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

[Guest JeanLuc_]

Yes Gary, I see this, and this is more or less what this threads shows from many participants of the thread: we all agree that the sole PC to run what FS was targeted for at full feature set, is the PC that is available when the next FS version comes to the market. Which means we can never enjoy full targeted feature set unless we fly previous version always. We seem to all agree on that and this more or less what the thread has shown.But in doing so, many express their disapointment and during the product life cycle, you never reach the satisfaction point until the program is outdated by a new version.Let's try a suggestion: if FS11 targeted feature set (full sliders to the right with smooth flying) could be considered at a closer time frame, like 1 year hardware after release, not 3 years (i.e. new FS version on the market). During the first year, a more important number of users will have a better experience sooner, and after 1 year, there will be more headroom for ACE-supported third party vendors.Now, about the use of the sliders, we in fact today trade feature set for performance, not complexity of the feature for performance. That is you thread boats for AI aircrafts (while the scenery density for example is more a complexity vs performance). But I don't want to trade one for the other because of hardware not catching up to a software designed for a hardware I will have later. I'd prefer the complete feature set, maybe less of it (less boats, less aircraft, less density). And maybe for FS11, the solution is not more of this and more of that with sliders to adjust quantity, maybe solution is less of all that but better rendered and better modeled for good performance right now? I don't know, but like I've mentioned in another post in this thread, the Ace Combat 6 demo example shows less autogen than lower FSX setting, lower res textures (maybe middle texture setting of FSX), but I find (maybe just me) it is more realistic and it runs 60FPS on a hardware (X360) that equals today's PC. FS9 is not capable of producing this kind of visuals, nor is FSX, and I'm still wondering about FS11 direction in this regard.Anyhow, I'm really not trying to make any of this bad, I'm just wondering how we can help the best ACE for FS11 from our feedback as consumer, particular consumer at that, us, "simmers".

[jbroadwa 0]

Geofa,I guess that is what I'm advocating. But it is just my opinion among the many excellent opinions expressed in this conversation. I don't envy the ACES team given the wide variety (and well thought out arguments) of the users in this thread. Thanks to Jean Luc for starting such an interesting conversation. Thanks again,Joshua

[Geofa 108]

Not to quibble because I see your point. But I for instance don't care about boats, airport vehicles, and 2x water or building shadows, or thermals to name a few.So I am happy to trade these (turn them off) for sliders full right in other areas like mesh and terrain resolution that I do care. I even change the parameters for this for individual flights depending on the type of flight by saving a config.You might prefer the complete feature set on with less of it, but I prefer only the feature sets I am interested in with more of it! :-)I am of the now generation-so if higher res terrain and mesh is available today-and I have to trade autogen and car traffic to have it now-so be it. I don't want someone else making that decision for me however.I'd actually like even more sliders for customization-for instance-autogen-the ability to have more trees vs. houses (I know you can adjust in the config)-but more importantly a slider to decide when to fade them in and out and what radius-and agl. altitude. I'd like a slider to populate the earth-especially airport areas with birds.If I have to sacrifice a few cars to get birds in the airport environment-I'll do it. I have almost run into quite a few birds, but never a car knock on wood.For me the more power that you give the user to decide exactly what kind of a sim and how it will run-the better. The more choices and the more features-the less fps of course. So why let Microsoft select a few and how much-give us more choices and let us decided-with of course the caveat that all will not be able to be put full right.I sent an email to Brian about a survey-maybe we can add a few more questions. It would be interesting to see how the simming population at large feels.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Guest wyoming]

Build desire into the purchase. Assuming that the initial satisfaction is above a minimum, this keeps the consumer frustrated enough to expect more in the future and tends to make him more attuned and loyal to the brand. Apparently, flightsim is similar in that respect to detergents or razors (or politics!)Unfortunately, the problem, I think, is not the hardware that can't catch up with the software. It's just the opposite. Old debate, but still. Do we think that softwares, mainly OS, have gone through as much progress as the hardware over the last, say, 10 years? Ten years ago, I had Windows 95 (which I kept for a very long time) and a... 300MHz and a vidcard that I won't even mention (8MB?)! So far, Moore's Law also seems to apply to the number of lines of codes.ACES is a creative studio, as I understand it. One element of the window (no pun intended) display of a much larger shop, whose marketing strategy is fully integrated. Reminds me of my old days in advertising, when a big wig told us young creatives: "We just need 51% creative superiority. No more, no less." He meant business.

