Was MS hoping to get new simmers with FS-X?

[Guest PaulG52]

Hello: I heard somewhere that MS was "dumbing" down this version of FS in hopes of broadening its subscriber base.After purchasing this "sim" all I can say is, good luck with that.For one, making a game that is optimized for the future just seems plain silly and bad business to me.It has discouraged me and I suppose will have discouraged many others from this sim.What is wrong with developing a sim to run on current hardware available and then updating it as better technology arrives?I'm no rocket scientist or prognosticator of business success, but I really think MS shot themselves in the foot with this release.I feel ripped off........No, more like seduced by pictures of pure simming bliss, then slapped silly with the reality that I wont be able to enjoy it for 2 years and 2 thousand dollars later.Thanks MS.

[Guest Jimbofly]

I do agree that the sim was probably released too early but you'll be surprised at how well a machine with 2GB or RAM and a DX10 card will run it. Even if it's not re-written for DX10, the new cards will be able to fly through the texture tiles like a stroll in the park, as compared with cards available today.btw the sim is in NO WAY "dumbed" down. It has more realistic flight dynamics, and the aircraft are actually better made. The sim is more advanced and if anything will attract more "hard core" simmers than newbies, which may turn out to be bad for FS.James

[Guest Shocky]

I haven't seen a single screenshot of how FSX runs with DX10/Vista so until then I would be careful with making such statements..I believe it when I see it :-waveshocky :-hahhttp://img7.exs.cx/img7/5379/Banner21.jpg

[Guest PaulG52]

Sorry, dumbed down was the wrong phrase. I meant by putting in missions and such it made it's appeal much broader and probably more interesting to gamers as opposed to simmers.

[RFields5421 1]

I've only been with FS a short time, starting with 98, but really getting involved in FS2002.However, it has always been apparent to me that FS has two modes of operation, novice and expert for lack of better terms.Especially the navigation and ATC changes in FS2004.Missions are nothing more than the old flights, with a better scripting language and greater possibilities.Now we have a perfect way to train new VA or VATSIM pilots to fly SID/STAR procedures, realistic approaches, make proper weight / balance calculations, take off calculations, etc. Yes we can fly through some hoops, but we can also measure performance in a consistent manner in realistic conditions.The really big work in this version was converting the world to a round shape. Missions are part of the eye candy essential to sell any game/ program.FS2000 had a four cylinder engine, FS2004 a V8, FSX a V12 with a racing chassis. You don't see it from the outside - just the changes in the grill and body style - but once you get going, you find the real changes are huge.

[Guest PaulG52]

I understand that this program is deep and more than just eye candy. But my main concern, and reason for my post was, what good is that if I can't enjoy it for 2 years?I'm not going to beat on this like a dead dog, but no one can convince me optimizing a program to run on yet-released hard ware isn't very smart or fair at all.They have my money, I have a game that wont run well for another 2 years..Does that sound fair?

[Guest Jimbofly]

Let me tell you the missions are brilliant, and WILL enhance your simming skills. Most of them simulate realistic situations like search and rescues and helicopter training etc.If anything they will appeal to many hard-core simmers.James

[slashed2 53]

You can't run it on todays hardware? Welcome to the gaming world. :) I've been having this problem since I bought my first IBM compatible. Where was the sound? Windows? Going from an amiga 500 to and IBM compatible was a shocker, but as I got older and wiser it was like going from basic to C, more difficult but much more flexible.Sliders have good and bad points. They allow software to run on the infinite number of system configurations from low end computers to high end gaming machines, allow for future hardware advances but tend to illicit posts such as this where people understandably want to max it out and have it run well. I relate not having sliders like owning a playstation. It's great for several years, but try playing a new 360 or PS3 game on the playstation. It can't be done, there are no sliders to adjust, no hardware to upgrade so you are left with 3 year old technology, although impressive it does not meet current standards.Gaming comes with a price, that price has always and will always be new hardware and technology eating away at consumers wallets, and until that new technology comes out which gives us reality in a box, we'll continue to argue and moan about not being able to max those settings.Just for an example I owned FS95 and couldn't max out all the buildings without bringing my system to its knees. Same with Nascar1 and Nascar2. As hardware advanced I spent more money and was able to run them all at maximum settings. It's now 2006 and the cycle repeats. Oblivion? Halflife2? I couldn't run these games with max settings on my PC...FS9 still no, FSX, not even close. So you see, it's a never ending cycle with no end in sight. Blame technology for advancing much too fast. Maybe we should all still be using Commodore 64's, that way we wouldn't know what we were missing. :)Ian.

[Guest Jock in a Frock]

>FS2000 had a four cylinder engine, FS2004 a V8, FSX a V12 with>a racing chassis.O fuggin' wonderful, now the environmentalists are gonna stop us flying flight sim until FS11 is converted to a biodiesel electric hybrid!

