How pertinent is designing FS11 for hardware avail in the next 3 years?

[Geofa 108]

I see your points-as usual the truth might be in between somewhere.We will meet up eventually-I hope-I owe you a few beers!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[virtualstuff 757]

Look at the development for the console there is also a hardware bandwith for the upcomming years regarding hardware ;-) Cheers,http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/sign1.jpg

[Mace 1,904]

I agree with your general trend...that if the choice for FS11 came down to either better perf or more features, I would choose better perf. However...However I think we can have the best of both worlds. I say that because this time around, no one is going to be taken by surprise midway in development with a major paradigm shift in hardware like happened last time.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[yellowjack 28]

There is an aspect to this topic that should be borne in mind by all advocates. The user population at any FS release time uses hardware that runs from the latest and greatest to gear that is more than 5 years old. Ergo whatever Aces did will bring complaints that it won't run on "My" machinery.I had just upgraded my PC when FS10 hit the shelves and am happy with the performance which was better in terms of FPS and function than when I bought FS9. Others not so fortunate blamed aces for the lack of performance on their older machinery. In my view it will always be a no win situation for Aces, unless of course they convert FS to a console game where designers know exactly the target they are aiming at. How many of us will plead for Aces to publish the next version of FS for consoles only?Want to run a flight sim with sliders to the right? Its easy just buy and install FS10 when FS11 is published. Now let's see who would be prepared to do that.As for Aces missing the goal post, they do say that hindsight is the perfect science.I am prepared to make a bet today that the next version of flightsim will not run on 64 bit OS's only. Imagine the whines from users (including myself) that I have been totally deprived of the benefits of a new flightim.

[Manny 1,293]

ACES could have easily met the criteria "FSim appropriate for HW at the time of release" by releasing FS9 in 2007 and FSX in 2010 and so on.I mean..all they had to do was..sit on their product and release it after 2-3 years.Option 1: Cut down on features and functionality that would eat up FPS and focus on features and functionality that would not affect performance.Option 2: Provide for all the new features and functionality as an option. eg. Bloom in FS9. This has been the option for FSX..to a large extent.I prefer Option 2.Manny

[frankla 44]

I think what Jim meant was the following: what is the difference between you choosing the maximum detail for your current hardware (Through sliders) and ACES choosing it for you. Think about it. Lets assume the current best hardware can handle FSX at 70% detail. With your logic, the FSX should have been designed at 70% detail and not more. Well, just set the slider at 70% yourself and assume that was all FSX had to offer! Isn't it childish to argue that ACES has to set that limit (75% detail in the example) for you, so you don't have to make that choice?

[frankla 44]

Basically, you are saying that by the time the hardware catches up the current version of FS becomes obsolete and your current hardware is now underpowered for the new version of FS? Naah..it would be underpowered for new version of FS (FS11 in your example) if you want to run at full capacity. It seems that we all need to learn delayed gratifcation! LOL

[tohughes76 0]

FSX is a beauty to behold, but I have to admit that the first six months of owning this sim was spent tweaking, not flying. Every flight was only a validation of either a .cfg adjustment or some tip that I picked up on one of the many forums. Reminded me a lot of the late nights changing IRQs or paring down the config.sys and autoexec.bat just to get any number of games to run in Win 3.11 or, worse yet, the first iteration of Windows 95 (read: Nascar Racing, Wing Commander, or any early Lucas Arts game).For many years it seemed like that was the norm...software was always well ahead of hardware, at least in the gaming world. Then slowly it evolved. Perhaps it was first person shooters that finally ran great out of the box on current hardware- any of the Id titles post 2000 seemed to have cracked the code for instant gratification. Slowly the tide turned for most of the software that interested me, except for, alas, the flight sim. Mind you, there is a satisfaction that comes with the tinkering involved in the quest for FPS. I truly try to look at the flight sim as not just a game, simulation, training tool, or piece of software. I like think of it as a hobby-in the sense of model trains. It is as simple or as complex as you are willing to make it. You can either just set up the oval track as it came in the original set, or you can create and entire world where you scrutinize every detail down to the vending machines in the train station and spend countless hours making paper mache mountains. For me, the configuration of the sim is just part of the journey, and the add-ons are like a trip to the hobby shop to add more to my world. That said, I think ACES is right to be forward looking in their development. Each iteration of the sim has a lot longer life than 95 percent of simulations/games on the market. I also believe like others in this thread have pointed out that ACES was thrown a curve ball with the multi core processors, and in the absence of that would have delivered a product that would have satisfied a much broader base of simmers (not just the tinkerers). Given ACES involvement in user feedback and making things right with two service packs, I can only be optomistic that the lessons learned from FSX will result in a much more mature product at release time with FS11.And to Jean Luc- thank you for a thought provoking thread. It is nice to see a forum full of insight and great discussion with valid points on both sides. I was really hoping that the 'AVSIM Opression" thread was not an indication of where we were headed.Regards, Tim

[JSkorna 137]