[maxter 0]

>I would vote to design it slightly less "ahead of the curve">the next time around, sure. Still ahead of the curve but>slightly less so.>>RhettI agree with you Rhett, totally, however have you seen the wishlist for FS11 on the thread somewhere above this one?I put it to you what most want is not only ahead of the curve, it's off the current page and well down the road to the next county. All this and exceptional performance as well.Sadly for guys like Phil Taylor, it is them that has to hose down the unrealistic expectations placed in the average punters minds by over zealous marketing types. I seriously doubt that this will change in the medium term. But then again it might if they were made to appear on forums like this one.Personally I buy the best machine I can afford around every 3 years or so, hopefully co-ordinating the purchase with the release of FS (On to my 7th machine since a PCXT clone in the mid 80's), and then a mid life upgrade should there be some exceptional advance in hardware that will make the experience more realistic. I just see it as the ticket to the game.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

[jbroadwa 0]

Jim,I repectfully disagree. Your argument about the FS11 wishlist doesn't make sense to me. You know they are not going to implement everything on that wishlist like you mention ("Program it all, lock the settings, and say 'There you are folks. Find the hardware to run it all'"). You are missing the point. ACES will choose what can reasonably fit into the next version. The "reasonable" part is relative to what platform they choose: hardware at release date or hardware three years after release date. ACES surely can deliver a product that runs on the top end machines, but may have only 15 new features instead of 30. Would people be upset? Yeah, probably, but they always are when a new product is released and their favorite widget is not in it (ATC anyone?). Your argument in quotes above also assumes the sliders are gone. No one is recommending that course in this entire thread. I do agree with your overall argument though. This thread really comes down to one of two choices: 1) a new MSFS version with less new features, but runs on top end hardware on release day or 2) a new MSFS version with lots of new features that can't possibly all run together on release day allowing the user to pick and choose. That choice is really a matter of preference. I argue for point (1) and let addons (like yours) upgrade my software. You argue for (2) and let users have choices at the expense of not having everything. I think a poll on this would really illuminate where the "hard-core" simmer market is. One last note: I know you are a supporter of the "one back" rule as you mentioned in other threads. I think given all the users staying with FS9 this is happening right now, and I don't think it has made a lot of users happier as you suggest. I think it has somewhat divided the user base leading to addon developers having to support both versions (see PMDG, Airsimmer, and AXP). Joshua

[Guest FredGherkin]

Was it known that this version was "programmed for future hardware" before it was released, or only after a huge percentage of people were having trouble with it?

[n4gix 4,947]

I'm personally in favor of the "slightly ahead of the curve" paradigm. I agree with Jean-Luc that three year hardware forecasting is too agressive, and with Geofa that limiting to "best at time of release" is too conservative... ;)As for Geofa's observation regarding slider usage, wouldn't you be happier trading some "eyecandy" for even better performance versus the current tradeoff of having to lower some just to obtain barely acceptable performance?" :-beerchug

[Geofa 108]

"As for Geofa's observation regarding slider usage, wouldn't you be happier trading some "eyecandy" for even better performance versus the current tradeoff of having to lower some just to obtain barely acceptable performance?" I guess you have me there-because I am doing that right now with my 4 year old single core P 3.2...hence my confusion about this issue and why I haven't upgraded my computer for the first time in an fs series since 1981.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Guest SkyDrift]

