Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
duckbilled

Aibus A320 by Wilco how does it fly

Recommended Posts

Hello Peter :)Thanks for replying :). Something drastic needs to happen. Either the hardware world needs to make huge gains, or the FSX SP1 needs to fix the majority of woes. FSX simply doesn't cut it on my mid-range machine (P4 3Ghz, 1Gb RAM, 256Mb Radeon 9600PRO) ... the Demo was full of stutters, even with the infamous "tweaks" applied.Something needs to happen very soon! :-boom. A new simulator would be great, especially if it can match FS9 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Peter Wilding

Sorry Rhett,I made a few points, more a waffle really, an air of frustration in part and in others a concern or 2.My big concern is that the Wilco airbus uses too much resources for the Core 2 duo. Most people are not appreciating the issues with the core 2 duo and are simply going by the many reports of how good it is.I've done some in-depth testing, as I need to as a developer, and I have found what is being covered up.I've got some good contacts in to IBM and Intel as well as Microsoft. Nobody is officially admitting any issues but the Core 2 duo does have a real problem.If you set the autogen past zero it will need to use the bridge far more and gradually the RAM fills up. It starts around 65% and builds up until around 97% and then the games locks up and craps out.The Wilco Airbus makes the RAM fill up really quickly. I get around 10 minutes in complex scenery areas when using complex cloud situations.By turing of the autogen I can use the Wilco airbus.Of course nobody is admitting this issue and most people on this forum are not really testing this properly.If you have a core 2 duo contact me in a PM and I'll talk you through how to test this properly and maybe hook you up on voice with some experts who can validate this and help you minimize the issues you are having.All this said, the Wilco airbus means I have to set FSX to such a poor state it spoils the enjoyment on the fsx visuals. Wilco should have waited until at least the official patch comes out. The worrying thing here is perhaps they've already tried the patch in a beta forum and as such feel it makes no difference. I think it would be a very bad business decision to release a complex product before the patch. I doubt if they've done that without really knowing what's going on.Though people aren't really admitting it now the Core 2 duo users will be the people reporting most the memory issues with stutters building up over time of use in game and in particular when a complex airplane is being used.There is a new type of Intel coming out in maybe 4-6 months time and from what I understand it will fix the RAM issue with games like FSX.Meanwhile only the sx62 AMD users will get a good performance from FSX. A bit expensive for me to change right now but I'm considering it. I'll probably have to order the parts direct from the USA as the 62's are at least $1000 here in the UK plus a MB on top and a complete reinstall and loss of credits on validated installs. Not sure I want to go that route. I may wait until the more advanced Intells come out later in the year.Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Peter Wilding

It's going to be a tough call to make a new simulator that's good and that does not directly compete with FSX.Maybe a more serious simulator, maybe a little more expensive than FSX aimed at a more serious simmer.What do you think? There's not much point in just copying FSX and trying to make it better. Too much chance it will fail or be outdone by the next FS version.Healthy competiion is good but any new product would have to establish a market.I'm working on some ideas in this area. Rasing funds won't be a problem once we have the right vision.What do you think a new and better simulator should concentrate on.Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Look back a few years: There was the Fly! series, Flight Unlimited, Pro Pilot, X-Plane and FS. Fly! came pretty much out of nowhere and was developed by a fairly small studio and took the flightsim community by storm.Right now you have only FS and X-Plane.I strongly believe that technology and CPU power has advanced to a degree where stunning scenery with fluid framerates and more complex add-ons are possible. X-Plane has demonstrated that. However, as long as X-Plane does not enter mainstream and lose its elitist stigmata, it will stay the 'Linux' of flight sims.I am sure that serious simmers (including me) wouldn't mind at all to spend $200 on a serious and professional flightsim.What would be my wishes for a 'better' simulator?- Usability and fluid framerates. Only include/use the technology that is currently available - not what could, should or might be available in a year after the release (DX10). This is my biggest problem with FSX. MS relies on and hypes technology that is not even present, instead of what is available right now (dual core, SLI).- Addons that don't rely on a 3rd party (FSUIPC)- Professional add-ons that have to pass a certification process by the developer or distributor ("official add-ons"). Flight 1?- A professional manual. Eventually the inclusion of the FAA Airmen's Manual and if it's just as a pdf. Crucial to educate users about aviation. In my opinion a flight sim should represent the real-life procedures as closely as possible, otherwise it's not a sim, but merely a "game".- Professional marketing, packaging and distribution. And again: Flight 1, because they have clearly and continuously demonstrated over the years how to do things right.I am sure that I could come up with a lot more suggestions, but those would be my key wishes for now.I glad you kicked off a dialogue. This is a very interesting and intriguing topic for sure.Pat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it has been tried. When fs98 had one flying around ice cube clouds ,vector drawn polygons and generic instrumentation pro pilot had 5 extremely realistic aircraft/ panels, 3d clouds, a 3d world,built in atc and ai traffic.People didn't like it as you could not add in aircraft, it didn't run initially in 3d, and you could only fly in the US and Europe.Fly then came along-taking "serious" to the next degree-even more realistic cockpits, better clouds, maps etc.-it didn't do well.Flight unlimited came along-probably the most fun sim I have ever used-specialized in a small highly detailed area and a few aircraft-people didn't like that (or the sliders that were invented with that series-they turned them all the way up and then were shocked with poor performance).Xplane's is serious in flight models-though I haven't flown a plane in xplane yet that reminds me of the real thing-therfore that "serious" sim sits on my shelf at home.There are other "serious" sims out there now-I own On Top, and elite is another. Of course On top disables your rudders-the graphics look like fs4, and the cockpits are extremely limited-but good performance needed for a "serious" sim comes at a cost.Me-I merely leave autogen off fsx and I like it better than all the above mentioned "serious" sims. With an aircraft like the real air marchetti-some real weather-the detailed geography etc. I find it more serious than something like on top -for me.I think the problem competitors like pro pilot, fly,fu found is that everyone wants something different from a sim. Some want to play airline pilot, some want to zoom buildings, some want to do serious ifr work, some serious maneuvers, some aerobatics etc. FS has always been able to be something for everyone-thru sliders and add ons.Me-I have no interest in the Airbus-and frankly don't even fly the jets in fs-haven't even tried them. Since I don't fly them in real life-for me flying them in the sim would be a game-and I use fs "seriously" to practice in real aircraft I have flown-but that is me. So even "serious" is in the eye of the beholder!In any case-if you choose to go after a "new" sim-I'll be supporting you-but the history doesn't look too good...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Peter Wilding

