FS11 - Will the scenery engine improve?

[Guest baksteen33]

But certain sliders just have to be maxxed, for example Global Texture Quality. Less is 'not amusing'. For this (and of course depending on the resolution and AA/AF settings), IMHO, it's advised to have more than 256MB of beef on the GPU... Just like 2GB risks to become too little as well for FSX and OS. OTOH, 256MB and 2GB is a good combination because the GPU doesn't take up too much system memory. Consequently, a 512MB GPU and FSX would be better with more than 2GB system RAM IMHO. And so on... Personally, I think there's a huge misperception towards FSX's RAM requirements. Particularly with Windows Vista. Please note, I'm referring to denser environments with loads of AI, animations etc, not somewhere in the bush, with mucho aqua and with 10 AI movements including ships. :-) Kind regards Jaap

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

Yeah, but for me, the things that have always had the most adverse effect on performance have been scenery density, clouds, autogen and AI. I was pretty much always able to max out the texture settings in FS9 and dropping them didn't seem to improve performance much at all. In fact, lower texture settings seemed to worsen performance in the sense that it seemed to introduce microstutters for some reason...

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

Reading tea leaves, I'd say we're in for quite a jump in low altitude resolution. I think it's probably common knowledge that the TS2 implementation is going to be based, and probably extend, the FSX scenery engine ... those improvements eventually trickling up into vNext.Here's what some of the current renders look like (and these renders seem to me to be demonstrate an improvement in graphic detail at low altitude).Hard to tell if these were screenshots taken ingame, but sure looks like it. Are those tree branches, I see?http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/184698.jpg

[Guest jshyluk]

To the original poster:This was a hot topic at the AVSIM FanCon! We did have some of the ACES team on hand to try to answer your question.Firstly, I agree here with ZZ, in that there's a psychology to the sliders that I think caught Microsoft off-guard. Too many choices will tend to either "paralyze" the average user, or else give them a false sense of what needs to be done. Think about what it's like to fill out your tax forms, and you get an idea of what "too many choices" feels like.I am guessing that TrainSim will re-vamp the slider system. They pretty much will have to. Either the sliders available to the average user will be simplified (and then the advanced user will have to look to the game code for the tweaks), or else there would be a better Wizard system that would show off some kind of What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get slider arrangement (that's what I would like to see!).No matter what, the technology gained and the mistakes learned from in FSX and the new Train Sim should provide clear lessons on how to design FS11. Obviously, one big difference between TrainSim and FlightSim is how far off the ground the simmer will go, and that will affect things like the level of detail radius and such, so there will probably be areas where flight and train will not be at all alike. Then too, statistically speaking, the editions of FS that come out after releases that feature a big technology change, like FS 2002 over FS 2000, tend to make the sim run smoother. Statistics, of course, would also say, "The coin flipped heads five times in a row, so now it will flip tails", so who knows how FS11 will run? Chances are, any add-on not written for at least FSX will not work at all in FS11, which could hint that FS11 will need advanced hardware to run, possibly hardware that doesn't yet exist. At this point, all we can do is speculate. Once TrainSim comes out, we may have a clearer picture as to what is in store for FS11. Jeff ShylukAssistant Managing EditorSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

[tf51d 284]

I am guessing that TrainSim will re-vamp the slider system. They pretty much will have to. Either the sliders available to the average user will be simplified (and then the advanced user will have to look to the game code for the tweaks), or else there would be a better Wizard system that would show off some kind of What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get slider arrangement (that's what I would like to see!).I sure hope so, that was the main problem with FSX. The options to increase detail to a level, no current hardware at time of release was capable of was in the GUI, so everyone naturally tried to run it that way, only to find a slide show, which didn't do anything to boost it's reputation. The GUI should have only given you options to support the HW of the day. This is a especially true in the general gamers market. Any extra detail possible with future Hardware should have only been available in a config file. I think they tried to do something like this with FSX with the PerfBucket field, but either it just didn't work or it was tuned too high!!

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

It's also worth noting that the FS series certainly isn't the only one that pushes technology. My new PC is several orders of magnitude above the best system that was available at the time Papyrus released NR2003, but if I max everything out on that venerable old classic (including all the advanced shadow options and so on) and draw the full field of forty cars, my framerate still drops into the mid fourties at times. I don't think the system exists yet that allows you to max Crysis out. In fact, in my experience over the years, there haven't been very many games at all in the "3D realm" that I've been able to install and run full out at the time of release.

