FSX. game or simulation? a personal view

[nudata 10]

There are probably many who are in agreement with your critique. You are neither right or wrong. It is perception. It is your perception. You have every right to have that perception. To argue perception is to argue ideology. Who in Microsoft makes decisions on the target markets and the percentages of participation in those markets? The program will drift toward that perceived market. If you are not in that target zone frustration will occur. Since the customer base does not know the marketing facts and the revenue/profit we can only guess at the direction of the program. You made some guesses and, of course, saw that there were few who agreed. However, the question is NOT, were you wrong. It is that you, as a customer, had a perception. A perception that can only be changed, not be argument, but by Microsoft addressing your perceived grievances. That may happen in whole, or in part, depending upon the Microsoft marketing department's belief of where you, and others, fit into THEIR perception, of the commercial world. Regards,Dick BoleyA PC, an LCD, speakers, CH yoke

[JSkorna 137]

If I am driving down a Arizona road in July and say "look kids, there is water on the road ahead!" that is also a preception and is totally false, just as some of the OP preceptions are false.Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

[Guest danny68]

same happened to me except I was up a ladder and saw a spider. It was amazing and I said to the kids "it's not a spider, it's an ant"They just went errh?Confused, watch next weeks soap!

[Guest PARADISE]

Life itself is a game within a universal simulation.Can't figure that out?........................neither can I;-)

[Guest christianholmes]

FSX is a game that can simulate certain aspects of operating an aircraft. Much like a sex doll can simulate certain aspects of... well... sex. But in both cases it takes a grain of salt to make it believable, and even the most most realistic version would never be 100%.Really, It depends on the person- I have real life experience (in both cases thankfully :) so my mind can sort of fill in the blanks were I to simulate either... activity.For someone who has never flown a real plane, the only answer can really be that it's not that realistic by itself, and even for an accomplished pilot only certain things can be simulated accurately.And you don't have to be a pilot to know the difference between a blow-up doll and the real deal :)

[nudata 10]

That may be physically true but marketing is not a reality process. It is an attempt to meet the needs of a mysterious target market. If a significant portion of that market has a bad PERCEPTION then the product needs adjustment. Or, a decision is made to ignore that segment as too costly to satisfy. Now the segment may have a wrong (total/partial) perception. That could be corrected through advertising, which includes the conventional media, and forums such as AVSIM where a portion of the market congregates. The problem may be that Microsoft has designed their product for a market segment that is actually not very large but is expected to mature (buy new stuff) which will improve their perceptions. Many customers of FSX are in a pre-purchase status deciding when, or if, to buy more "stuff". Some are quite patient and very respectful of the Microsoft team while others are frustrated and openly critical. It is up to Microsoft to to decide if they are going to address this waiting group or decide that this segment must improve their hardware to see the full potential of FSX. Tweaks are ok but that only enhances frustration since tweaking simply re-subdivides an already low resource pot. The balloon squeezing exercise is fun - to a point.So, in my less than humble opinion, Microsoft has made a decision after SP1 to stand behind the need for their customers to buy more equipment to capitalize on the enhanced features of FSX. There is little value in discussions about the "perceived" shortcomings of FSX. That is the past. While the perception of FSX may influence a small number of future purchasing decisions most will simply wait for SP2 and if that does not make their inadequate PC run FSX better they will get out the credit card.Regards,Dick BoleyA barely adequate e4400 Core2Duo clocked to 2.5ghz

[Noel 4,484]

Oh, do you think? Or maybe it's because I point out the UNREALISM of many peoples' hopes, do you think?

[LAdamson 240]

Read this yesterday, and didn't agree with most of it either. The author is completely off base when it comes to the Microsoft "team" involved, since I too, know a lot of the real characters; as well claiming no improvement on scenery.Since I'm a scenery fanatic, it's been FSX's very noticeable improvement in displaying high resolution graphics that's had my attention from day one. And this includes everything from mountains and cities to bump mapping on aircraft.Except for several 3rd party FS9 aircraft; and well done airport scenery areas such as FlightScenery Portland, FlyTampa, and Glacier Bay; I use FSX as my regular "flight simulator", and FS9 more for fun. FSX does indeed provide me with the most realistic topography (mountain) database for my real life flying areas of the mountain west. Especially when combined with FSGenesis. The improved resolution of FSX's photo type scenery tiles makes the old FS9 mountain scenery looking rather crude in comparison.So here I am, with a brand new sectional and VFR Terminal Area Chart, ready to give FSX another go, as a SIMULATION. Afterall, I haven't flown a real plane since Saturday, and might get a bit rusty... :-hah L.Adamson

[Noel 4,484]

Here here! That is inspirational L.A. I have something to look forward to when I can upgrade my rig.

