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

[Dillon 2,197]

"but try playing a new 360 or PS3 game on the playstation. It can't be done"How about playing an XBOX360 title on an XBOX360...:-roll Playstation doesn't run XBOX titles because the code is totally different. Much the same like Apple software won't run on a PC or Linux software won't run on an Apple. Apple will run some PC software with the help of certain convertible apps. Now show me the OS or hardware that runs FSX over Seattle with looks compatible to FS9, it doesn't exist. That's the problem...What you wrote above is not even remotely a fare comparison or a good example for what's going on with FSX. Read the specs that are printed on the FSX box. The machines listed won't run FSX decently. If you buy an XBOX360 title it will run on an XBOX360. XBOX360 titles aren't made for the XBOX and shouldn't be run on that lower end machine. Aces has software (FSX) on the market targeting people with 2.6gig and up machines. We all know anything below the highest spec machine will have serious problems with FSX. You can't explain this kind of thing away as standard practice even though many of you continue to do it. It's actually amusing the misinformation that's put out there. Fortunately many of us have been around long enough to see right through the BS... :-)

[PhilTaylor 45]

The new DX10 cards do smoke in DX9 mode.Its still too early to comment on DX10 perf, we need to see final hardware. The underclocked, half-pipe cards we have exhibit mixed perf envelopes.

[Guest CWD]

>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.I will never understand this idea that the mission system is somehow a watering down of FS to appeal to "gamers." It is beyond me.[sarcasm] Yes, the mission system is so unrealistic. It's not as if pilots in the real world ever have specific goals to accomplish on their flights. Fly to Location X, do Y, etc. Preposterous! [/sarcasm] I'm sorry, I'm not trying to jump on you here, but I'm fed up with this nonsensical "MS is pandering to the gamers" meme.

[Guest CWD]

>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?The same thing was true of FS9.

[vgbaron 3,496]

Also agree Dan - does anyone remember the "adventures" of early FS? Even in FS9 there are specific "missions" to fly - no rewards as in FSX but they were there - ala " A Stormy Approach to Oakland" etc.So what's the big deal? Frankly, I like them as it helps get familiar with the sim.Just MHO,VicVisit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/

[Clipper Ocean Spray 189]

>> 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....Yes, this calls into question arguments that FSX is "optimized for the future." For example, if industry advances in the next few years focus on better use of multiple cores (and that's where things seem to be headed ATM), then the performance we get in in a few years using the best multiple core machines will be close to the performance we get today on the best machines. In contrast, when FS2004 was released, at least the single core "processing" speed race was still underway, so you could see a clear path to improved performance. It is a bit concerning, but hopefully we will see machines in a few years that can throttle FSX.

[Guest]

>>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?>And then CWD said:>The same thing was true of FS9.Wrong. FS9 was not as flaky as this release. There were some stuttering and blurriness problems, but they were fixed rather quickly by the community.Of course, why such things need to be fixed by others after release, rather than by Microsoft before release, is another question.

[Guest stems]

I totaly disagree, developng a sim to the curent hardware means just make the sliders to give 50% performance when set to maximum then prepare an upgrade to allow the user to get the real performance later when the hardware is available, possibly at a charge. I do not think that is a solution, as it is FS is felxible and one can adjust as he likes.

[Guest Rayed]

>FS2000 had a four cylinder engine, FS2004 a V8, FSX a V12 with>a racing chassis. You don't see it from the outside -Yea, there is just very little gas and oil is really old in this FSX engine ;)

[Guest CWD]

>And then CWD said:>>>The same thing was true of FS9.>>Wrong. FS9 was not as flaky as this release. There were>some stuttering and blurriness problems, but they were fixed>rather quickly by the community.FS9 was a year or two ahead of the capabilities of the average system at the time of its release. FSX may actually be less ahead of its time.

