Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LAdamson

Is it RIGHT...

Recommended Posts

Guest

vista is vaporware and will do nothing to fix your performance issues. i will sit back and laugh at the people who actually sink money because that's what microsoft told them (well duh) will get you 50+fps with traffic and autogen and 3rd party aircraft and scenery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kev_Is_Soaked

Microsoft are claiming that? Not that I've heard of. In fact, I don't believe anyone anywhere is claiming that Vista will change performance of current systems other than overhead alleviation.... but on the same hardware, you can't make a 1ghz GPU do 2ghz worth of calculations every second regardless of what you do.All I believe Microsoft have ever claimed, is that Vista, DX10, and DX10 based hardware of tomorrow will be far superior to what we currently have available to us.Maybe I heard wrong though, I am wearing my wifes dress, I was confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jimbofly

LOL M$ SUCKS LOLOLOL!!!That's basically the tone of your post.Want to contribute something positive and not insult MS and ACES, as well as others who've provided beneficial and constructive criticism? If not go elsewhere.James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jimbofly

Geez that sounds like a well-balanced and informed post.James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>vista is vaporware and will do nothing to fix your>performance issues. i will sit back and laugh at the people>who actually sink money because that's what microsoft told>them (well duh) will get you 50+fps with traffic and autogen>and 3rd party aircraft and scenery.Do you even know what vaporware means?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

>Microsoft are claiming that? Not that I've heard of. In>fact, I don't believe anyone anywhere is claiming that Vista>will change performance of current systems other than overhead>alleviation.... but on the same hardware, you can't make a>1ghz GPU do 2ghz worth of calculations every second regardless>of what you do.>>All I believe Microsoft have ever claimed, is that Vista,>DX10, and DX10 based hardware of tomorrow will be far superior>to what we currently have available to us.>>Maybe I heard wrong though, I am wearing my wifes dress, I was>confused.Sure they are. DX10 which is vista only. 2+2=4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

>>vista is vaporware and will do nothing to fix your>>performance issues. i will sit back and laugh at the people>>who actually sink money because that's what microsoft told>>them (well duh) will get you 50+fps with traffic and autogen>>and 3rd party aircraft and scenery.>>Do you even know what vaporware means?Empty promises? scroll back to 10 years ago. There isn't a magical formula that just boosts performance. FS10 is a DX9 game. Vista will not make it run faster, nor will DX10. This has held true since the beginning of the computing era. But it is getting ridiculous on how people are spreading "informative" posts about how DX10 will just magically fix all the problems. It is sad because people do buy into it. It's a new platform with new features, not some nitro boost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

>Geez that sounds like a well-balanced and informed post.>>JamesI appreciate the humble comment, James. I shall pay close attention to continue to provide you with such informative insight in the near future.Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>1) Is it "RIGHT" that the end user should have to deal with>the problems in FSX because of admitted bad design decisions?>As stated by M$ employees, they simply word it differently.>Dual Core? Whats that ? SLI ?No. Being acquiescent will not get things fixed. Criticism won't lead ACES to abandon MSFS.>2) Should the end user have to alter numerous files to>decrease the impact on framerates on "top" end equipment?>Consequently reducing the experience as depicted on the box in>illustrations.No :). This thing should run acceptably out-of-the-box, as you have paid for a product, and not a Beta!>3) Should the end user be required to purchase 1000's of>dollars in hardware and software to get a decent and full>experience with his software purchase when the minumum and>recommended specs (listed on the box by M$) are far exceeded ?Nope, but that's what many people will do. Vista + DX10 card + other hardware upgrades = chasing the technology rabbit>4) Should the end user not complain because others do not like>what he has to say? We should complain, and complain publicly, regardless of what some people think. I think it's ludicrous that people jump on critics. Should we just accept the limitations, or should we make the devs aware of the problems. After all, we are not dealing with a freeware author. The sycophantic talk on this forum will get us more of the same, and no changes!>5) Should the end user expect to have a decent experience with>software support?Of course!>6) Should the end user be allowed to run his purchase when he>purchased it, and not when M$ tech support gets around to>fixing the activation problems?Yes, but this is the way software is going.]>8) Should MS have shelved this game until FSX could be run on>existing hardware and Vista machines w/DX10? Seeing as so many>are having problems using even a slight amount of autogen and>traffic on XP/DX9 without hacking the program.Yes, but we are dealing with a commercial company, and not a freeware group ;). They have pressures on them, but that doesn't mean some of the howling errors on this version are ok.>10) Will you: >a) spend $2000+ on a new Vista system "JUST" to run FSX. Absolutely no way :)>:( Buy hardware and software to try and upgrade your existing>system.My current system is above-average, and still isn't good enough ... >11) Do you agree that by bringing the problems people are>having with said sim to a public venue such as AVSIM helps>bring attention to the problems with the sim or do you think>speaking bad about said sim will kill any chances for the next>one, upgrades, etc?This is quite unique to any product I have come across. MS are a commercial company. They will continue MSFS development until their profits dive. Normally you can criticize something you pay for, but if it happens to be MSFS you can't :-roll. I don't think FSX sucks, btw, but I exercise my freedom of opinion.>>12) Do you think there should be a "Major Update" to FSX>besides the DX10 update we keep hearing about? In other words,>should M$ fix FSX on XP/DX9 before the socalled DX10 update is>worked on/released since FSX was released for XP? Yes! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tingoose

