Sign in to follow this  
Geofa

I don't want to sound ungrateful, but..........

Recommended Posts

Hello Gang!As the title of my message states, I don't want to sound ungrateful with this post and my intention is not to start a flame war at all. I am grateful that Microsoft/ACES is dedicating time and effort to expand FSX and make it better - - - - we all know it needs fixing/patching in many areas. I'm glad to see that a patch is in the works and that we may see it in a couple of months. By the same token, I'm OK with the DX10 patch coming (strategically around X-Mas time), because by then, there would be a couple of proven/tested DX10 GPU's and Vista would have been patched and updated at least 20 times.What bothers me in some ways is this:Why is ACES spending time creating new airplanes and trying to come up with new prodcuts to add to FSX and fundamental things such as ATC and performance are still an issue? This whole ATC issue is somethignthat they have avoided addressing like the plague. In fact, the ATC engine did not change from FS9. I don't want to go into the details because ATC issue topics are all over the history of these forums, and I also realize that the ATC engine is allright but things such as SIDS/STARS and other basic things need to be enabled.Bottom line - I believe they need to improve on the already existing FSX before the start adding new things such as airplanes and stuff; leave that to the third party devs.My 2 cents!Sincerely,Dennis D. Mullert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Trying to re-generate interest in FSX and re-sell the product after a very rocky/messy release? Besides a patch for the product, PR has to be patched.Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with both of you. Here I am, disappointed user of FSX with a deluxe copy collecting dust. Having re-embrased FS9 in all its facets, that includes purchasing more and new add-ons for it. Now reading about exciting news about FSX. A new hope! Not the SP is exciting news to share, not the DX update either. No, an expansion pack?!So, we've got a development team working on an SP and on a DX update and on an expansion (and on FS11 and on a new train simulator?!). How is this a good thing? I don't see how a development team can take care of the real issues and really improve upon the initial release when they're working on so many things at the same time. Release an improvement pack first, then an expansion pack... And more than ever before, what did they use the extra year of development for? FSX: Adrenaline?I can only hope the expansion pack going to pay for a completely overhauled FS11. But they'll have to do it without any more of my money, I can assure you that. Bah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I think Microsoft getting into the "Add on" business will be the best thing to happen to Flight Simulator.For the first time their people will have to face the issues of compatability and marketing as other add on developers. For the first time there will be a group in the ACES staff looking at FS as a whole product, and trying to make it work with their stuff.This will also generate a continual cash flow, and greatly ease the pressure from the accountants to push the next version out the door before the development team is ready.Many of the things mentioned, like ATC and multi-threading, are core issues with FS. They are not going to be fixed until the game engine is redesigned/ rebuilt from the ground up.The Microsoft accountants have to see FS as having a capacity to grow and support that kind of effort.The Expansion Pack is the first step in building a business case to support such a cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Actually I think Microsoft getting into the "Add on" business>will be the best thing to happen to Flight Simulator.Best thing? I guess so? Many users of FSX fly the default aircraft because they are "gamers" and "beginners". The flight sim commnuity "diehards" don't use these "simple" in-accurate panels/aircraft. Microsoft will never be able to produce high quailtiy add-on aircraft. They struggle with just producing a working simulator these days.Microsoft has made a very good Flight simulator (FS9), but I think FSX is in the ditch. Sad to see it change in the wrong direction...Thank you for FS9, and I hope FSX down the road..Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lee, I think it is true for some users who want specific things from a flight sim that FS9 currently delivers the goods, I do not think that puts FSX in the ditch.I'm currently using the default Cessna 172 in FSX in conjunction with Bruce Williams book on using FS as a training aid. You can class me as a beginner because generally with FS9 and FSX I am.I have some issues with FSX but with new hardware the only real issue I have is with some add-on photo scenery - the issue is reconised and hopefully that will soon be sorted.I get 40-50 FPS out of FSX on my rig with my preferred settings with the stock 172, pretty good and the sensation of flight is very realistic.Tomorrow, weather permitting I will be doing it for real in the same type of aircraft, over the same area I have photo scenery for.It is hard for me to imagine how I could expect more from a flight simulator. It replicates reasonable flight models for my chosen A/C type, i.e. it will slow down when it's pointed up and speed up when it is pointed down, will cruise, climb and stall with realism and good approximation to the real thing.All this for just over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the default Cessna, you should be fine. For designers, and developers, it's in the ditch.That said, I should get back to work here.. ;-)LeePS: I swore I'd never post in these forums, and here I am at 53 posts.... I need a life, but first a coffee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Bottom line - I believe they need to improve on the already existing FSX before the start adding new things such as airplanes and stuff; leave that to the third party devs."I whole hearted agree. Microsoft needs to fix FSX before they start adding more more candy to attract the race track set. Yesterday I was flying a 747 at 