Microsoft's direction for FSXI

[Guest]

Agreed 100%

[maxter 0]

>FSX is not even complete yet. Wait until SP2 and DX10. DX10>should bring a lot of additional features. >>RH"a lot of " is such a subjective term. I would not get too carried away, however I sure hope they do something that makes some better use of my hugely expensive video card (at the time of purchase).Cheers,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern AustraliaIntel Core 2 Duo E6700ASUS P5N32-E SLI Deluxe Motherboard4GB Corsair VS DDR2 667Mhz RAMInno3D 8800 GTX 768MB GDDR3 590MHz VideoASUS MW221u 21" Wide Screen LCD2 x 320Gb WD SATA DrivesCreative X-Fi Platinum Sound Lian Li PC-B20B Aluminium Black CaseMS Vista Ultimate OEMCH FlightSim Yoke USBCH Pro Pedals USBCH Throttle Quadrant USBTrackIR 4 Pro and Track ClipMSFS FSX Deluxe Edition Full install at 1400x960x32Check out my 5th Around the World flight with MS FSX at http://members.iinet.com.au/~portercbp/fly...W_05/index.html

[ryanbatc 12,857]

I sorta agree with that part about judging success based on those who use addons....BUTdon't you think that it is us who drive the addon market? It is the hard core users that get Phil and team to post here, we want the tweaks/etc, always wondering what comes next hehe.... I think although the hardcore/addon users are small, they/we are powerful too...

[Geofa 108]

"don't you think that it is us who drive the addon market"Absolutely-my point and I am sure any add on developer will agree, is that "we" are a very small part of the fs market. Therefore, judging fs success based on the smaller add in market isn't really valid. MS has stated that fsx has been the best selling in the entire fs history.. "I think although the hardcore/addon users are small, they/we are powerful too"I'd like to think so! :-) I think like any "artist"-the Aces team strives to satisfy the larger market-but also strives to please the hardcore users-as they themselves are hardcore users too and ultimately want the same things we do. Now if we the hard core users could ever agree on what it is we want! http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Jay R 0]

This is not directed at any one person. Beware....Rant On!Every person I know who enjoys gaming, including myself, constantly complains or talks about how they always have to upgrade their hardware to play the latest and greatest. How is the FS franchise any different? Many hardware components are obsolete the second you buy them, as two weeks later a better improved model will be released.FSX is the progression of the series. More demand on the hardware, due to the same features WE requested and wanted. It baffles me sometime the blanket statements some make of how their hardware that ran FS8 and FS9 so well now bites the dust with FSX. It's always been this way, always will be. I can't complain, as I know I must upgrade my PC to enjoy FSX to its fullest.As regards the statement they should rebuild the sim from scratch. How do we know that would make things better? Would you not also have to buy or upgrade to newer hardware to take advantage of the new features and obtain good performance? Comparing FSX to Crysis makes little sense to me. Don't you have to upgrade your hardware to play Crysis to its fullest?If ACES took the idea of a 'from the ground up rebuild', wouldn't we complain about the negating of our third party add-ons no longer working? I can just hear the outcry now. How dear ACES do this to us, they don't listen to their customers.ACES has a prety good handle on the pulse of the hobby, and will lead the FS franchise in the right direction. Like Jim commented above, we'll hear all of this again at the next release. It's easy to predict.Cheers,[hr width=100%" size=1 color="black]http://forefrontgrp.com/MyLogo2.JPGJason | General Aviation FanVisit my new Blog:http://abwain.spaces.live.com/

[Guest grapesh]

FSX is surely a fine program, however it had my attention for much less than FS9. Why? Maybe because of its old "sins" like FPS and AI/ATC, unavailable SDK, and simply a lack of "extensibility". FSX delivered a nice eye candy, and it would eventually get even better with dx10. But, in the light of other modern developments, I want more today that I wanted 2 years ago! (and this will happen every time we talk about new version of the flight sim -- that's for sure!)I want _scalability_ meaning I want exponential increase in performance with linear addition of the hardware. This is how it happens in scientific computing on unix/linux/mac clusters, and this is how ideally I'd like to build a flight sim rig. As an intermediately advanced consumer (as a majority here, perhaps), I want a distributed parallel system that will take on all available resources and produce a live, high-resolution, realistic environment. I hope that multi-core technology will move towards real scalability, where you can add up resources according to your budget and see how many aspects of your simulated environment become alive and start to breathe. At this point, I'm hesitant to invest into hi-end GPU as there is much more to flight simulation than just eye candy.If Microsoft had such a scalable simulator, they could do a great business on its "extensibility" by selling the variety of extensions from games to professional solutions. We here talked once (that was exactly the same kind of discussion - "what features you want to see in FSX?") about having one virtual world model that can be used by various applications from simulators and shooters to commercial visualization, architecture, planning, real flight training, military, science, internet, you name it, similar to MS Virtual Earth and Google Earth with their different layers. They could cater to professional market meaning improvement of specific aspects of the simulation: from weather to graphics to a more precise street layouts and flight dynamics and so on. So, according to your desires, computational resources and financial abilities, you could build by modules the custom Simulator of Your Dreams... Do you need the best weather? -- buy a professional version engine that was built for TV stations. Are you into combat simulation? -- buy the Combat gaming add-on. Don't care about weapons? -- invest into scenery and enjoy your city in such detail that would make a local major and police cry. Have a spare money for the PFCAD-grade flight dynamics? ... Want to have a pro-version of the ATC/AI engine?... you get an idea...Well, this becomes a long post anyway so I just say this: flight simulation is not confined to our small world of a few enthusiasts, and there are ways to improve many thing we often rant about, by selling a scalable, reconfigurable and extensible line of products catering to a spectrum of basic users to pros. In this line, the FSX can be a basic grade. Make it extensible. Make it scalable. Let freeware devs a freedom to improve the environment so you ACES could focus on flight dynamics. And so on... I know my expectations are well beyond a "game" aspect of FSX, but... I thought I should share it with you and ACES, as most of us are not ordinary gamers anyway.Cheers!=S.V.=eMachines T5026/P4/3.07GHz/1Gb RAM/160Gb/Windows XP Home SP2/ATI RADEON 9250 PCI 256Mb/ViewSonic VX910 19' 1280x1024/Microsoft SideWinder Force Feedback 2

