well if it's scenery design, how come it happens even to default sceneries?

Because default scenery IS scenery design. How do you think ACES made their scenery? They designed it like any other. It is default scenery that I was talking about. Microsoft didn't have time to tweak nodes in a turn to smooth them. They also didn't set up runway crossings for traffic flow.But yes the other things you mention, a lot of that is .dll items in the program, and yes those things could stand improving or adjustment.

I

Because default scenery IS scenery design. How do you think ACES made their scenery? They designed it like any other. It is default scenery that I was talking about. Microsoft didn't have time to tweak nodes in a turn to smooth them. They also didn't set up runway crossings for traffic flow.

It does seem like problems of this kind could be better solved by some intelligence in the program rather than by requiring 100% correct taxi data for every one of the thousands of airports in the database. In particular the jerky turning could probably be fixed by something as simple as making planes, particularly heavy ones, initiate a turn gradually rather than going instantaneously from 0 degrees per second to 10 degrees per second or whatever.Likewise it doesn't seem too much to ask for the program to work out on the fly (no pun intended) that a 747 needs to be assigned to a longer runway than a Cessna, rather than require that this information be stored in the airport model every time.Colin

Some of what you describe, is due to airport scenery design rather than any failing of the AI or FS........Because default scenery IS scenery design.

hoping you could have been more specific in your earlier thread. it sounded that you were talking about third party scenery. and default scenery design is still job of microsoft FS people, isn't it?i wish microsoft would have developed fsX with performance in mind rather than improving the visuals. they advertise so much on how much they changed the visual world but i haven't heard or seen them mentnioni of any specific development in the improvement of traffic manageability. to sum it, there are plenty of free third party designers who can improve the visuals, yet microsoft dipped their hands in that aspect rather than improving what most of us non-computer-savvy, non-tweakers cannot do anything about. all that worth 30$ (+1000$ computer).

another thing i would like to see in future FS isREALTIME TRAFFICanytime when you start your computer (you have you be connected to the internet), fs downloads all schedules of airlines all over the net. so when you start FS at specific daytimes, you get realtime traffic. this will only be available to commercial airlines since private airlines don't usually post their itineraries.so for example, there is a 747 isla airline parked at gate3 in klax at 12 dec 2008, gmt 800 and will departure at gmt845 for vhhh in the real world. when you go to your sim world and set the date at 12 dec 2008 at time gmt 800 and go to klax airport, you will find an isla 747 airline parked at gate3. it will leave in 45 minutes for vhhh.then we just download AI model and textures. no need to update flightplans and you get realtime traffic for commercial airlines, which makes a commercial airport busy.

another thing i would like to see in future FS isREALTIME TRAFFICanytime when you start your computer (you have you be connected to the internet), fs downloads all schedules of airlines all over the net. so when you start FS at specific daytimes, you get realtime traffic. this will only be available to commercial airlines since private airlines don't usually post their itineraries.so for example, there is a 747 isla airline parked at gate3 in klax at 12 dec 2008, gmt 800 and will departure at gmt845 for vhhh in the real world. when you go to your sim world and set the date at 12 dec 2008 at time gmt 800 and go to klax airport, you will find an isla 747 airline parked at gate3. it will leave in 45 minutes for vhhh.then we just download AI model and textures. no need to update flightplans and you get realtime traffic for commercial airlines, which makes a commercial airport busy.

In the US sites such as flightaware.com also show all GA traffic on ifr flight plans.

Well we are now officially in 2009.I wish they would announce some news. What's their projected release date. A teaser title . . . Something.I wish they do not try and keep any type of backwards compatibility. I would gladly give up all my add-ons for a fresh new engine that was truly optimized to take advantage of the hardware we have available today.

Well we are now officially in 2009.I wish they would announce some news. What's their projected release date. A teaser title . . . Something.I wish they do not try and keep any type of backwards compatibility. I would gladly give up all my add-ons for a fresh new engine that was truly optimized to take advantage of the hardware we have available today.

As I stated before I left Aces, do not expect FS11 until after Trains 2 and ESP 2. Trains 2 is expected Holiday 2009 per http://tsinsider.com/product/FAQ.aspxThe next possible cycle for FS11 is the holiday season after that, eg Holidays 2010. This is not news. Have fun with FSX, its still going to be around for a while.

As I stated before I left Aces, do not expect FS11 until after Trains 2 and ESP 2. Trains 2 is expected Holiday 2009 per http://tsinsider.com/product/FAQ.aspxThe next possible cycle for FS11 is the holiday season after that, eg Holidays 2010. This is not news. Have fun with FSX, its still going to be around for a while.

Which Holiday is reffered to? There are many during a year.

Which Holiday is reffered to? There are many during a year.

It's probably the End of year/Christmas/New Year holiday period... Or the period leading up to those holidays.

It's probably the End of year/Christmas/New Year holiday period... Or the period leading up to those holidays.