Keffenhunde. I'm with you all the way. Don't spend $1000 on new hardware to try run M$FSuX, spend it on real flying. $1000 will give you a few hours!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Keffenhunde. I'm with you all the way. Don't spend $1000 on>new hardware to try run M$FSuX, spend it on real flying. >$1000 will give you a few hours!Having spent a few thousand to run FSX, I can now run FS9 & X-Plane 8 in all their glory. However, I seem to be glued to FSX! Perhaps it's because I've already spent many thousands on real flying, and realize what FSX has to offer! :-hah L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading Phil from MS/Aces Post (BTW What happened to that post?? It's missing!) explaining why FSX was designed (As well as previous and dare I say future versions of MSFS) to not run on existing hardware maxed out it is beginning to make some sense. As long as we can get like detail from FSX that we already have in FS9 any extra detail is meant for future more powerful systems. It remains to be seen, whether FSX will meet this threshold when the addons that we're all use to, are made available to FSX or will we actually lose some detail (Relative to FS9). If MS made it that the MAX detail would run on existing hardware, than when new more powerful hardware comes out in the future, you can turn on the extra details that today would choke our systems. If they maxed the detail at this level now, that would be the limit in the future, wasting the potential H/W benefits of future systems for those that choose to upgrade at that point. This way, you can make the sim better in the future without having to have a new version every year, which we all know MS doesn't do. This does prolong the life cycle of the product. Remember when FS9 was first relased, none of us were able to run it smoothly at max settings then, now with the systems we have today we can max it out and still get acceptable performance. If MS chose to max these setting at what the H/W could run then, we wouldn't have the graphic detail we now enjoy. FSX is just taking it to the next level!


Thanks

Tom

My Youtube Videos!

http://www.youtube.com/user/tf51d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tingoose

If u can afford both that's great. Wish I could. The only reason I came into simming in the first place was to aid the learning process for real flying. For me, I would rather spend an hour in real flight than buy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tingoose, if the only reason you got into simming was to use the sim to assist you in techniques for real-world flying, why do you feel the need to refer to FSX as 'M$FSuX'?With real-world flying experience, you should appreciate that FSX does a better job of emulating flight than previous versions, and as a training tool, the eye candy that people are unable to switch on - which seems to be most people's gripe - would be something which you have no real need for at all if you are using it as a procedure trainer, apart from the odd VFR reference, which would be of questionable credence anyway in a sim.For sixty quid, FSX is, generally speaking, as useable as ASA IP, Elite, On Top and other 'proper' IFR and procedure commercial simulators, but less than a third of the price. Granted it does not have the instructor elements of those simulators which are really only for the purpose of learning, but with the guidance of an instructor and appropriate text books/lessons, FSX can help a great deal, which means that for what is your requirement, it neither 'SuX' or cost more '$', as you put it.


Alan Bradbury

Check out my youtube flight sim videos: Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...