after complaint about how bad fps is, and how this and that fails in fsx. All very dissapointing to read in as much that it saddens me to think us "hard core" simmers are sending the absolute wrong message to Microsoft. They must be wondering what a hard core simmer really is?":-roll ... They are communicating their feelings about something they have paid for. I think it's good that the MS Team are interacting with us, but they have been reading these forums for years, and they can expect this kind of reaction.People have spent their hard earned wages for FSX, and some have sacrificed weeks of their disposable income to pay for a new PC, especially for FSX. Their $5000 XtremeOverkill PCs run FSX at 4fps with autogen OFF ..... would you be happy?! :-xxrotflmao (j/k)FSX will be fantastic in 2008, when the hardware has caught up :)

[Guest Peter Wilding]

thanks for that Ray,People aren't saying you have to wait 2 years to use it now. What they are saying is it will take 2 years before you can max it out. It's not being well explained I guess. We are all guility of that.Autogen for example is something like 10 times more dense than FS9 so sparse is like where fs9 dense was.AS for GE PRO, thanks for the vote of confidence. Yes, we will be doing things for FSX also regarding textures and autogen. About 2-3 months at a guess timeline.

[Guest Peter Wilding]

This is a serious point and something the vast majority of people slaming FSX are missing.I maybe a developer but that's a product of my passion for flying and flight simulation. Both bi-porducts of my imagination and desire for adventure/challange.I suspect most hard core simmers have over the years become more "players" that enjoy the "train set building" aspects of a hobby if you like. For them, the main objective is to make things look better and as a developer that's what I've been servicing. It's what people want and something I have an artistic ability satisfy.HOWEVER, FSX IS SOMETHING AMAZING AS A REAL SIMULATION TOOL. I've listened to complaint after complaint about how bad fps is, and how this and that fails in fsx. All very dissapointing to read in as much that it saddens me to think us "hard core" simmers are sending the absolute wrong message to Microsoft. They must be wondering what a hard core simmer really is?:::::::::When I first got hold of FSX the first thing I did is get in a cessna and tested the flying dynamics. To get the best and smoothest results for this serious testing I backed off all the sliders. Afterall, I'm hard core and have a passion for flying realistically and looks is something nice and not essential. I'm hard core, not a gamer.Once up running down the runway my first thoughts were "wow!this feels much more realistic. I can actually use this now to hone my flying skills, awesome"Up in the air it was a dream. "At lasat a realistic simulation. This is what take off feels like in real life. This is wow. wow wow... "It felt like air, it felt like flying and it was far more of a challange.Take-off, landing, flying, turning air dynaimcs suddenly feel real.I didn't even have to change my computer to get this massive improvemnts and by tweaking settings I can make my visuals look better than FS9 does with bog standard scenery. It looks better than FS9 does with GE PRO around areas I normally fly. It looks photo real and clouds and sky never looked better. Water at last looks realistic with good tones and reflections.FSX is the most amazing upgrade FS has seen for years.How can anyone that calls themself "hard core" knock this fantastic product?I guess it's just the nature of some people to look for fault.Even more amazing is that some so called self proclaimed experts on hardware reakon MS should have done this and done that.... to improve performance. As if Microsof haven't considered plus and minus points ..... of couse they did and I know they did for a fact. Microsoft considered using dual cores but there are issues that cause more problems than it's worth. MICROSOFT CONSIDERED EVERYTHING. THEY ARE THE EXPERTS. TRUST ME.I want to explain some basic things these critics are missing and miss-communicating to our great community.All things being equal if you make something look better or work better there is noramlly a set of events that come in to place. This is physics.Take a fast engine in a car. You can't make the car run fast without doing a lot to the tyres, shape and so on. In other words you don't go faster or look better without a whole lot of events having to take place also.Fact: FSX delivers more, more more. We wanted it and we got it. Fantastic.Does that mean we have to expect a faster engine to get the most of it. Yes of courese it does.Have MS given us the tools we need to give us silky smooth fps and still get a good looking improved simulation that works and feels better.you bet they have done.I'm getting the exact same performance I was getting in FS9.Things are looking better in FSX to my eyes than they do in FS9, even with my many, many 3rd party add-ons.and what's best of all is not only is FSX looking great with more realistic ground textures than ever that convince me it's "real" it feels and flys realistically to.What more can I ask for.The big surprise for me is that so few hard core simmers are praising MS for delivering such an amazing upgrade to the actual simulation aspects.Microsoft will think they have to redefine what a hard core simmer is unless we tell them "well done" you got it right. Now it flys right and a game just entered a new level of realism.Finally, I got a SIMULATOR THAT IS AS REAL AS IT GETS...WELL DONE!

[Guest cingularity]