36,000 ft with a air speed of 460kts. I was using real weather updating every 15 mins and was flying from Toronto to Los Angelas. For almost the entire flight I had head winds from around 260 degrees varying in strength from 60 to 90 knots. Suddenly with clear skies near Las Vegas and on auto pilot the 747 went into a stall at 36,000 that I was not able to recover from. I noticed that my winds were now from the east at 80 knots. In the blink of an eye my airspeed went from 450 knots to under 300 knots due to this sudden wind shift. I have a registered version of FSuipc but to date it is not able to correct this wind problem like it does for FS9. Using active sky doesnt help in fact the problem with upper winds is even worse than using real weather.In summary when 747's stop dropping out of the skies in FSX then I might be interested in addons created by microsoft. Until then my FS9 is staying on my machine. Lets get FSX right before we add more "stuff" to an imperfect product.SincerelyDon Gore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis, I think you're not considering that Aces and Microsoft are not small add-on vendors. They are fully capable of conducting and managing multiple work streams in parallel, especially if one of those is an anticipated revenue generator. This isn't the case of 2 guys in a basement, where they have to choose to either work on a service pack or build the new product. I also think that at some point, "fixes" to both real and perceived problems in FSX can be better addressed with a larger market share, and some updates may even be embedded in new products (a la LOMAC). A much better business case can probably be made to spend more resources on service packs, when you have a broader customer and revenue base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its actually 2 different sets of people working on each.Which is why the release states that DX10 and XPack will be available about the same time. Senior PM, Graphics and TerrainAces Studio, MGSQuoted from Phil Taylor in the thread by JDdrinker concerning the SP1 pack due in April. 1 set working on the SP1 and the other set on DX10 and XPack I believe.Ian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>In the default Cessna, you should be fine. For designers,>and developers, it's in the ditch.With respect, I disagree. I've had excellent success in rebuilding both models and gauge systems to exploit all of FSX's new features so far.Yes, the process hasn't been without its share of headaches, but truth be told, I've actually managed to improve my existing FS9 models & gauges based on some of what I've learned working within the FSX paradigm. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Just wanted to add my 2 cents, For a person who has reinstalled FSX till I'm blue in the face ( near ten times but I'm not keeping track)I'm not the bit interested in any more GOODSTUFF from Microsoft until they get this right. So you don't think I'm a Johnny come Lately I've been around flight sims since the very start. I think of Mr Gates often as I try to get some help that he will not provide as he is busy running around giving his money away in AFRICA so that he can add that group to his Microsoft crew. ( someone told him he can't sell computers in Africa because they have no ELECTRICITY!!!)TonyI feel better alreadyREPEAT AFTER ME "I AM NOT A BATA TESTER !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hi,>> Just wanted to add my 2 cents, For a person who has>reinstalled FSX till I'm blue in the face ( near ten times but>I'm not keeping track)I'm not the bit interested in any more>GOODSTUFF from Microsoft until they get this right. So you>don't think I'm a Johnny come Lately I've been around flight>sims since the very start.>Sounds like my five year old CPU. Trouble, trouble, trouble...:-roll New high end "mid grade" CPU last October, and FSX has been installed once, and only once. It doesn't CTD either. So, why is your CPU trashed, and mine isn't? BTW-- I see the same re-install comments over & over on the FS9 boards. Nothing new.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reviewing what ACES/Microsoft put together in FSX, I would say that they would be better off concentrating on getting FSX fixed rather than waisting time on an add-on. Come on guys, there add-ons are going to be nothing more than new missions and default planes that many of us don't fly anyway. Third party add-on developers will blow them away as far as add-ons are concerned.One more word of warning. ACES/Microsoft has already proven that they are not to be trusted when they make claims about FSX functionality. They are currently saying their first add-on package "Adrenaline" will be released with a DX10 patch at the same time, so "Adrenaline" will be DX10 compatible. You cannot believe them when they make claims like this. Remember, when FSX was released back in October we were told that FSX would become DX10 capable with a free DX10 patch at the same time that Vista was going to be released (January 31, 2007). Now we are being told FSX won't be DX10 capable until the holiday season of 2008, nearly a full year later. DO NOT TRUST ANY MARKETING CLAIMS YOU MAY HEAR FROM FSX MAREKETERS, THEY HAVE FLAT OUT LIED TO US IN THE PAST, AND MADE CLAIMS ABOUT FSX THAT WERE FULLY FALSE NO MATTER WHICH WAY YOU LOOK AT IT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi!Wow!!!FSX has already been responsable for such a high level of adrenaline since last October :-boom In fact it has let us all almost completely crazy of so much adrenaline.And now there is MORE adrenaline coming on? :D My best regards,Carlos Pereira.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>After reviewing what ACES/Microsoft put together in FSX, I>would say that they would be better off concentrating on>getting FSX fixed rather than waisting time on an add-on. >Come on guys, there add-ons are going to be nothing more than>new missions and default planes that many of us don't fly>anyway. Third party add-on developers will blow them away as>far as add-ons are concerned.