A year has past...

[Guest]

A year ago, in October 2006, someone started a topic called 'Well for me anyway, FS9 rules, FSX waste of money'. In response I wrote this: "I really wonder what you will be saying (and all other moaners too) within a year or so... Don't you? I'm already looking forward to october 2007, when all these topics will still be online: I'm sure we will have a great laugh about it all and after that start up another great flight in good old FS X."Well, I sort of promised to get back on this after a year, and here I am... And well, what shall I say... I do have the impression I was a bit wrong. There are still a lot of people who play FS9... I am currently waiting and hoping for the DX10 patch but I know now already that it definitely won't bring what I hoped it would back in October 2006... FSX isn't 'good old' yet. Well, to me it sort of is, because I haven't played FS9 ever since I bought FSX, but things haven't progressed as I expected. Far from it. And the FS community hasn't ditched FS9 yet as I expected.I have the impression FSX needs a lot more time to get 'standard' than previous versions. How do you feel about this? Did everything go as you thought or hoped it would or not? To me it certainly didn't go as I wanted... I am disappointed about a lot of things. Still, FSX is my standard flightsim, so I guess that says something too...

[Guest j0nx]

It's pretty good imo. Addon developers are struggling to support it but overall it's a pretty decent sim. Don't bother with the dx10 because it is unusable in its current state and how it got released like this is beyond me. It will literally take 50% of your framerate away and add no graphical eye candy for it.

[Wothan 173]

I started a similar post here:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=420890&page=It is not meant as a starting point for flaming Aces, but still.FSX has not become the succesor for FS9 it was meant to be.Many addon developers has rethinked their policy lately.PMDG for instance will now make both FSX as well as FS9 versions of their addons.Both PMDG and Aerosoft are advising people to use Windows XP SP2 instead of Windows Vista due to out of memory problems etc.FSX is not bad, it just pushes the computer requirement too far. The average consumer does not own a computer system capable to cope with FSX

[slashed2 53]

Funny enough I remember that post, unfortunately, things have not turned out as expected as far as the add-on are concerned. FSX is an excellent sim at it's heart but it's plagued by backwards compatability and major OS/hardware transitions.Things are changing, developers will need to adjust to keep up especially as new technology becomes available to run FSX at higher settings with room to spare (if that ever happens) :).DX10, despite it's difficult birth, is here to stay and despite the initial driver? problems runs well on my PC and having killed of all but one of my add-on aircraft (the RA SF260) thank goodness for the quality of the default aircraft and the ability to edit the D3D10 line in the fsx config.I wondering if the days of abundant freeware and payware are over, the heady times of FS9 and 100's of available add-ons a week have come to a standstill as the level of quality and complexity expected by the add-on community has grown exponentially over the past couple of years.Only time will tell, will FS11 have the same growing pains of FSX if it snaps the chains of backwards compatability? Or will users have the patience and understanding of the situation and embrace the new sim with open arms.Myself, I'm enjoying Acceleration and FSX as much as I can with the understanding of where we've been and optimism for where the hobby is going. FSX runs well in most situations I put it in, other times it does not, but most of the time I'm in awe as to what can be done today and look forward to the future with wide eyed optimism.

[Guest Lith1um]

I think at least some of the developers are angry at FSX because they don't want to spend the time to update their products for SP1/SP2 when they could be generating income by releasing new products.As an observer it occurs to me that at least some of the dev's look at MSFS as an income source and want to be paid for every minute spent. I submit the high prices of some of those addons as evidence, as well as the high prices of some upgrades extended to prior customers.I believe in paying someone fairly for their work. But imo most of the prices are too high considering many addons cost more than the sim. Matters are further exasterbated by exchange rates.

[slashed2 53]

>I think at least some of the developers are angry at FSX>because they don't want to spend the time to update their>products for SP1/SP2 when they could be generating income by>releasing new products.I've seen one such example on one of my favorite GA planes forums. SP2 has created a problem with the rear windows and the dev stated they don't have a solution to the problem and can not fix it until MS fixes it.The very next post a user had come up with a fix. I'm a little stunned by the lack of desire by the dev to even attempt a fix the problem and so easily blame MS for breaking it in the first place as their whole business is based on aircraft for FS, albeit mostly FS9.Still, if a user can fix it in under 2 hours, why, considering the initial complexity of the aircraft, couldn't a dev not spend an hour or so updating the textures? I know that an installation would have to be created and testing would be needed but now if one needs to use the aircraft they'd either have to ditch SP2, have 2 versions of FSX or fix the problem themselves.Thank goodness for RealAir, they've not looked back and the only add-on aircraft I own that work in both DX10 preview mode and DX9 SP2 are the RealAir offerings. Bring on the Duke and spitfire and I'll be set for add-on aircraft.As a note, I usually do not complain about add-ons as I can't do any of this myself, but I was thrown for a loop when I read the posts.