Yes, in terms of games, when to ship, and holidays - over 80% of games ship for Thanksgiving/Christmas. I also do not know another holiday that gets caps, as in Holiday. But maybe thats just a North American thing.So to reiterate, the earliest FS11 could ship is Thanksgiving/Christmas 2010. Thats not a guarantee, thats just the earliest it could ship based on the state of the studio when I left end of September. Things haven't changed as of yet, so that is the "latest data" anyone has.So enjoy FSX for another 18-20 months or so.BTW, I see Nehalem is getting decent reviews wrt FSX, 21-50% is what I am seeing from various postings seehttp://forums.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?t=191229andhttp://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topi...tml#Post2626310http://orbxsystems.com/forums/index.php?topic=7810.0And we'll probably see another bump with Westmere and Sandybridge. And with all the add-ons that are being delivered for FSX now, the next 18 months should be just fine.

Phil,I don't know if you can answer this, but thought I'd ask.I'm not a "programmer", but with the nature of computer systems capabilities increasing must faster today during the life-cycle of an FS release, one of the things I've noticed is that addons created for FSX have outpaced the core programming capabilities included in the release. For instance, the "slider settings" in FSX have maximum values assigned to them that are used in the configuration files, such as the "texture_max_load=1024" and the "LOD_Radius=4.5"Currently, changing any of the scenery settings within FSX causes ALL these values to get reloaded to the settings the sliders are at in FSX. So when using something like REX or FEX SHD with cloud textures of 4096, the only way to keep higher settings for these values is to use "work arounds"...separate configuration files, etc. You can't use the original FSX slider interfaces anymore.Two questions:1. Do you think FS11 will incorporate a method that will plan for this problem with future addons for FS11? A method that will not put a "maximum value" on these settings? The ability to change ONE setting without it also "reloading" all the rest of them at the same time? Or at least allow the end-user to set higher values for them without the original maximum values being defaulted to when adjusting OTHER settings within FS11?2. As for FSX now, is it possible to incorporate a change to the main program to eliminate this problem? I'm thinking the answer to that may be no, as it might require a major change to the core FSX programming, and in as much as it has been said there will be no more "service packs" to FSX, it appears we will all just have to live with it. But it is a royal pain right now to not be able to use the "Settings" portion of FSX to make adjustments to things like autogen density, or any other setting, without FSX defaulting back to lower maximum values for other settings. Would it be a violation of any MS policy for someone to create a way to change this? Would it even be possible? I'm not looking forward to having to use "work around" ways to use higher "texture_max_load=" and "LOD_Radius=" values with FSX for the next two years. I know a couple of addon developers have done something of the sort "within" their own addons (the Flight1 UTX FSX settings interface, for instance), but these only work OUTSIDE of FSX and can't be used while "in" FSX. If it would be possible to change the way FSX "reloads" all these settings when the end-user only changes ONE of them, it would be a godsend for all FSX users now.Thanks for any insight. And best of luck in your new endeavors!FalconAF

ehhhh 4 years period betwen new versions (at least..) , oh my gosh... it was 2 years ....so we should expect new version at least double more better than before???!!! :( :( :( brds

Phil,I don't know if you can answer this, but thought I'd ask.I'm not a "programmer", but with the nature of computer systems capabilities increasing must faster today during the life-cycle of an FS release, one of the things I've noticed is that addons created for FSX have outpaced the core programming capabilities included in the release. For instance, the "slider settings" in FSX have maximum values assigned to them that are used in the configuration files, such as the "texture_max_load=1024" and the "LOD_Radius=4.5"Currently, changing any of the scenery settings within FSX causes ALL these values to get reloaded to the settings the sliders are at in FSX. So when using something like REX or FEX SHD with cloud textures of 4096, the only way to keep higher settings for these values is to use "work arounds"...separate configuration files, etc. You can't use the original FSX slider interfaces anymore.Two questions:1. Do you think FS11 will incorporate a method that will plan for this problem with future addons for FS11? A method that will not put a "maximum value" on these settings? The ability to change ONE setting without it also "reloading" all the rest of them at the same time? Or at least allow the end-user to set higher values for them without the original maximum values being defaulted to when adjusting OTHER settings within FS11?2. As for FSX now, is it possible to incorporate a change to the main program to eliminate this problem? I'm thinking the answer to that may be no, as it might require a major change to the core FSX programming, and in as much as it has been said there will be no more "service packs" to FSX, it appears we will all just have to live with it. But it is a royal pain right now to not be able to use the "Settings" portion of FSX to make adjustments to things like autogen density, or any other setting, without FSX defaulting back to lower maximum values for other settings. Would it be a violation of any MS policy for someone to create a way to change this? Would it even be possible? I'm not looking forward to having to use "work around" ways to use higher "texture_max_load=" and "LOD_Radius=" values with FSX for the next two years. I know a couple of addon developers have done something of the sort "within" their own addons (the Flight1 UTX FSX settings interface, for instance), but these only work OUTSIDE of FSX and can't be used while "in" FSX. If it would be possible to change the way FSX "reloads" all these settings when the end-user only changes ONE of them, it would be a godsend for all FSX users now.Thanks for any insight. And best of luck in your new endeavors!FalconAF

1. Maybe. Simplifying the UI was on the list when I left but we'll have to wait to see how that unfolds.2. I do not know of a way to address this with FSX.

ehhhh 4 years period betwen new versions (at least..) , oh my gosh... it was 2 years ....so we should expect new version at least double more better than before???!!! :( :( :( brds

any attempt to use a sample set of 1 to extrapolate the future is unscientific.and its probably best to view Acceleration as the last version, given that it added significant features and occupied the entire FS team until it shipped in 2007.

Phil, nice to see you back here, missing the old job? ;)