Performance Request

[jbroadwa 0]

I just wanted to float this past everyone in this forum to get your feedback.I would like to make this suggestion: the next version of flight simualtor should run with all functionality (sliders at max) on a top-of-the-line machine at release date.The paradigm has shifted. Most hard core users add on to their flight simulator experience using various payware and freeware products. These extra pieces of softare add additional processing loads. Therefore people are extending their flight simualtor experience not by moving the sliders right, but by adding various new software to the experience. This is genius in my opinion as it really makes the software grow from even one week to the next. If flight simulator was to run on top end machines on day 1, this would allow 3rd party developers the processing overhead they need to make their incredible airplanes, scenery, etc. Additionally, everyone would be able to enjoy most of the bells and whistles in each new version on day one making the software available to a wider audience (and perhaps make a few more bucks along the way). In summary, we no longer grow our flight simualtor experience by moving sliders. We do it by extending the simulator through 3rd party software. Please consider this in the next version of flight simulator. I think everyone would greatly benefit from this type of approach.Thanks,Joshua

[JSkorna 137]

Hi,Run one version of FS behind and you will get exactly this. Use FS04 until FSXI is out and then purchase FSX.As for me, I appreciate when software pushes hardware to move forward.Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development Team Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/FSEconomy Member:http://www.fseconomy.com/

[Guest]

I would CERTAINLY rather have a product that bings a top of the line system to its knees, that way over the life of the product it will get better as my hardware does. Sure they could give you a dumbed down version, and only "unlock" the extra eye candy with a patch later on when new hardware comes out, but then people would be complaining that all the goodies are locked up, and I would be one of them. The fact is FSX DOES run just fine a top of the line system. Run it on a Core2Duo overclocked to 3.5GHz and see. Even on my system which is FAR from top of the line, the graphical difference between the settings I play at and all sliders maxed is very small, and not even really noticeable. Look at the screen below, I run 18-27fps with these settings, and my single core 2.8GHz athlon system is 45% slower than a Cor2Duo @ 3.5GHz. Also, I've said it before, but the add on community makes for a very small percentage of flight sim buyers, so the comments about using add ons instead of sliders applies to only a small part of the user base.http://sio.midco.net/111lll/imagequad.jpg

[slashed2 53]

Finally, and interesting discussion without having to bash anyone. I happen to like this idea to a degree, but with a 3 year development cycle the graphics may be outdated at time of release which is a big risk.It's a safer bet that hardware will advance in 2 or 3 years as it has done over the past decade and I personally don't believe hardware advancement will stall, though that's a whole other debate.It is a bit frustrating from a user point of view especially due to the cost of upgrading, but as has been stated before it's now become the gaming cycle. To play to of the line games you need a top of the line pc, though you bring up interesting points.Good topic of discussion though....Ian.

[Guest Logan826]

>>As for me, I appreciate when software pushes hardware to move>forward.Jim, No offense to you and please don't take this in the wrong way. I love your products and respect your contribution to the FS community. But I beleive the OP is onto something that makes sense. The way MS has developed this this round is like you going out and buying a '07 Ford Mustang, or for the Chevy vans an '06 Vette and instead of getting the high pro motor you get the 4 cylinder. FS9 wasn't as bad, we could run it pretty quick on what hardware was out or in the next 6 months. This time......it's going to be a year or better and then they are unsure. Don't get me wrong I love a game (sim) that has a future, but one that we can't even run half tilt and don't even think about throwing a 3rd party addon at it. I for one wouldn't mind the next release to be a little less "future" maybe something along the lines a a year or two and not 5yrs down the road. Dan

[Guest Logan826]

"so the comments about using add ons instead of sliders applies to only a small part of the user base." This is a completly false statement. If it wasn't then there wouldn't be 150+ companies making FS products and making a good living doing it. (Don't flame me, I think they should be making money, that's not my point.) With there being thousands of FS add-ons how can you even make that comment. Again, I somewhat agree with the OP.Dan

[tf51d 284]