[Guest PaulG52]

Ok fine. I can tell from the responses my let down with this sim is just me only..I'll let you all get back to that wonderfully optimized, totally playable sim we call FS-X.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Paul...I have gone from (Pent 3.4 Prescott) post cellophane FSX at 3.5 FPS to a stable mean average 10 on the ground and 18-22 FPS at about 1,500 feet, leave or take a few.I just kept applying the great efforts the tweak-meisters published, and viola-a usable-at-present product.Just a few minutes ago, I took off from KDTW in the Mooney...and with even low AUTO GEN on...was simply amazed in how I actually truly felt I was flying over freeways alive with commuter traffic, and at about 12,000 feet it looked no different than any of my commercial flights. I still have a loaded FS9 on my system, and it does NOT produce the 'emotional involvement' that FSX does. I paid for all the FS9 add-on toys too...and NOTHING comes close to climbing out within FSX's present world. Nothing.....This sim rocks. You have to get past that you might have to run it at present, throttled in some manner...but consider at what you can look forward to when your future hardware will let you run it ####-bent for leather!!!!!I'd rather have the product now...throttled to my present system, than have them publish the title ONLY when they certify that the MEAN AVERAGE system could run it full bore.Cheers!Mitch R.

[RFields5421 1]

Based on my experience with previous releases of FS - these were my expectations the day I first loaded FS.1. Eight months to a year before I have hardware to bring most sliders up above half and have the new features working well.2. Six to eight months before my favorite addon aircraft become compatible - and I'll have to buy new versions of about half of them.3. A year or more before addon scenery catches up with the latest techniques. ALL will have to be purchased again.4. Six to eight months after the release - I'll have to reinstall - because most of the first generation tweaks will have proven to not be a good idea.5. Six to eight months before people begin to understand how to make quality addons.My favorite part of FS is the annual MSFS Around the World Race - each February. There is no way I intend to try to fly 2007 in FSX - I will be in FS2004.Just as the 2004 race, there was no way I could have participated with FS2004, I would have had to use FS2002.Early purchasers of any game have to expect that it will take months to get the game up to the standards of the version it replaces.But it's only through testing and experimentation that we learn enough to make the game perform up to our expectations.Yes, it would be wonderful to have a game which we could load out of the box and play at maximum settings.But as pointed out above - that would have to be something which is hardware specific.And we would lose the addons.

[Toys_R_Us 0]

PaulDon't feel your alone. As one of MS's former strongest supporters, I feel exactly the same way.What really worries me is that if DX10 does not come through, and I think there is a strong possibility of that happening, the FS franchise with Microsoft could be in serious jeopary of a corportate shut down for lack of profits. I don't believe the sales on this product are going to be strong based on much less than stellar reports all over the web, and I'm not sure there is anyplace else to go with the failure of support for multiple cores, 64 bit, and SLI. The CPU speed race is clearly running out, and that is what this sim was designed for once again after 3.3 years of time to do it right.Yes it is strong on things that can't be used, but for the life of me I don't understand why more development time was not put in on things that could.I hope they designed knowing the true power of DX-10, but I'm worried !!!!!No one else seems to know what it will actually do ...Bob (Las Cruces, NM)

[vgbaron 3,496]

Well, I have to disagree here. In no way is the FS franchise in any danger. What were seeing now is exactly the same stuff we've seen every release. The whiners who complain they can't max the sliders. The framerate junkies who MUST have 100 fps to be happy. The inept who have no idea how to install a product. And the list goes on. These fora usually get the people who are looking for help, actually it would be a real mess if everyone who *liked* FSX posted how much they like it.IMHO, we're making a mountain out of a molehill. For example, I have two systems that I use for development. An athlon 2.14G, 1G Ram, GeForce TI4600/128Mram xp pro sp2 and a P4 3.4, 2G ram, GeForce 6800/256 - xp pro sp2. First thing I did is copy the DVD's to the HD on the slower system. Installed to default drive - took about 30 minutes - no problems. Using the default settings I was able to get 15fps with so-so quality - not up to FS9. Decided to test uninstall so dod so and installed to a new folder - no problems. Applied a few of the posted tweaks and was able to get up to about 22fps but visual quality on the TI 4600 was good but not great. Then tried a network install to the faster system - also took about 30 minutes with no problems - default settings for this system were much higher - initial FPS at KLAX were about 7 - 10 before any tweaks. Still adjusting but I'm getting up to 24 ( my max setting ) with great visuals and smooth flying using Active Sky for weather. Some performance hit with really datk clouds but I think that adjusting textures might help there.Bottom line, I'm happy with the progress and it's far better than FS9 was at this stage. Oh, forgot to mention that I installed FSGenesis North AMerican Landclass files.Will there be bugs and problems? You bet! There always are but for once we have the Aces team actively participating in the process rather than hiding somewhere listening to cries for "The Patch".Just my long winded HO,VicVisit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/

[FTD1949 0]

re:For one, making a game that is optimized for the future just seems plain silly and bad business to me. There were at least (2) beta and (1) Demo version available to anyone who desired them. re:What is wrong with developing a sim to run on current hardware available and then updating it as better technology arrives? I've personally been using MSFS since 1985 and have yet to see a version (starting with FS2000) that ran maxed out on any machine outof the box. Caveat Emptor