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

[Geofa 108]

I don't think there is anything wrong with designing a flight sim to run full right today-you would just lose a lot of new features and give the end user less choice.I can run fsx at a consistant 30-40 fps on my 4 year old single core p3.2To do this I disable light bloom, autogen, traffic (ai,cars,boats), and keep water 1x low. I don't particularly like the autogen or water so I don't feel I miss much here-the traffic I either turn up to 20% when I can accept 10-12 fps lower achieving about 15-20 fps and I await a new computer in 6 mos. to a year that will allow me to run with everything a little more, including the traffic. Right now the other new things fsx offers makes that compromise necessary on my 4 year old machine-and I am glad to have absolute control over what I consider important in my fight sim experience.Everything else I run almost to the max.So I am sure Aces could have put out fsx with the same amount of autogen as fs9, and perhaps no car traffic (new feature), no new water effects, no higher res photo real textures, but perhaps a lot of small improvements, and allowed the user of today's computer to run with everything right.If this is a requirement of the next sim then we would lose out on most of the new features users are requesting above.. After all-if fsx is so hard to run now-how can we add more processor/video features and get more performance-sure a complete rewrite of the engine might work-but there are limits-and I certainly want more new features in the next version. Why not have the next version include many if not most of the above requests-then with the knowledge that no one could possibly have a machine capable of doing all of them,and that let the end user what is important to them-which is what I think we have now?As Reggie points out-autogen on the lowest fsx setting is 200% more than fs9's maximum.Does it matter that the slider can't be pulled full right-when the miminum value is already that much of an increase over the predecessor?http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

I think the whole issue of inadequate performance on high-end modern day hardware at release lies somewhere between the following two extremes: - the feature set, relative to other leading game titles of the day out there, is too aggressive for what even the most optimised of code can do on modern hardware.- the game engine itself is so weighed down from years of outdated design and compromises made in the name of backwards compatibility, that even a moderate feature set will get all choked up on the latest and greatest hardware.The closer the FS engine is to the former, the further delayed all present FS releases should have been to meet the most sliders right on release requirement. ie. FS9 should have been released when FSX was, FS20002 when FS9, etc. If this is the case, do people really want to move the FS timeline back 2-3 years to meet this requirement?Alternatively, if the game engine itself is carrying too much baggage, then nothing short of a rewrite will set FS free for the next release. If this is the case, are people prepared to wait the time it takes to rewrite a game the size and complexity of FS, and to then have an much longer period of no addons available for this next release while developers retool to the new engine?Only ACES really knows where the FS engine fits on this line but, as with most things in life, there are consequences for moving either direction on the line. As the old saying goes, be careful what you ask for because you just may get it!Gary

[Mace 1,909]

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.The main thing is, that the "curve" is now more predictable.But next time around, I think things will be completely different for a couple of reasons:1) we have a level of interaction with ACES never before seen2) they are removing the shackles of backwards compatibility, 3) multi-core can be baked-in to the sim from the very beginningRhettAMD 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

[virtualstuff 758]

My vote goes to development for current hardware and capabilities...With an update curve to add new features every year which may require new hardware to run every slider setting to the right ;-)So a more balanced software system which is developed for and on current hardware...Then we could have far more fun instead of tweaking the next Flightsim ;-)Cheers,http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/sign1.jpg

[jbroadwa 0]

Geofa,I think it does matter psychologically that the sliders cannot be pulled full right. I believe it leaves a number of users unsatisfied because no matter what they do, they cannot see the sim in its full glory (even two years after release according to the old devlopment model). For example, you mention in an earlier post that you still cannot run everything full right on FS9 and your machine was built the year after they released FS9 (correct me if I'm wrong). Even if the sliders are pushed full right, there are still changes that can be done. For example, the maximum autogen slider setting in FSX without configuration file changes is respectively 4500 and 3000 even though the engine is capable of 6000. Those "power" users can always start changing the config file to push the envelope later as hardware becomes available. In other words, I think perception of performance is a very important part of any software release. On another note, I'm thrilled to see Phil and ACES so involved in these forums. I do believe it is this type of interaction that will make future versions of our favorite sim even more incredible than ever. Thanks guys for taking the time to talk to us and seriously consider our thoughts/comments/ideas. Thanks,Joshua