Good points Geof as always,I think one of the key things here is perhaps when the other flight sims came out it was the wrong time.I think simming is gradually building up a good base of the more serious pilots who won't mind paying more for more.I'm not thinking of a game but I do appreciate some people like to fly in the whole world rather than a dedicated area for example.I think though things are changing with voice over IP for example so what worked for people a while back maybe now has evolved to something very different.I know a few years back I didn't even try the other simulators because back then I was in to freeware and building up the train set if you like. Now things are different for me. I don't use Freeware these days and want much more quality and skill to come in to play. I want an airplane to feel right and with good voice and real pilots with real ATC. A grown up VATSIM if you like.You've only got to look at how disappointed people are with FSX to realize that the fact is it's now aimed at the bulk market that simply wants a program of the shelf that works well with default airplanes.I really don't think FSX has been designed to be future proof. Just the opposite. It's been designed to work on high spec current AMD's and with little or no vision towards the future. Even DX10 will not be supported in the patch.The word I got, which I can't qualify, but does worry me is that there is no real promise from ACES to support dual cores. FS11, if it is ever delivered to the market may well have dual core support.What's needed IMO is a new simulator that's aimed at today's more serious simmer who would spend $200 and would be happy to have an online flying environment that's a serious simulator.If this vision is right then there is a market for a new simulator and I'll be happy to play my role in making this happen. I wouldn't like to directly compete with ACES though. Good as FSX is it's still really a game in the end.Maybe the problem with the history of simming is that these more realistic simulators came out too early and tried to get the market from the gamers. That market was the wrong market. To be honest it's not really the market for a more realistic simulator.The question is is a bigger and better more realistic simulator something enough people really want? It's a big gamble? It's a big risk?But... in business the big risk often pays off in big bucks?It depends if I'm feeling lucky I guess and how many people want to join in with that vision, developers and users.Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest petepawn

And I haven't as yet got any confirmation (=> key code) from Wilco even if I bought the Airbus from them on Thursday... :(Petteri PulkkinenVihti, Finland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Arry

Hello Peter,what a good idea, to think about a real good new Sim. Many serious simmers would be happy, to get a good flight simulator, and pay 200$ or more for it.Compared to, let's say PM, it would be quite cheap.I personally would even pay more for a good sim.Happy landingsArry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the great question: how to enter a market essentially controlled by one producer ... sounds like betamax v. vhsquick list of options after microsoft (MS). all these products claim better flight modeling -*fly!*x-plane*flightgear <-- freeware & open-sourcethe neg. of the above three to the average person: lower visual quality than FS9 or 10.microsoft has pushed visual world over flight dynamics through many versions of FS. the majority user of FS doesn't care about FMC sub-pages, the correct color of the altutude bug, or the reality of the flight and weather models. MS knows this market, and i belive the sales of the FS product show FS designers are correct.--


D. Scobie, feelThere support forum moderator: https://forum.simflight.com/forum/169-feelthere-support-forums/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Peter Wilding