Hi All,Exactly right! Sliders have been a part of sooooo many game titles over the years, not just the FS series. Why? for so many different reasons, many of which we have seen in this thread. Some like road traffic, some don't. Some like Auto Gen, some systems don't. Some systems can handle high settings, some cannot. So whom decides, the software company or the user? Then do this, read this thread and then read the FS11 Wishlist thread. "Holy FSP hits Batman!" Combine some of the CPU/GPU wishes with some of these wishes here and what is MS supposed to do? Program it all, lock the settings, and say: "There you are folks. Find the hardware to run it all." Well, good luck! But instead we have major control over what we use and see based on our personal tastes and systems. And for that I am thankful for.And no it doesn't mean that you need to update your hardware every XX months. My system is pushing 3 years old now and I still can get good performance FOR ME with FSX. No, I am not running everything full right, but many sliders are full right. Yes, I miss my Auto Gen from FS04, but with the way FSX displayes it, I don't mind the change. AI traffic? I have every WOAI plan and many PAI plans installed. Add Ons?ASX, X Graphics, and the ported versions of UT USA and Canada with all roads and lighting turned on. So, yes I did have room for some Add Ons. If I wanted more I would need to ask: do I update my hardware or do I adjust my sliders. I am gald I have that choice.As I read more and more about all of this, I think that some users have the right idea, use the "one back" rule, use the previous version software until hardware catches up. For example, fly the heck out of FS04 right now, until FS11 is released and then switch to FSX. Many a user would be a lot happier then!Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

[Guest ToMy Li]

There's long time for FS9, I hope FSX never will rull smooth as we wish, maybe FS11 will do... FSX has been released between transition to Vista and first times with DX10, I dunno what's the Microsoft FS Team target next time...Quad Core Processor (atleast QX6800) doesn't move FSX at all. Why?See you next year (maybe) testing FS11 version... :-beerchug

[Guest JeanLuc_]

Hi Jim,I'll answer to your post, although this pertains to a couple other posts in the same thread too, so please don't take it personaly, nor everyone, since it is none.But in short, I feel like there is a drift in the profound sense of what I was trying to say, and some replies. It is not about I can set the sliders to 70% now, and can further increase later. This is not the topic at all. Nor is the topic of FS should be limited to xx% of what it could have been, with ACE deciding where to limit.The topic is, no matter how you purchase a PC, if the software development is done in a way to be targeted at PC 3 years after the release, then, again no matter how often and what PC you purchase, your PC will NEVER reach the targeted design performance. So in turn, this makes me wonder if 1) designing a software for hardware in 3 years makes any sense at all 2) if it make sense, how could I benefit from it.Reading the thread and the so many great feedback, the main conclusion is the one I've said in the beginning: the sole way to enjoy full right sliders, i.e. what the FS version has been designed for, is to purchase the top end PC at the end of the life cycle of the FS version, i.e. right before the next version hits the market.So in doing so, ACE looses sales for the next version, and in designing an FS for hardware in 3 years, they basically shift sales 3 years from release. (well, of course, if we all go the same route and wait to have the PC they have designed the sim for...)Who is winning then? no one! lots of complaints with the new version on current hardware, no headroom for the so many ACE-supported third party vendors, and no stellar sales for ACE.No one can ignore FSX release has never been this much controversial in our community of simmer, and I even wonder about casual gamer core-maket of ACE comparing 15 FPS good graphics, with 60 FPS stellar graphics of other games, if they would make the same purchase decision for FS11.In turn, I would not like everyone loose, and this is why if there is something to reconsider for FS11 in product strategy, and us, simmer, through a poll, give enough feedback to ACE (either ways, i.e. our purchasing habits validate doint what they use to do, our our purchasing habits invalidate what they use to do), then we may all win for FS11.Hope this helps!

[Guest JeanLuc_]

Hi Tim,I've further refined a little bit the original topic sense in my answer to Jim above (#40), and I thank you for your kind words. Sometimes I say things blatently stupid I guess (well, not so often I hope otherwise tell me!), but I'm glad this topic helps, and is given proper credit with incredible profound feedback from everyone.

[Guest JeanLuc_]

I owe you these beers!! you make me blush!

[Guest JeanLuc_]

Hi,this is not exactly what I'm saying in fact, or I've expressed it badly. In my answer #40 I explain further, but in short, with an example, the hardware FS9 version was design for is the hardware we have at FSX release (the hardware 3 years after FS9 release). But by the time you can get this hardware, for FS9, there is FSX. So you will never enjoy FS to what it was designed for (its feature set targeted for a computer capable of running it), if you don't fly the previous FS version. Which in turns, makes me wonder if it really is pertinent to design a simulator for hardware in 3 years from release, if we can never actually use it for what it is targeted for when designed.And in all other cases, purchasing hardware for FS9 in the middle of the life of FS9, well before FSX, and the same for FSX, you will NEVER EVER get the hardware capable of running the sim you fly at its targeted feature set.But again, this all started from my own purchasing habits in hardware, others certainly do differently, hence my question to open a poll to see if really we are all in the same boat, or if I'm alone in an island. And from this, give enough feedback to ACE from OUR habits for them to consider this for FS11.Hope this helps!

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

>The topic is, no matter how you purchase a PC, if the software>development is done in a way to be targeted at PC 3 years>after the release, then, again no matter how often and what PC>you purchase, your PC will NEVER reach the targeted design>performance. So in turn, this makes me wonder if 1) designing>a software for hardware in 3 years makes any sense at all 2)>if it make sense, how could I benefit from it.Actually, for FS2002 and FS9, a PC three years after release DID reach the targeted design performance. Upon release of FSX, I was worried that this release was so hampered in the performance department that it would never make it, but SP1 breathed life back into the old girl and with SP2 and another couple of hardware improvements, FSX should now make it too.It's not all as bad as you make out. As Jim suggests, sliders can fix any over estimatation of hardware estimates anyway!Gary