[NM5K 1]

>They have my money, I have a game that wont run well for another 2 >years..Does that sound fair?Same as it ever was... This is nothing new, and I see thisevery version release in varying amounts..But, it does make me wonder how mine is running ok...I'm using a fairly old P4 at 3.15 ghz, a fairly old9800 pro, and I'm having no real problems running the sim. FSX runs better with the box I have, than FS2004did with the box I had when I got it. Yes, I said better..The only time FSX gags a bit is in big cities with autogenfired up. And yes, Seattle is pretty sluggish, but that's adense area. Most other places in the world, I'm not having much trouble. If I need max frame rate, I turn autogen off, or dumb it down with a lesser xml file. I was doing aerobaticsin the Extra 300 last night at various airports.I have my frame rate set for 40 fps max. What was I getting last night in the extra? Yep, 40 fps plus or minus, and very little stuttering at all. I've been running the jets a good bit. I have no problem at the majority of the airports.So anyway, I don't see any worse performance from this simvs any problems I've had with past versions. *Every* single version I've bought in the past required a hardware upgradeto run at it's best. So anyway, I have little gripe with the performance. It's quite flyable for me. If I have gripes, it's about my old gauge files not working. IE: landing callouts, etc, etc..I can't get any of my old ones to work, so I assume theywill have to be redone in dll, or xml, format to work..??Aggravating yes, but not the end of the world. My "startup" flight is set at Houston Southwest Airport, and has me sitting in the Baron. If I set autogen to "normal", I still have over 20 fps frame rate. If I turn autogen off, it's appx 26-28+ fps. Yes, it drops as you fly across Houston, but is still in the teens at the low points. Once I get outof town, it's in the 20's,30's, and yes, sometimes peaks atmy 40 fps limit at high alt. Don't know about you all, but that's well enough to fly for me. I expect to bump that upa good bit with the next puter upgrade. They have your money, but you can get a refund. Soundsfair to me.. :/ MK

[Guest]

>FS9 was a year or two ahead of the capabilities of the average>system at the time of its release. FSX may actually be>less ahead of its time.You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm done responding to you.

[Guest BOPrey]

Three years down the road, with a Dx10 card and a 4+ GHz c2d, every one can enjoy this sim. Question is, are we all willing to pay for that hardware? http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho..._id=20047&page=

[Guest CWD]

>I'm done>responding to you.I assure you I'm broken-hearted to hear that.

[Guest SimFan71]

No question every version of MSFS at release time is beyond the capabilities of current hardware, but the point is, that's why you have all the sliders and settings! So it can run on your system now with some adjustments, and then in a year or 2, you can crank everything to 100% (just like we did in FS9 and previous).It would be silly for MS to release a game that would be instantly outdated on the moment of it's release, it has to be built to stand the test of time and comparison with other games for 2 or 3 years, till we have another version.Fact is - to me MSFS is just the engine and a good start at world scenery. To that I add extra scenery/textures and aircraft etc. to make it how I would like it. What they released is their best 'overall' attempt at world scenery, and aircraft - but the fact it's an open system means you can upgrade it beyond our wildest dreams, as most us avid simmers will. For those that just want to play and fly, it's competent out of the box and still a big step from FS9 in it's original out of the box form.Is this release perfect? No! Was any? I get less stutters and pauses in this version than in FS9, and it has never crashed to the desktop, froze or other similar annoyances, but that's me and my system (which is not ultra state of the art, but adequate to run FSX turned up pretty high) - mileage varies depending on your hardware and how much time you are prepared to read through forums and tweak settings! Yes, this one assumes you have 1GB Ram minimum, it just won't run well on less, and yes to look anything even close to the pictures on the box you need hardware shaders. So maybe the requirements are a bit more strict this time round, but for me it runs better out the box than FS9, but this experience will vary for everyone. Look at any other new game out there too - the hardware to 'really' run it (not the minimums, every game manufacturer states those insanely low) is no different to FSX, and with those you either get better hardware or enjoy it turned down a bit till you can afford to update - the joys of computer gaming!Okay - diatribe done, sure it's all been said many times somewhere in these forums! :)