>>One more word of warning. ACES/Microsoft has already proven>that they are not to be trusted when they make claims about>FSX functionality. They are currently saying their first>add-on package "Adrenaline" will be released with a DX10 patch>at the same time, so "Adrenaline" will be DX10 compatible. >You cannot believe them when they make claims like this. >Remember, when FSX was released back in October we were told>that FSX would become DX10 capable with a free DX10 patch at>the same time that Vista was going to be released (January 31,>2007). Now we are being told FSX won't be DX10 capable until>the holiday season of 2008, nearly a full year later. >>DO NOT TRUST ANY MARKETING CLAIMS YOU MAY HEAR FROM FSX>MAREKETERS, THEY HAVE FLAT OUT LIED TO US IN THE PAST, AND>MADE CLAIMS ABOUT FSX THAT WERE FULLY FALSE NO MATTER WHICH>WAY YOU LOOK AT IT. >>I agree, plus months before FSX came out they told us it was made to take advantage of dual core cpu's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, plus months before FSX came out they told us it was made to take advantage of dual core cpu's.Whoa there!!! Where did you ever see this? MS to this day, never gave any indication FSX was programmed to take advantage of multi core processors, nor SLI, nor Crossfire! Let's not go round spreading false information!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry......Larry,Why can't you just let it go ? Seriously, what other possible outcome could you possibly be after here, if not to drag out the same old drum to beat, yet again ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Larry......Larry,>>Why can't you just let it go ? >>Seriously, what other possible outcome could you possibly be>after here, if not to drag out the same old drum to beat, yet>again ?Let what go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't they already do that? Or, am I just missing something?Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a neighbor sell me his car a few years ago, he put a lot of work into getting it ready for certification and all that... I was very appreciative of what he did .... but it didn't stop me from punching him out when I found out that he had previously bent the frame (thus its a write-off), before deciding to sell it to me.My point is... I know that ACES have put a lot of blood and sweat into this product, and I do appreciate that. But FSX was NOT what I was led to believe... and the more time passes, its looking more and more like it will NEVER be what it was supposed to be.A year from now, I imagine that FSX will be a lot more enjoyable. I think that it will definitely be a wholesome experience. But I do not think that the problems will be solved by tomorrows hardware, but by tomorrows patches. How would ACES know how their software will perform on next years newest processors when they couldn't even foresee the popularity of SLI and Dual Core? What annoys me, is that even though it became a sure thing after development of FSX had started, why wasn't the production leader having his team re-evaluate the project? Why would they continue and complete a SLI and DC incapable FSX long after these technologies become standard equipment in homes across the planet, then market it as the end-all-be-all of next-generation simulation??? Why? Because they could, and did.My biggest question is... why are so many people happy with this? Patting them on the back won't get this sim patched properly till xmas... (Disclaimer: Some people truly are happy with their FSX experience... cool. However I know for a fact that most of these happy people are really just 'content' that it runs 'fluid-like'. Are you REALLY happy, did you get what you paid for? Did you get what you thought you were getting? Or were your hopes dashed too.)Kev CSELECT * FROM developers WHERE clue > NULLZero rows returned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hello Gang!>>As the title of my message states, I don't want to sound>ungrateful with this post and my intention is not to start a>flame war at all. I am grateful that Microsoft/ACES is>dedicating time and effort to expand FSX and make it better ->- - - we all know it needs fixing/patching in many areas. I'm>glad to see that a patch is in the works and that we may see>it in a couple of months. By the same token, I'm OK with the>DX10 patch coming (strategically around X-Mas time), because>by then, there would be a couple of proven/tested DX10 GPU's>and Vista would have been patched and updated at least 20>times.>>What bothers me in some ways is this:>>Why is ACES spending time creating new airplanes and trying to>come up with new prodcuts to add to FSX and fundamental things>such as ATC and performance are still an issue? This whole>ATC issue is somethignthat they have avoided addressing like>the plague. In fact, the ATC engine did not change from FS9. >I don't want to go into the details because ATC issue topics>are all over the history of these forums, and I also realize>that the ATC engine is allright but things such as SIDS/STARS>and other basic things need to be enabled.>>Bottom line - I believe they need to improve on the already>existing FSX before the start adding new things such as>airplanes and stuff; leave that to the third party devs.>>My 2 cents!>>>Sincerely,>>Dennis D. MullertThey are just trying to come up with ways to get people to upgrade to Vista.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Let what go?"....I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you aren't being intentionally obtuse... Can you not just accept the fact that many people are not able to achieve the results you claim to have achieved ?Can you not accept the fact that "crisp textures" and "better feeling air(?)" are not features that will appeal to everyone ?Can you not understand that many people may have had higher expectations, realistic or not, of what FSX was to be, and are quite disappointed with what it actually is ?Can you also not understand that some have tried very hard to embrace FSX, unsuccessfully, and how that can be a very frustrating experience ?Or, has the "debate" itself actually become the point for you ?I can see no other justification or purpose for your post above, but maybe it's just me.

Share this post


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