Yes, I certainly think Microsoft have got it right for a gamers market. No doubt about that.That's not the market I was thinking of.I was thinking more a serious simming market that uses todays technology.I don't agree with Microsoft that they say it's future proof. How can that be the case if there is no plan to use todays techology of a dual core.The kind of simulator I would envisage would need a high spec machine. It's man's toy not a boys toy if you see what I mean.$200 or maybe even a bit more.Only 25% of the market of downloaders would then get $5,000,000 USD and then because it's better in terms of realism there would be a new market to explore. The real world aviation for example as a training tool/utility.Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really comes down to what keeps people in to FS. I can only tell you what keeps me going but I think my opinion may be more common than what some may think. I don't consider myself a "serious simmer" but I am definitely not a "gamer" - I think I can best be described as an enthusiast.First, I love FS because it gives my the opportunity to do things that I can't do in real life. I can see different parts of the world and experience many different aircraft. I love the beauty of an aircraft against the sunset or the glow of the avionics at night in the cockpit. For me, my enjoyment comes from the total environment - an environment that you have done a lot to improve Peter.As far as highly complex aircraft, I usually don't buy them. Not because they are too expensive or because they are too complicated, I just feel that you have to spend a lot of time with them to be able to operate them properly and that cuts down on the variety for me. Most of my money is spent on scenery and utilities such as Ultimate Traffic, GE Pro and Active Sky. In FS9 I flew a lot of freeware aircraft but I know that is about to change. Since FSX ditched the availability of cockpit sideviews in 2d panels, I am now only flying aircraft with vc's because the 2d-only panel view really ruins it for me.I guess what I am getting at is I would definitely pay more for a sim that had the whole package but didn't include the complex airport scenery and aircraft - that could be left to the add-on developers. Of course, that leads me to another reason I stay interested in FS - MSFS has so many add ons that it is hard to get bored. It would be difficult to develop such a diverse community with a new sim. Of course, it would be worth the shot.In short, I would probably not be interested in highly accurate flight models at the expense of a complex model of the environment, and the ability to add various aircraft and scenery. I would, however, pay a lot of money (aprox under $500) for a sim that had the look and feel of a professional simulator that had some of the good points of FSX. I am not interested in missions, lessons, lots of default aircraft or massive amount of camera views. As long as the community is there to fill in the gaps, I am happy. And most of all, it needs to actually work on a reasonable system that is available today. Frankly, FSX isn't doing too bad on my rig but it does have a lot to be desired. Judging from the lack of add ons, I would have to say that MS has laid an egg with this one. Once the developers catch up, I am sure it will be as nice as FS9. Right now, I think it needs GEPro the most - hint, hint Peter:) I am surprised that MS doesn't release a $250 deluxe sim and a $50 standard version. The $250 should truly be geared to the "serious simmer" or the enthusiast and the standard version could be geared to the gamer.


MSFS Premium Deluxe Edition; Windows 11 Pro, I9-9900k; Asus Maximus XI Hero; Asus TUF RTX3080TI; 32GB G.Skill Ripjaw DDR4 3600; 2X Samsung 1TB 970EVO; NZXT Kraken X63; Seasonic Prime PX-1000, LG 48" C1 Series OLED, Honeycomb Yoke & TQ, CH Rudder Pedals, Logitech G13 Gamepad 



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,I wouldn't hold out too much hope for the next wave of Intel CPU's as the Penryn 45nm CPU is mostly a die shrink of Conroe but using high-k + metal gate transistors.I think we may have to wait for Nehalem at the end of 2008.Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest abulaafia

You really think FSX needs GE Pro? I find the FSX textures a lot more realistic than GE Pro -which, admittedly was a fantastic improvement to default FS9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>You really think FSX needs GE Pro? I find the FSX textures a>lot more realistic than GE Pro -which, admittedly was a>fantastic improvement to default FS9.Sure, they are better and I wouldn't want to import GEPro texture in to FSX. I do believe that GEPro for FSX would be a vast improvement of the default FSX textures. I don't like the defaults hard winter textures and my sim seems to be plagued by a lot of textures that look very desert like. Everything looks a lot more beige that it should. Perhaps this is the fault of the FSG FS9 landclass that I am using in FSX but I see these textures everywhere - not just in the US.


MSFS Premium Deluxe Edition; Windows 11 Pro, I9-9900k; Asus Maximus XI Hero; Asus TUF RTX3080TI; 32GB G.Skill Ripjaw DDR4 3600; 2X Samsung 1TB 970EVO; NZXT Kraken X63; Seasonic Prime PX-1000, LG 48" C1 Series OLED, Honeycomb Yoke & TQ, CH Rudder Pedals, Logitech G13 Gamepad 



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,Your commnents here are very worrying. As a developer whose products I admire greatly, your concern for the poor performance in FSX is a real eye opener.I think a new open ended sim aimed at the 'Avsim Crowd' would be a great idea.It does appear as though FSX has been designed for an 'OOTB experience', with no room for complex addons.Maybe we will be proved to be wrong with the upcoming SP1, although I am not holding my breath. There seems to be a LOT of small bugs and glitches (not counting the obvious performance problems) in FSX when compared to FS9.With Airliner XP promising great things from the A320 they are developing, I can see most of my simming still being done with FS9 for a long time to come. At this rate probably until FS11 hits the shelves!Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
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...