I don't see ACES spending a whole lot of time worrying about "Hum, I wonder what a hard-core gamer really is?" They don't sell their product to "hard-core gamers", they sell it to anyone willing to buy it. For every guy/gal that buys FSX and goes to download files from AVSIM, there is probably 3-4 who buy FSX at the store and don't even know AVSIM exists. Those people plunk down the same money as anyone else and have the same right to feel they spent their money wisely. Just because some people are willing to spend mega-money on 3rd party add-ons doesn't mean we should EXPECT that "casual" gamer to have to do the same to "fix" a major "misrepresentation of reality".There are two extremes in "attitude" that are equally unreasonable:One extreme is the person who thinks "the sky is falling" because some taxiway at KJFK is mislabeled.The other extreme is the person who thinks ACES is the reincarnation of the Greek Pantheon and think they can do wrong. This is the same person who says some mislabeled taxiway at KJFK is an opportunity for someone to go out and pay $20 to by add-on scenery to fix the problem.Neither "attitude" is particularly useful, in my opinion. I believe the role of add-on products is just that, to ADD to the realism of FS. I don't feel that "that is what 3rd party add-ons are for, stupid!" is how we should respond to people who bring up problems in FSX. If people want a feature to be BETTER or MORE realistic, that is what 3rd party add-ons are for, I humbly submit. 3rd party add-ons shouldn't be offered as a FIX for substantial errors in FSX. Nobody in our hobby should be told that they need to spend $20 for add-on scenery that turns Finland from a desert to a tundra or whatever.That being said, I believe that someone from ACES said that if you adjust to sliders in FSX to approximate the features in FS9 that it should run faster, which is a net gain in efficiency. If this is true, they should be applauded.You mention that the flight model is much improved, that is music to my ears as I think FS should be a FLIGHT simulator more than a WORLD simulator. I wonder how they did that still using .cfg and .air files?But the guy who is miffed at the "fact" that FSX "paints" the USA and "EU" in drab desert textures has just as much right to express his frustration as you do to express your glee.I'm not writing this to "flame" you, so I hope you don't take my expression of opinion as disrespectful.

[boris4356 4]

I am trying very hard to enjoy this sim, but it certainly is an excercise in frustration at the best of times!The thing I hate the most is that everything looks like the Sahara Desert. I don't seem to recognize anything anywhere. After all the tweeking etc..., and getting it to finally sort of run, and then see a world of gorgeous textures covered in acres of sand where sand shouldn't be.Bill

[Guest Jimbofly]

Don't bother, I've tried. He's just another troll. You're only feeding him.James

[Guest Len]

George hates FSX...You're right.

[Ramasurinen 0]

I for one have never really understood the FAA's stance that MSFS can't qualify as a "certified" training device for actual flight. That just boggles my mind. I started using it at the age of thirteen on version 2.0 and proceeded to teach myself to fly, using the real world Jepp manuals in conjunction with the sim. (you want *what* manuals for christmas?)I went for my PPL at the age of 25 and all my time spent with FS helped me so much in my flight training that I was completely stunned at how second nature everything was. I consider myself a serious aviation noob still compared to so many amazing real pilots I have known, but, I truly owe 95% of the skill I do have to the time that I've spent with MSFS, versions 2 through 9. These wonderful programs easily saved me over $2000 in aircraft rental costs and instructor time in the pursuit of my PPL, not to mention the ratings that followed. To this day, if I have a real flight planned, to take some friends for a $100 hamburger somewhere or whatever, I religiously fly the intended route the night before in FS to reacquaint myself with the terrain and airspace, using the weather that flight service forecasts for my launch time the next day. If that's not quality training, and safety enhancing, then what is? Elite? Ha! Yeah I really feel immersed when flying over a single flat green polygon with a panel that takes up 9/10ths of my view, ultra-accurate flight model or not. ;)I even convinced my instructor to try out FS9 on a full CH setup, and he couldn't understand why it wasn't certified for flight training either. He hadn't seen it since verson 3 and was blown away.So yeah the flight models aren't perfect, but no one's are, not even X-Plane's. Yeah they always make jet engines at least 25% too powerful. I just turn them down in the aircraft.cfg until it starts lining up with stated performance figures.All in all, physics wise, even if it's dated lookup table stuff, it's still very good I'd say.Job well done Aces, you still have my thanks, current insane performance woes and all. :)

[MD83 1]

"The other extreme is the person who thinks ACES is the reincarnation of the Greek Pantheon and think they can't do wrong. This is the same person who says some mislabeled taxiway at KJFK is an opportunity for someone to go out and pay $20 to by add-on scenery to fix the problem."I agree totally.

[Guest aarskringspier]

"Exuse the joke but I'm sure a lot of well educated British would say "that's a hellava job the Americans did on changing our language and telling us what is the correct use of words is and what defines a swear word...... LOL"Should probably take that up with General Washington and the boys amd yes our cultures language and manerisms are much different.

[GHarrall 494]

It's because of the loony right wing evangelicals that populate most of the southern and midwest states of the USAPeople who vote for a presidential candidate (a WORLD leader) based on the party line on abortion issues.........:-erks

[N562Z 4]

AHHHHHH.....Oh the joys of flight simming. :-lolhttp://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

[Guest cschmokel]

Seems like now everybody is falling over themselves to defend a product that has taken 2 steps forward and 3 steps back in certain respects. Try a little experiment. Take your stock FSX installation, and put autogen on none while pointed at a city, then put it on sparse. Your framerates will probably be cut in about half when going from none to sparse. What did you gain at the sparse setting? A couple of trees and buildings, about the same density you'd see on a low autogen setting in FS2004.So let's get this straight. Throw in just a few trees and buildings, and the framerates get shredded. You're telling me I should be heaping praise when a critical feature is porked?It's too bad, because other than the autogen bug, it's a nice upgrade.

[vgbaron 3,730]

I read statements about having to move the sliders and turn autogen off to get good framerates and why did Aces do this ot that......Remember folks, MS is marketing FSX to the *world*, not just you and me. In doing so they have to find a way to comeup with something that will please the vast majority of users. That equals a profit and more $$ for further development.In come the sliders - would we like FSX more if there were NO sliders? No way of adjusting settings? Looking at it realistically, Aces did a great job provinding most of us with the opportunity to customize our flight experience. but, as in most customization, the penalty is taking the time to make an adjustment and test, adjust and test, etc.SO, remember, the sliders are your friend, be patient and learn touse the well and you will have a great FSX experience.Yes, some of you won't - well, it has been said by wiser folk than me -"You can't please everybody".Just MHO,VicVisit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/

[Guest cschmokel]

I think you're missing the point Vic. There's something fundamentally wrong with FSX autogen if a meager scattering of trees and buildings slashes FPS in half.