This is an interesting conversation.I'd like to put a different perspective on the discussion. How much effort (development resources) does it take to develop and test a "future hardware-proof" and "configuration-proof" architecture for Flight Simulator today? - and would that effort be better spent elsewhere?In other words, if the ACES team only developed for the expected hardware available at the product's RTM date - and not for RTM plus RTM+3 years, would that free up resources that could be used to focus on refining features & functionality that the community is asking for rather than potential hardware performance requirements that won't materialize for 3-5 years in the future?As I think we all know, those who read & post to these & other FS forums are a small minority of the total FS community. As has been mentioned previously, the vast majority of purchasers of FS never purchase an add-on, download a freeware add-on, care about tweaking their system, or buy a new PC just to get optimal performance out of FSX. For them, an out-of-the-box product that worked without having to make any config changes on RTM hardware would be fine.So perhaps, rather than having different product versions where the "deluxe" version is one that just has more aircraft, missions & better scenery, for FSXI there would be boxed versions (each priced differently) based on configure-ability. For example, for FSXI: Standard Edition: Basic FSX running on Vista (32 or 64bit) with DX10, no customization possible. The code is optimized to work on expected RTM hardware only and no performance settings are available for users to change (either in the GUI, or via cfg files). It does not allow any addons to be installed. In addition, if used wanted to, it can be upgraded on-line (after the purchase of an upgrade licence) to: Deluxe Edition: Basic + a few more aircaft & missions, etc. Again, the code is optimized to work on current hardware only and no performance settings are available to change (either in the GUI, or via cfg files). It does NOT include the SDK, but it DOES allow 3rd-party payware or freeware addons to be installed.In addition, if the user wants to, it too can be upgraded on-line (with the purchase of an upgrade licence) to: Developer Edition: This addition would have everything in the Delux version plus the SDK and give users the ability to tweak settings, as we are used to today. However, by definition, we are tweaking above the MS recommended "standard" configuration, so should not expect 100% compatability 100% of the time, as we are, by definition, pushing the envelope of the sim.Optional: Perhaps this edition also comes with a number of free support calls/minutes to a dedicated helpdesk/website that is manned with dedicated FSX-help experts.The benefits of this are significant.For MS, cost of help-desk support from the general user community drops dramatically, as one can expect most users to purchase the lower-cost basic or deluxe models.For payware and freeware add-on developers, it significantly simplifies their work, as they only have to develop to a known (smaller) set of configuration settings, with less chance of users inadvertently "messing things up". It would also minimize configuration conflicts between 3rd-party-add-ons.For users of the Standard and Deluxe edition, FSX just works. No tweaking required. Period.You might say that this is idea is unfair to those who purchase the developer edition. Perhaps this is true, but from a democratic perspective, MS should primarily develop for the majority of FS customers, and the minority who want the more complex feature sets should pay more for them (Just as they now have to do if they want the SDK). If you are proponent of market-force economies, this is fair. If you are a proponent of getting something for nothing, then this is not! :>)Needless to say, this would require major architectural changes to the current FS architecture, but since the ACES team is (as I understand it) planning on moving to a pure DX10 graphics model and removing a lot of old legacy code in FSXI, perhaps this is the right version to make other major architectual changes.In short, we can never have everything we want, so if the choice is between asking ACES to spend (or gamble) their development resources over the next two years on future-proofing FSXI to work on hardware that will (or might) be available in 2012, or investing in better features & functionality (multi-player, ATC, weather systems, etc), but only for hardware that is available in 2009, which would you choose?- SkyDrift

[jbroadwa 0]

Bill,I agree with you. In my original post in the thread, I asked for a version that would run on a top end machine six months after release date (you can see it "later" in the thread). I think a slightly ahead of the curve is a great compromise between the two extremes.As for trading eyecandy for even better performance, my argument remains I'd like good performance with all sliders (not just barely acceptable). And because this has been a really thought provoking thread, I'd like to mention this small idea. I mentioned in this thread in response to Geofa that perception is very important. This got me to thinking about my own perception when FS9 came out. You know, I jumped almost immediately into FS9 and never looked back. I realize why I did that. Even though all the sliders were not far right, the default settings the simulator picked worked well and smoothly from day one. Better than that, even at those default settings it looked better and surely acted better than FS2002 (which was a sim I really liked). The only reason I ever tweaked FS9 was to see if I could get a little more performance out of the sim. The reason I tweaked FSX was to make it flyable. That is a huge difference in perception. So, perhaps I do agree with Geofa and Jim after all -- but only if the default settings offer more than the last sim and work smoothly out of the package on the first flight. I really do think you could sway me then. Again, thanks for this wonderful discussion.Joshua