[philbrown 9]

I would also like to see a new engine developed. The problem with the current situation is that whilst the engine is upgraded and everything made to look a bit nicer, the same fundamental flaws still exist, and appear in version after version.I find that the weather system in FS pretty poor. You've got wind that can shift instantly. The wind changes also have drastic affects on airspeed (having worked in air traffic control, I can't say I ever remember hearing pilots saying they've had to level off during the climb because they've lost significant amounts of airspeed due to wind shifts). The wind also doesn't stay static at a precise direction and speed - it jitters about a fair bit. Also, the overcast cloud is simply awful. Overcast clouds disappear as soon as you fly through them, and I've never seen overcast from cruising level. Also, when there's fog, at higher altitudes you can clearly see the ground. On many occasions, I've been able to see the runway from about 10 miles, when a sudden fog bank appears, and I can barely see the ground anymore.I can remember giving X-Plane a quick fly a number of years back. I was very impressed with it's overcast clouds. Below them, it was dull and dark, requiring panel lights. As soon as you got through the nice thick clouds (that didn't disappear whilst going through them), you broke out into bright blue skies and blinding sunlight. Doesn't happen in MSFS, as it's just as bright below overcast as above. And I can usually see significant amounts of blue sky through the so-called overcast layer.I use the superb Active Sky whilst flying, but even this great program can't hide the awfulness of the FS weather engine. But I'm afraid we will see the same situation through all the MSFS versions.

[frankla 44]

Majority of the potential buyers will not buy a new sim for better wind and weather simulations. Imagine having "better wind changes" on the box as a new feature? MS needs features in addtion to fixes to pour in money and resources for a new version of FS.

[Guest unitedpilot36]

I would also like an engine rewrite, FS needs a serious facelift. Also, I don't want blurries anymore, they make me sick just looking at them. :D

[Guest grapesh]

>Majority of the potential buyers will not buy a new sim for>better wind and weather simulations. No, the majority will buy a basic system.The more advanced users, like most of us here, will go and buy "Microsoft Virtual Weather" or "Microsoft Virtual Weather Pro" that could actually be used by non-simmers (TV stations, municipal agencies, even real-world ATC :)! -- anyone who depends on weather forecast and wants a complete picture as opposed to just metar/taf cryptics) or in other MS games (simulators, shooters, e.t.c).>MS needs features>in addtion to fixes to pour in money and resources for a new>version of FS. Don't expect a great return from a half-game half-simulator that is aimed at a very narrow market segment. At the same time, a modular open-end system is unlimited with features because it gives everyone what they need, thus bringing much more money.Cheers,=S.V.=eMachines T5026/P4/3.07GHz/1Gb RAM/160Gb S-ATA HDD/Windows XP Home SP2/ATI RADEON 9250 PCI 256Mb/ViewSonic VX910 19' 1280x1024/Microsoft SideWinder Force Feedback 2

[FlyingsCool 3]

Do you really think they might consider going a Vista only route? I guess I hope by 2009 I'll decide to upgrade to Vista. Right now, given its still quite spotty support, I dunno.I was at a business today, and they were psyched to have upgraded to Windows 2000 from OS2 Warp for their systems just last year, :-xxrotflmaoThomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

[Guest jshyluk]

I would think that a Vista-only route would be a serious consideration for MSFS somewhere down the line. Skydrift made a good case for that in an earlier post. Jeff ShylukSenior Staff Reviewer, Avsim

[StoneC0ld 5]

FSXI will *probably* be released around 2009, possibly 2010... I think that's around the same time all support for XP ceases, if not after, so I think it's safe to assume that FSXI will require Vista or its successor....

[Guest Len]

>There's a big AVSIM convention coming up, where if it's going>to be anything like the last one, MS could go out of their way>I also think that folks who are suggesting that the flight>engine should be rebuilt could always start by writing their>own! It's how Bruce Artwick got going, there's nothing>stopping talented folks from writing their own sim. Look at>Orbiter: another good example of people doing it on their own.> However, unless you've gotten your feet wet by geitting>involved in game or sim development directly, I don't see>where your opinion will have much weight with those who make>the financial, creative, and logistical executive decisions in>MSFS. >>Jeff Shyluk>Senior Staff Reviewer, AvsimMaybe we should all become communists and not say anything. Give it a rest. The amount of money most of us spend on games, programs, computers, etc. gives a right to have a #### opinion about rewriting. And I gave it.

[Geofa 108]

..and I am sure being so positive and non expletive will hold a lot of weight...communists-ok...Me.. I want live digital scenery ala google/yahoo live feeds and icing on windshields and wings, and a whole lot of other things...but I'll put in my requests without the ##### opinions or hostility-seems to get more done that way -maybe worth a try imho :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/