[sipos 0]

I agree, It's Microsofts job to create a good solid base platform. a platform that makes it easy for other developers to create scenery - scenery that must be able to run and look beautiful. Have they done this? Well I sort of agree that they didn't - in the performance perspective part of things. When FSX first came out I was a little shocked about how bad the performance was. Now after almost a year it's been out, the team is still at full work with this product - which i think is pretty cool. After SP1 came out I am now able to see the light, performance has drastically improved for me. It's like they released a World Wide beta version of FS in October, and now they are taking peoples criticism and suggestions and doing what must be done, fixing it up. If Microsoft was not still working on the product then i would be mad, but they are not, so i am happy. As for the expansion pack, they are simply making it because the scenery people don't have anything to do while the other developers are preparing the DX10/ SP2 patch. I would make a suggestion to Microsoft/ ACES though, be sure you are spending a greater amount of time on the Base Product and not the Scenery Design. Though by making the scenery they see what they have to do to make the scenery development easier for others. Anyways, i think ACES is on the right track :-)

[MD83 1]

Default FSX is a game, just like default FS9, FS8 etc ;). Real simulators are many times more expensive, and more sophisticated. However, you can modify and add to MSFS, and use it for real-World applications. MSFS is used by civil and military establishments for training purposes.The US Navy use MSFS:https://wwwcfs.cnet.navy.mil/microsimptt/index.cfmFS is also used by a number civilian flight schools, albeit in modified form.Regarding FSX, I think ACES has been unlucky in some respects. They released an hardware-intensive piece of software when three important events were taking place:1) WinXP to Vista2) DX9 to DX103) The "plateau" in CPU speed incrementsI'm confident that FSXII will become what FS2004 currently is i.e. a very realistic game, used for training purposes ;).

[JonRD463 146]

The problem I see here in this whole debate is that some people are taking the distinction PERSONALLY. I mean, so personally that to even suggest that there's even the slightest hint of game-ness causes convulsions, seizures, and forum diatribes that only serve to perpetuate an air of haughtiness and elitism that is NOT good for the community as a whole. In fact, it's pretty damned uninviting. I've been playing the game (feel the hackles on the back of your neck stand!) since FS3, but for the life of me, I just can't get into most of the mainstream simming community because I worry that I ain't pilot enough to belong.In my opinion, it's purely in the eye of the beholder. I call it a game simply because it's located in the entertainment software section of my local dealer, under the banner of Games for Windows, and the only thing I get out of it is a little enjoyable escape from reality every once in awhile-- just like any other game I play. Now, if you want to use it to hone your pilotage, by all means do so! Just, you know, kinda lighten up when other people offer their own opinion about it. If I call it a game and you call it a sim, it doesn't mean anything more than a difference of opinion.I'm not aiming my post at anyone in particular, so I hope no one takes this personally, but there are times when I honestly feel that this community needs the world's biggest enema.

[MD83 1]

>I suggest that we call fsx a potatoeIs that you, Dan Quayle? :-lol

[Palebushman 0]

:-eek Well said Jon, and it's appropriate that your bottom line reads as it does. I agree too with Bill Leaming and his comments. :-beerchugJon D.1S0, Graham, WA*****************************************System Specs:AMD Athlon64/X2 4800+ Toledo core2 GB PC3200 DRR400ATI Radeon X1800XT/ 256MB GDDR3Plus a harddrive. And DVD/RW. And other stuff to make computer work. Ja.Every time someone uses the word "stunning" in the screenshots forum, an angel gets his wings. 2207+ angels and counting!Surprise! You are a gamer. You spend several hours per session sitting in front of your computer playing the role of a pilot. How is that any different than someone playing the role of a marine commando or an all-powerful wizard on their computer? Face it, the screen may look different, but you're still playing a game. Get over yourself.

[bob.bernstein 0]

lol....I thought it looked a bit odd...you say potato, I say potatoeyou say tomato, I say tomatoegame, simulator, simulator, game....lets call the whole thread off.Apologies to Ira, George, Ella, & Louis