[jbroadwa 0]

One last thought (I promise). I just realized that FS9 did what Bill is talking about (at least for me) -- found a nice compromise between three years ahead and hardware at release date. A year after FS9 came out, I bought my 3.2 GHz machine and I could run FS9 with all sliders right. To alleviate this problem, I immediately went out and bought Ultimate Traffic and loaded up on complex addons. Now, I can't run it with all options (no ground shadows for example), but I do have a lot more traffic then originally designed for the sim, better mesh, better ground textures, and better planes. Yeah, I think I like that idea a lot. The next version of MSFS should aim for hardware a year after release date. I think that is what I got with FS9 and I think it led to an incredible sim with lots of room for addons. Ok, enough typing for me, time to actually enjoy the sims and fly. Really, I'm done. I swear. :-)Joshua

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

Joshua,That's a good point how FSX struggled from the beginning versus FS9 being acceptable right off the bat. When I upgraded from FS2002 to FS9, I could easily get better perf at the same visual settings compared to FS2002 on the same hardware and could even crank it up a little. A year and a bit later I upgraded to an A64 and could run all sliders right, even if it occassionally dipped into the low teen FPS. A C2D upgrade late last year made FS9 a cakewalk at any setting.In contrast, when it first came out I could not get FSX to perform at the same level at equivalent FS9 max slider settings, and to me that made FSX a step backwards - I was very grumpy. To ACES credit, SP1 raised the performance bar to what I experienced with the initial FS20002 to FS9 upgrade experience and now I fly FSX almost exclusively.Hopefully with FS11, ACES won't experience the same hardware redirection during FSX development that saw multi-core CPUs trump mega-fast single core CPUs. If they follow the FS2002 to FS9 model experience result, it should all be good!Gary

[Guest Lennyt]

>I'm with you, Ryan.>>I had a new E6600, 8800 GTX and 2GB RAM system in June. This>ran FSX much better than my previous system, but still no>where near maxed out.>>I am, of course, talking post SP1 here.>>FS9 is a totally different experience for me. With all the>add-ons I've purchased through its life, UT, GE pro 2, AS6,>FE. Not to mention your fabulous 737's and 747's.... LevelD>and so forth.>>For once I can fly into EGLL with everything maxed and still>FPS in the mid 20's + from the VC of the PMDG 747.>>This is a perfect example of FS being totally out of sync with>hardware at time of release. Three years on, FS9 is a joy with>this hardware and is still my dominant platform, in fact it>feels like a new sim.>>FSX is a good sim, just frustratingly a head of current>hardware, unless big compromises are made. In three years>however, I think I will just be discovering what it can offer>with my 5 or 6 gig CPU, whilst in the shops, there's FS11>ready to under perform on the same hardware.>>That's all from me>>Stu. But you can't still run FS9 with everything maxed out, PMDG 747, UT, 100% traffic, cloud cover, etc. and expect 35 fps even with an extreme duo core or quad core system. So then we adjust certain parameters just like you have to do with FSX. I just bought a new system - Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.4 Ghz) with 3 gigs, Nvidia 8400GS 256 mb. The scenery sliders are almost all maxed (one notch down for autogen and 2.x low water) and although the fps show 10-12 fps when flying over New York - no blurries and flys as smooth as butter. Just last week before I bought my new rig I was flying my 3.6 Ghz single core with 2 gigs ram over the same area with the same settings and it was a joke - blurries, stuttering, basically unflyable. That same rig flew FS9 beautifully but in big airports/cities with high AI things can drag as well. The FS series is a different beast then Quake or EA sports games. Expectations have to be adjusted otherwise it will always be a letdown.

[jgoggi 65]

The matter is only one, in my opinion:there is an agreement between big software houses and hardware manufacturers in order to make people continuously spend money to upgrade their hardware. So the "full sliders compatible hardware" is something that will never be available, or better, will asymptotically be available only at an infinite time...