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

"Still, if a user can fix it in under 2 hours, why, considering the initial complexity of the aircraft, couldn't a dev not spend an hour or so updating the textures?"This is not a "feature" solely of FSX, in my personal view. HP (and subsequently other manufacturers) seems to have taken the same attitude with its printer, scanner and other peripheral drivers with the release of Vista.HP seems somewhere along the line to have made the decision that it might be quite profitable for them to withhold Vista drivers for equipment already sold.Result: Stunted Vista sales and much wailing in the corporate community. Corporate IT organizations reacted by delaying Vista rollouts on the theory that, hey, we get lynched when we put equipment that doesn't work on user desktops. It was pretty easy calculus.This had a tremendous impact on home-use sales and eventually forced the large resellers (Dell, etc.) to reintroduce XP as an available operating system. It may permanently have killed the Vista brand (ala Windows ME).Big mistake by both HP and to some extent Microsoft - which I don't think anticipated how their "partners" would take advantage of them to sell all new "Vista-compatible" peripherals.I'm not sure there is a solution when companies take advantage of a new OS to "force" new equipment (and software) sales. I also think Microsoft is in a bit of a bind when it comes to graphics display. There are only two adapter companies really - ATI and Nvidia. Should one of those two begin to have problems with drivers ... it really puts Microsoft in a classic poker squeeze play from which they cannot fold.If I was Bill Gates ... I think I'd have to start a graphics card company that could ensure that my OS could display its graphics. And I'd have a frank conversation with CEOs of the major peripheral manufacturers so they understood that by working together ... everybody makes a lot of money and remind them that holding your customers hostage to your driver developers is a long-term loser strategy.

[rhodges 6]

YEP!!!You just named one of the major reasons I have stayed away from Vista.Regards:RTH

[Mace 1,902]

>>I have the impression FSX needs a lot more time to get>'standard' than previous versions. How do you feel about this?>Did everything go as you thought or hoped it would or not? To>me it certainly didn't go as I wanted... I am disappointed>about a lot of things. Still, FSX is my standard flightsim, so>I guess that says something too...For me FSX has pretty much worked itself out. It's pretty good. You gotta put things into perspective. If you flew FS2, FS4, etc. you know what I'm talking about.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

[GHarrall 494]

One statement sums up FSX for me:"I like what it brings to the table, I just wish it performed better!"It's very similar to the release of FS2000. FS2000 had a lot of improvments over FS98, but it is not fondly remembered due to it's awful performance.I think FSX will go the same way and hopefully FS11 will become the long term upgrade to FS9 that we were all hoping for.Glenn

[vgbaron 3,491]

I was very happy with FSX before Acceleration andI am even happier now after installing. However, this is under XP. The Vista install and subsequent use was an exercise in futility. DX10 is a waste of time as far as FSX goes.I've always been one who had little or no problems with any of the FS products out of the box and would always be happier after a few tweaks.I'll reserve final judgement on DX10/Vista until Aces & nvidia complete their analysis of the issues but I have fingers crossed.But as far as FSX/Acceleration & XP? - Woohoo!VicQ6600 G0 CPU 2.4 o/c 3.6Evga 680i A1 with P30 BIOS 2G XP2-8500 DDR2 1066FSB Mushkin 996535 RAM 5-5-4-12-2T320G 7200 HD partitioned for XP/Vista/Programs 2 - 74G Raptors in RAID0 500G 7200 HD for backup SATA DVD burner Evga 8800GTS 640 PCIx Kandalf LCS case w/ built in liquid cooling 850W Thermaltake power supplyVisit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-supporter-sigbanner.jpgRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/

[Manny 1,293]

Very astute comment there FsMissionsguy

[Manny 1,293]

J van E,You have the courage and the decency to post that. Good show. :)There were some other variables that compounded the problems for FSX.The change of OS. Win XP and Vista. And that too Vista 32 and Vista 64. And then we had the SP2/DX10 parameter. These are just too many variables for a single version of Flight Sim. FS9 did not have all these variables to deal with.GOOD: We have been ok with Addon aircraft for FSX. For me FSX aircrafts are more than sufficient and have come a long way from FS9 to FSX. Aircraft add ons have improved significantly in FSX.GOOD: Photo scenery add ons have improved in FSX over FS9. We now have opportunity for high resolution photo scenery for FSX without adverse affects in FSX.BAD: The airport add on vendors who seem to have walked away from FSX are Fly Tampa and Flight scenery. And the ones who are producing add on airports are resorting to default taxiway and runway and such producing low quality add on airport relative to the amazing airport add ons for FS9 (JMO). These add ons have gone backward.Manny

[Mace 1,902]

>>BAD: >>The airport add on vendors who seem to have walked away from>FSX are Fly Tampa and Flight scenery. And the ones who are>producing add on airports are resorting to default taxiway and>runway and such producing low quality add on airport relative>to the amazing airport add ons for FS9 (JMO). These add ons>have gone backward.>On this particular point, we are hoping that FS11 mdl format brings true native custom ground polys.At present the techniques being used are from FS2002 gmax gamepack. And even then, those mdl files must be tweaked and the polys broken into small pieces for use in FSX.Probably why you don't see more of it, is because its not that easy to do. But, we're setting ourselves up good for the future I think.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