[sipos 0]

This has been discussed before. I am pretty sure they are investing alot more time in the scenery engine / graphics engine. The ACES team has split into diffferent branches each responsible for there own thing. Phil Tylor wrote a post about this:http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2008...-and-today.aspx Instead of one team at ACES there are now 4 teams!From Blog: "As we moved into the new space, the leadership team updated the Studio with a re-org plan to form 4 teams:1)Core 2)Flight3)Trains4)ESP"Notice the Core team. Core team owns the platform and the technology. They now pretty much have a whole team focusing on the scenery engine - for both Flight, Trains, and ESP. So I have no worrys. FS11 will kick butt no matter what. And with the technology we are seeing now and going to see in the future there is no doubt this will be an awesome product. Oh - and read this. It's from the job description for a program manager at ACES. "Your role will be to bring together the various diverse perspectives required to create a modern graphics engine to render the world database behind the world simulation. Updating the terrain and graphics rendering quality, improving resource management and performance, and staying ahead of the curve on technology advancements are key responsibilities." That is what ACES plans to do!

[Guest GA Flyer]

>>...I suppose fs11 could come out ready to work with sliders maxed>right out of the box. But then it would probably look like>fs9-as that is presently what would work today with the>sliders all maxed on todays hardware! Would most simmers be>more satisfied with that? I know I would not, but if I were MS>I sure would be looking at this as an option. >>>>>>http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpg>>My blog:>http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/Thats very interesting what you say in your last sentence about "...if I were MS I sure would be looking at this as an option. " I wrote a thread about this some time back and thats not what you said then.http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...topic_id=425922In that thread you wrote. "Microsoft has stated that fsx is the best selling edition ever of any of the the fs series-so I don't think our hobby is at stake."I never doubted that it hasnt sold copies but how many of those owners are happy, know about the patch(es), read these kind of forums and understand MS's way of making FS designed for future hardware.My concerns at that time and still is that FSX might of done more harm than good with FSX. In my opinion. My belief is that MS needs to change the slider features to have a set level for at least a set system. That way if the user has the required system they will get a smooth flight.Hardware is not advancing like it use to so the idea of creating FS to work better later might not be the best way anymore. Not with the fact that its competing with console games and their users who are use to smooth games and make up a majority of FS's user base (not us hardcore simmers)With having all sliders set to the right, those who want to tweak the config files to get more would be able to via the FS Insider on what to tweak. (just like how we can create more or less Auto gen tress and building from inside the Config and not by the sliders) Bill Learning said in it that thread that if all sliders were right then we wouldnt need sliders. I disagree. Hes looking it at it on preformance and I'm looking at it on features. I believe sliders are needed but not to increase or decrease preformance but to have a customized flight. I want seperate GA and Airline AI sliders. However, my thoughts are that if you have the required system that you could have both of those set to 100% and it doesnt bring down preformance so you scale them back to the level of activity that you like. Sliders like that are need but not the kind that show you what you cant have when the sim is released because there is no hardware to run it.

[NetNinja 14]

> snip...>>..."there's a psychology">>..."a better Wizard system that would show off>... some kind of What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get slider arrangement">I agree in part with the psychology of the slider. And would like to see more emphasis into the "WYSIWYG", or at least a complete individualized text description of each setting, so that expectations could be "set" as well. Right now the description is generic for the whole slider.I'm not sure whether it was the Scenery or Graphics slider that let you remove taxiway signs. This always seemed like a sacrificial level that should not even be permissible with a slider. Somewhat like TS without rails I'd imagine.

[Guest bluesky21]

I think that there was such a disappointment with FSX that MS will reconsider pushing the limits with FS11.Any FSX owner just has to browse through a few websites before realizing that 75% of all addon planes, even recent ones, are for FS2009. I hear talk of how amazing Project Opensky planes are, but I have so much trouble trying to get them to work that I must abandon them. FS Passengers and other addon software is designed for FS2009. In brief, FS9 runs smoother, more people are willing to use it, so FSX has gotten relatively shafted. Hopefully MS will learn from their mistakes.

[Guest rap777]

Hi There!I think many people mistake the purpose of the sliders.If you could have all the sliders on full right of the box, why have sliders in the first place?One option would be that you, imit the sliders to available systems at the time of release. I.E. full means the best system available on the market will be able to run it MAXED....BUT I would hate to be the person who has to guess that! Lesser systems have to lower sliders.....that would of course create the same responses as we have seen already!Unfortunately that would also negate the options to TWEAK the system to your kind of flying requirements (Low and Slow vs. HIGH & Fast Country hopping or heavy operation, Helicopter vs Jets..) etc.You could also link the sliders based on computer performance, i.e. if you drag one slider up, another would go down....It would be great to a allow FS11 to make changes on the run thou i.e. the closer to the ground the less detailed far textures have to be but greater resolution and objects around the aircraft. Once you are in the vicinity of an airport it can be fully detailed as that is all you see.....If you have a look at the ORBX/FTX preview shots you can see that the engine is able to do amazing things even now!All the best and God blessAlfred

[Geofa 108]