>I would CERTAINLY rather have a product that bings a top of>the line system to its knees, that way over the life of the>product it will get better as my hardware does. Sure they>could give you a dumbed down version, and only "unlock" the>extra eye candy with a patch later on when new hardware comes>out, but then people would be complaining that all the goodies>are locked up, and I would be one of them. >>The fact is FSX DOES run just fine a top of the line system. >Run it on a Core2Duo overclocked to 3.5GHz and see. >>Even on my system which is FAR from top of the line, the>graphical difference between the settings I play at and all>sliders maxed is very small, and not even really noticeable. >Look at the screen below, I run 18-27fps with these settings,>and my single core 2.8GHz athlon system is 45% slower than a>Cor2Duo @ 3.5GHz. >>Also, I've said it before, but the add on community makes for>a very small percentage of flight sim buyers, so the comments>about using add ons instead of sliders applies to only a small>part of the user base.>I agree with most of what you say, but I think Aces would have been wiser to set the GUI settings lower, and add the extra eye candy via the config file. The hooks (Atleast some of them) are already there. If they set these lower on release, performance wouldn't have become such an issue, atleast on the highend systems. The other thing as I said in another post, is by setting these high and adjusting them down with the GUI, it doesn't leave room for lower to mid range systems. If you need to set autogen for example to sparse on a highend system, which is still greater detail than FS9 at max setting. It may need to be even lower on a low to mid range system. As it is on release, without tweaking the cell settings in the fsx.cfg file the only option left is off. If these setting were set lower in the config you can adjust the amount of autogen further to an acceptable level without turning it completely off. This is the big mistake I think Aces made in this release, regarding the performance issue. That and continuing to use, or at least not fix the default.xml file which has been a known performance killer on FS9. If it was done this way, it would just be a matter of increasing the levels in the config file when higher performing hardware is available in a year or two. Psychologically no matter what you tell them, people will gauge performance on how well a program does at max settings. Which in this case out of the box, poorly, even on today's highend systems. This all could have been mitigated if the settings in the config file wasn't set so high. I have my FSX set pretty well now on my Stock E6700, check my benchmark score in the benchmark thread in the hardware forum. But it took some tweaking to get it there!!

[Mace 1,909]

Yes a good thread for discussion that hopefully won't be marred by hot air.I do think that this version was designed a little too far ahead of the curve...but then, the curve shifted on Microsoft when Moore's Law went down the tubes.Having said that, we are still approaching a time where a combination of hardware and software will whisk away any FSX performance issues. That time will be much sooner than "when FS XI is released" as the naysayers/wags/glass-half-empty-types have said.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

I tend to agree with Jim. Whilst I'd like the latest and greatest to run on top end hardware, the trend seems to be that the previous version runs just as you want as the new one arrives. So if you really want max performance and a mature and extensive addon base, then go with FS9. Although I had my doubts about FSX ever coming into being before the next version is due, the commitment shown by ACES in recent months has way outstripped MS's previous involvement, so I am now hopeful that FSX will follow this same pattern.Just think about it. If MS delivered now what you ask for, it would be FS9 capped at its current capability rather than FSX with the growth potential it has designed within.Gary

[DadJokeCinema 145]

Hi, SolarEagle.Two questions: First, is that the RealAir Spit? Because that is one beautiful bird.Secondly, does anyone know of a T-38 for FSX? After reading Mike Singer's blog, I'm dying to fly one.

[jdyoung 0]

Agreed!ACES have stated in the past that FS is viewed as a base product that is meant to be expanded upon through third party development. Given that position, wouldn't it make sense that the product would perform at its maximum potential at release date or shortly there after? I understand their logic in wanting to keep FS selling long term, but, given the above base product argument, wouldn't the longevity of FS interest be fueled by add-ons? In additon, by the time an individual purchases/upgrades a machine with enough horse-power to get the out of box FS up to full throttle (no tweaks), it's time to purchase a new version of FS! Ridiculus!I agree with the original post - start with a product that runs well on the top of the line machine at release date and let us enjoy shelling out money for add-ons for the next 2-3 years to enhance it. I promise you we won't get bored.John

[Murmur 3,941]

>I would like to make this suggestion: the next version of>flight simualtor should run with all functionality (sliders at>max) on a top-of-the-line machine at release date.I completely agree with the original poster.Unfortunately, there is a vast part of the user base (mostly the casual users, I think) that prefers to max sliders and watch a slideshow, rather than the opposite.As long as this is true, that is not gonna happen.So, blame it on the eye-candy crow. :-lolMarco