[Guest Nickio20]

By letting Hardware overrun the outgoing sim, I think Aces would have a more anticipating market who are wanting the new -up to standard sim- hence more sales, less complaining...Catch my drift?Nick

[Guest EvilNando]

>I think the whole issue of inadequate performance on high-end>modern day hardware at release lies somewhere between the>following two extremes: >- the feature set, relative to other leading game titles of>the day out there, is too aggressive for what even the most>optimised of code can do on modern hardware.>- the game engine itself is so weighed down from years of>outdated design and compromises made in the name of backwards>compatibility, that even a moderate feature set will get all>choked up on the latest and greatest hardware.>>The closer the FS engine is to the former, the further delayed>all present FS releases should have been to meet the most>sliders right on release requirement. ie. FS9 should have>been released when FSX was, FS20002 when FS9, etc. If this is>the case, do people really want to move the FS timeline back>2-3 years to meet this requirement?>>Alternatively, if the game engine itself is carrying too much>baggage, then nothing short of a rewrite will set FS free for>the next release. If this is the case, are people prepared to>wait the time it takes to rewrite a game the size and>complexity of FS, and to then have an much longer period of no>addons available for this next release while developers retool>to the new engine?>>Only ACES really knows where the FS engine fits on this line>but, as with most things in life, there are consequences for>moving either direction on the line. As the old saying goes,>be careful what you ask for because you just may get it!>>Gary>The is really no point in having a software that no hardware can run.. to me it is the same that waiting for the software but knowing that when it comes out it will match up my fps spectations, having a "next gen"why bother looking at a slideshow? this time I think that ACES has not been able to compete with themselves , for example Ill skip FSX entirely until FS11 , in the meantime ill stay with FS9 and invest in good looking scenery and realistic hardware, there is no poin to migrate to fsx which will give me subpar visuals and performance compared to what I have right now

[Guest JeanLuc_]

Hi Geof, nice to see you there, and more than that, I hope to see you in Seattle!! I can't wait to shake your hand and say thank you for all you have done for me.As for the hardware/FS11, please, the point is not entirely feature set/performance/sliders to the right. The point is that with a strategy to design a software for the hardware available in 3 years from now, no matter what I do, my PC purchasing habits OR my strategy to purchase a suitable PC (i.e. like I've explained, at beginning, middle or end of product life cycle), will never get me the PC to get the full right slider experience.This means that the strategy to offer a sofware for hardware in 3 years can never be realized, until, you purchase a new computer every 6 months to keep up. I can't purchase, as a consumer, a new PC every 6 months. In turn, the logic behind the choise of software development is flawed because it can't match consumer purchases. It sure matches available hardware, not the hardware you actually purchase no matter what.In that, the open question, and the idea of the poll (thank you for your consideration about this, as I think this can help ACE studio), is to see if I'm the only one, or, to some extent, if the majority of our specialized market (us, simmer), can never match the hardware for the software for the same purchasing habit reasons.Now, I think there is also a misunderstanding about level of performance and hardware to some other extent, and I'll just expose an idea about the sliders here (not my idea): When FS is released, all slider right should give a fluid and smooth experience on the most powerfull system available at the time FS releases, and sliders are there to lower the feature set to accomodate for lower performing computers. In time, the hardware the consumer purchase will catch up in consumers houses and will match the top of the line computer that was available at the time FS was released, and all simmers will enjoy full experience. So in turn, at the time FS releases, it should offers full right sliders + all features for top of the line at release time hardware, and calibrated features yet smooth experience for lower hardware (a PC 2 or 3 years old could be a good idea as the lower mark). When the time advances, more and more PCs will catch up the feature set in allowing more sliders to the right as PC are replaced (as we, consumer, change our computers).Because in essence, it is not about if FS is capable or running full sliders right on the top end PC (although it should in my opinion), but it is FS is capable or running full sliders right (complete experience) on the PC you have at home. And from my consumer habits, my conclusion is that I can never have the right PC at home unless I purchase a new one every 6 months.And it is even more so if ACE Studio wants the support of third party vendors. They have to offer a plateform with enough head-room for us. In fact it comes to 2 choices: either FS is a closed plateform in which ACE puts all they think is right to put, and we fly that, OR, FS is an open plateform for third party vendors. In the latter case, FS is just an operating system, and third party vendors develop applications. Let me give you an analogy: what if, Windows XP (I won't take Vista as an example here...) is designed for hardware available in three years from now, and in the meantime you get this hardware, you can barely (even without third party applications) use it. Then you want to change the basic paint program with Photoshop, but there is not enough head room to run it, and even to install it, because Windows XP is already taking 100% of your CPU and GPU? It would be simply unacceptable for me. And then, three years later you have the correct hardware, but then they release Vista, and your ok for WinXP hardware can't run Vista properly. Would you stay with now running WinXP or switch to barely running Vista? I think with "3 years ahead" principles, no one wins.Hope this helps!