I read the thread you quote.My statement was in direct answer to yours "Without the vast sells of the general public our hobby could be at stake."I still stand by my quote-our hobby is not at stake and fsx has been the best selling fs title according to Ms.I am not sure what this quote about superior sales figures and our hobby not being at stake has to do with including/removing sliders in the next version. The fact is that Microsoft does listen to us simmers. I would see the slider situation changing more as a result of taking choices away from the end user, and thereby reducing complaining of users who get themselves in trouble in their usage. It seems an easy way to reduce complaints. This is essentially what we had in sims in the 1980's-a step back imho-but ultimately perhaps would keep people more happy.I'd prefer to choose what I want to turn up and down. If the game was designed to run on present hardware with all sliders to the right-what would be the point of having them at all? Isn't that kind of an oxymoron?http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Mike T 208]

The whole movement of sliders as the years goes by serves absolutely no one and is totally misguided IMHO. There are two target audiences for MSFS and MSFS has a release every 2 - 3 years. Not to mention that the true enhancement of the software is in the addition of 3rd party software NOT movement of sliders.1) It takes up to 2 years (probably more with FSX) for the hardware to catch up to MSFS. By then it is almost time for the next version of the software. So just when you can run the sim at full sliders and begin to fully enjoy and explore the full poetential of the sim the next version becomes available. 2) The casual software buyer who picks up the title on the store shelf because it looks interesting will not be utilizing the software in 3 years. They will buy it, load it, assume that they are running the lastest and greatest hardware therefore move all sliders to the left looking to get their socks blown off and be greeted by a slideshow. Move the sliders back and be disappointed as the traffic, terrain, autogen and everything get's dumbed down. Does Microsoft seriously believe that this person will then axiously wait for 3 years until the day he can move all sliders right? This person has moved on.3) The medium to hardcore simmer adds to the simulation with 3rd party addons. Moving the sliders to the right does not magically equip the default 747 with an FMC, bump up the flight dynamics, enhace your local airport into a photorealistic version of the real thing, add new ATC, provide new aircraft or anything else. All it does is sharpen the textures, provide more autogen and allow you to have more detail. I have never seen a headline proclaiming that "On Friday August 15th we expect the newest Intel CPU to allow you to move your AI Traffic slider to 3/4 full!". 4) Great! You wait patiently for 3 years, you spend thousands of dollars on new equipment and then, wait for it, YES! All sliders to the right! YAY! Oh wait, POW! Next version of FS arrives a week later and it brings your brand new shiny PC to its knees and you repeat the same silly process all over again. And this makes sense in some small way how again?While this may be the way things have always been, doesn't mean it makes the slighest bit of sense at all. Who is benefiting from that paradigm? Not the causual user, not the hardcore user and not the medium level user. Microsoft needs to build the base sim so it takes advantage of what's available NOW. Then they need to make sure that all of their customers know about the 3rd party community so that THEY can decide how many extras to pile on their PCs. At the end of the day, I'd rather have a PMDG 747, 100% sliders, Aerosoft scenery, Flight1 enhancement bringing my out of the box 50 FPS to 20 FPS TODAY, than a default microlight with sliders at half at 15 FPS for 3 years. And if my current version won't allow me to add the lastest addon, so be it, I'll buy it when I upgrade. But, somehow the thrill of seeing more trees appear in 3 years when I can finally move my sliders just ain't making my heart pump faster.After all, when you buy a new car, you don't want to wait to enjoy it for 3 years when there is new gas available to power it. You don't demand that your new job pay you less money over the next 3 years so that in 3 years you can appreciate your new raise even more. You don't build a house without windows and doors so that in 3 years you can appreciate your windows and doors more. If there were no 3rd party software to enhance MSFS to new levels then maybe this slider fetish would make sense, but there is and it doesn't.Oh well.Mike T.

[Geofa 108]

I'd agree somewhat except with the following...I did a modest upgrade 3 months ago (only spent $1000-the least I have ever spent upgrading fs in 27 years) and am running now 1 1/2 years after release exactly as you request: My traffic, fex, gex, asx, utx, 10 m mesh, high res 30 cm scenery, add in aircraft such as eaglesoft, level d, md 80-with most sliders full right-and getting the fps you mention 20-50 (majority of time 35-40). Though no crystal ball here-I would also expect due to the delay of dx10/sp patches that we are still at least 2 years from the next version-maybe more. With the performance I am getting now I do not plan to upgrade at all till fs11-I am more than happy-though if a new chip is reasonable priced I may bite to get my ai from 40% higher-the only slider that is not full/almost full.I would also agree that most users have no idea about 3rd party add ons-there is a need to get that out to the public. All the pilots I know at my airport that have bought fsx have no add ons at all. I would bet that the majority of sales are the same-and those who require/purchase add ons are in the minority. It would be nice to see that change.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[sipos 0]

I think ACES realizes they have alot of angry customers out there. And I agree the next version of FS should have much better performance when released. ACES probably realizes this and are going to change thier aproach on things. We can only hope history wont repeat it's self again. We're supposed to learn from our mistakes, right? Here is another quote from Phils post that gives a little hope:"One other thing the leadership team did is recognize we were trying to do too much as an organization. So we are now scoping back in some areas and trying to do fewer things, but each thing at a higher quality. We hope this approach will make our customers happier over time as well as improving work-life balance for the teams in the Studio."