After reading OnCourse software's write up seems to me that ACES could as a minimum include some hooks in FS and/or a AI SDK to allow AI interaction and all the things listed that are currently not possible with this package at present. This would probably satisfy the requests at the top of the wish list re ATC.WOZ

actually quite a few of us suggested that the slider system be 'scaled' for current at release hardware. the ability to run the sliders maxed on a high performance maching at time of purchase.alas, but I dont even see it on the list, guess it makes to much sense.

It does to some-and not to others. For myself-I don't want the ability to run all the sliders to the right with limitations chosen by Aces based on what they expect a high performance machine at the time of release. First, as this release showed-predicting what hardware will be in a couple years is pretty tough-and since most features have to be decided soon this is prone to be off.Many of the sliders/options I don't want on anyway. I prefer to have more in certain areas and less in others, and I like making my own choice. Aces mentioned somewhere that they left out cloud shadows in this release because they thought the performance hit would be too great-I would have rather had that option, and had the choice to turn down something else to get it. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

I also totally agree with Geofa. I can hear the complains already that is: - why should ACES limit MY ability to set MY settings this is typical of MS trying to control......etc etc. Bad idea.WOZ

>actually quite a few of us suggested that the slider system>be 'scaled' for current at release hardware. the ability to>run the sliders maxed on a high performance maching at time of>purchase.I disagree with this strongly and would emphatically advise any developer not to go down this route. The major flaw I see in this is that similar systems all get the same "cap" or "cutoff" for the max settings. This fails to take into account the individual's user preferences. There are some items which I don't care too much about on the settings menu that I turn way down or even completely off. I do this so I can max out other items that are more important to me.This allows me to achieve a good balance of performance and maximize my enjoyment of those features that I truly like. I certainly would not like a "scaled" slider system that caps off certain items and prevents me from gaining my maximum satisfaction of those personally important items.

ok guys, I see where your headed. your using the sliders to 'balance' the system to allow for your own choice. I understand and have to agree - thanks for the input.however, I just get a bit bothered after the release of a lot of folks bending all the sliders to the right then complaining of FPS issues.anyways, thanks again

I see what you're saying Mike, it's true there are a few users who feel they are entitled to turn all sliders to the right, and then are puzzled at why they're not getting blazing performance. Here's a suggestion. How about a slider system similar to what you suggested. But instead of a maximum cap that prevents you raising the sliders any further, a warning or a reminder pops up that informs the user that performance will take a strong hit if they exceed the recommended maximum. The recommended maximum will be based on each individual's hardware.

Don't they already have warnings via tooltips about hits to performance? And...although it doesn't work perfectly they do have a rudimentary initial read of the hardware for the initial setup. PerfBucket or something to that effect.Still, no matter what they do people will always push the envelope, myself included. It's the whole pandoras box syndrome, once you see what you could have, all heck breaks loose.

>Don't they already have warnings via tooltips about hits to>performance? They do, but I was thinking of something more active, dramatic, and immediate, such as a pop-up window warning that displays whenever you move a slider past the "maximum recommended" point.Psychologically this has the effect of reminding the user that he or she is directly responsible for degraded performance should they deliberately choose not to heed the warning.I think it will be a lot harder to blame ACES when one gets 5 FPS after having ignored a barrage of pop-up warnings telling you your perfomance will suffer if you continue to move the sliders beyond the recommended limit.

Unfortunately I believe they would be treated a bit like warnings on a cigarette packet Tim ie pretty well ignored. Its hard to restrict humans to not push the envelope.Re WOZ

Looking at the list, if they address the top10 on it we will have the best sim ever. But you know they won't. They will address the bottom 2. more planes and logbook. As always. maybe in fs55 one can hope for proper dynamic lightning (no, not light bloom) and weather (and how it affects the flying object)

>Unfortunately I believe they would be treated a bit like>warnings on a cigarette packet Tim ie pretty well ignored.>Its hard to restrict humans to not push the envelope.True, the warnings would probably be ignored in many cases. But the real purpose of the warnings is actually not to restrict people at all from pushing the envelope. Instead, the real purpose is 2 fold:1. To give the user some idea of the range of acceptable performance, and a recommended maximum, according to the system he is running. (This is lacking right now, which unfortunately leads a number of users to think they should be able to max out the sliders without a penalty in performance)2. To let the user know that he himself, and not ACES, is responsible for poor performance when the warnings about exceeding the recommended maximum are ignored.

You are such an optimist!

Your points are well expressed.WOZ

yet to be proven wrong.