[GHarrall 494]

If we can get the FSX experience 'out of the box' in FS11 with FPS ~60, then I will be happy.I think FSX looks great now, it just needs to run faster.If OOTB it could run around 50-60FPS at a fairly high detail setting then it would leave much more headroom for the addons.So I would be happy if FS11 carried the same featureset over from FSX only with much better performance. If that requires an engine rewrite, then so be it. Backwards compatability doesn't seem to matter too much. I think most of us end up paying for newer versions of our payware products anyway. While we wait for the developers to catch up with the new FS11 engine, think of the fun that could be had in seeing the sim in all it's glory although it would be from a 'default' aircraft. (some of which are not that bad now anyway!)(oh, and let's do away with the 'blurries' once and for all!)So to sum up, IMHO, FS11 should concentrate on performance, performance and more performance. Some new features would be icing on the cake and an added bonus.

[Geofa 108]

Hi Jean Luc-unfortuantely I won't be in Seattle-but I send my thoughts. When you say full right sliders-"it should offers full right sliders + all features for top of the line at release time hardware"-you are talking about all of them right at the same time? Because some of the sliders I am not/may not/ be interested in using at all-therfore why limit the choices in what individual sliders can do to attain the ability to use all at the same time?My point is that many of the sliders are unimportant for my enjoyment of the sim-but many are. It sounds to me that you are advocating having the ability to max each at the same time at the expense of limiting what each can do.As I have mentioned-I in general don't care for autogen or water in fsx-really! I also don't like ground shadows and can't ever see using them. I will admit though-if I am flying over the ocean I will turn water to the max-and turn autogen off (since there is no autogen in the ocean, (and the water for ocean looks pretty good imho) and I still get the same good performance.In mountains I will turn autogen full up-and turn off water and airtraffic-and get the same performance with stellar mountain tress.I do like the high detail terrain textures, higher resolution of mesh-I'd hate to have any of those indiciual aspects reduced for the privledge of being able to max all the sliders at the same time.For general flying, I turn down autogen , water,and traffic to the lowest settings-and enjoy the higher detail textures and terrain display and flying qualities-and still get good performance (30-40fps) on my 4 year old machine.If I am understanding-what you are proposing would have left me perhaps in this version with less terrain mesh detail , texture resolution-but perhaps the ability to run full water (probably with less effects) , autogen (with less detail,variety, and placements), and ai traffic with a current system offered today.Seems like kinda forcing my choices on me-I'd rather have the choice of more but perhaps not all...Does that make sense?I agree about a new pc every 6 months-but for the first time in my life have resisted doing so for 4 years, basically cause I can get almost all the features I need on the sim now by adjusting sliders.If you want to send me an idea about a poll and what you would like on it -do so and w'ell see what we can do.Best,http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[RFields5421 1]

When FS is released, all slider right should give a fluid and smooth experience on the most powerfull system available at the time FS releases,Okay I'll buy that as a valid concept. But since the FS hardware specifications have to be set about 30-36 months before that release - how do you prevent what happened with FSX?Where the team's best judgement was that processors were going to be around the 8-12ghz speed range, that multiple processors would not be present on home computers.When I look back at the fall of 2003 - that was the common judgement/ predictions - yet as we all know - the development path made a hard turn into a different direction.

[jbroadwa 0]

Geofa,I'm really enjoying this conversation. I would like to make a counter argument. Your argument only makes sense to me up to a point. Consider the following scenario: what if FSX simply didn't have all the bells and whistles. For example, let's say they included only upgraded mesh, better ground texture resolution, quadrupled autogen and variety, updated water, updated shadows, better flight models and planes, and better weather layers (something that a top end machine can run right now). Now let's say you never knew they were considering car traffic, animals, 10cm resolution possibilities, etc. Would you really miss those things if they weren't available in the software? Those updates as well as others would then be folded in the next version. This could mean versions every two years with updated functionality that most everyone could enjoy immediately (even if you have to back down on the sliders). After all, the ACES team already dictates what functionality you're going to get anyway. Under the current model, you have to wait two to three years to get all the functionality in the current sim. Under the proposed model, when the new flight sim comes out anyway in two years, it will run on top end machines of the day (without the "teasing" of what could be -- sorry, could't find a better word). Again, perception is very important at least in my opinion. Joshua

[Guest JeanLuc_]

I see your point Geof (I guess so), and basically I understand what you say if your take FS9 or FSX products as a basis. But, what if FS11 could be fully maxed out, i.e. all the features that have been designed for it can be enjoyed, on the top most PC? Of course, you may not have this topmost PC and then you will lower this, or that, to accomodate your balance of performance/features for your computer. But if you have top of the line I don't know $5000 hardware, then you can enjoy it all with no sacrifice.You see, unless my reasoning is flawed (which can be), I realize that I may never have the top of the line PC at $5000 that would permit me experiencing the full experience. But even if I could have the always current top PC every 6 months, it would be only when the new FS version comes out that I'd enjoy the previous one fully, in the current 3-years scheme. And this means that when the new versin comes out, I'll stay with the previous one for a while because now I could run it correctly.Now, the thing is that we are also influenced in our reasonning because how the franchise has been developped since at least the last 2 versions, in that we believe we can't have it all, never, and we always have to trade. I mean why would you want to lower the slider of a feature you don't need, if anyhow, having it full right it runs right? Maybe it is a case of too much is too much?Let me illustrate with an example: in my own personal taste, the Ace Combat 6 for X360 that I've mentioned in the other thread I've started, has autogen. But there is much less autogen than FSX (maybe even less than FS9). Does it looks less realistic than FS? I don't find it is, on the contrary, because instead of compensating with number of objects to fill the world, that sounds like a technical showcase to me (like in a tech demo), I find Ace Combat 6 filled the world with more atmospherics and artistically crafted environement. And in turn, I find Ace Combat 6 lower res textures and lower autogen number more realistic than high resolution high number of autogen objects of FSX (and my personal taste, is that now that the FSX textures are very high res, it also show more of the flaws of the tiling system in that I find the ground looks like a collage patchwork - like the think we do when kids in cutting images in magazines and gluing them close to the other - just my own taste, wheras in FS9 the lower res textures inherently blended better - the eye was less prone to detect joints between the tiles).As for the poll, I'm maybe not the best to phrase the right questions, and I think Avsim has much more experience than me to create one. Just to try the exercise, I'll see this along the lines of:1) how often do you upgrade your flight sim PC (every 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, more)2) about when do you purchase new flight sim PC in relation to FS versions (right before or close to release of new version, 1 year after, 2 years after, 6 months before next version3) when you purchase new flight sim PC, do you purchase: (top of the line the more expensive/faster there is, somewhat top of the line, less than top of the line but faster than middle tier, middle tier, value PCThese are some ideas.Too bad we can't meet this time though in KSEA :(Jean-Luc

[jbroadwa 0]

Reggie,I think this is valid point. It really did make a hard turn in a different direction and I think ACES did a really good job trying to account for that change with SP1. Sometimes predictions just don't go the way you hoped. However, I think that this latest version is an anomaly. I think most of the time, you can predict to within six months what the hadware is going to be doing. So, in most cases, I think this is still a valid way to go. Of course, there will be that one time where the prediction is wrong again, but that is life in software development (and one of the reasons I left it to go work in a university! :)Joshua

[Geofa 108]

As I have said in a lot of other posts-birds, animals are quite important to me-I've had quite a few encounters!This gets into the whole situation again of what is reality to one isn't to another-and they are all valid.By the way-sounds to me like what is really being advocated is returning to the way sims were before flight unlimited III-except the sliders would work in reverse! :-)edit:check this out-I am not the only one that sees a lot of birds :-)http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avfl...ull.html#196324Great conversation-I agree!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/