FS11 - Will the scenery engine improve?

[bobbyjack 61]

At the risk of being laughed at or totaly ignored, my one small voice says that I fly FSX every day, without addons, and I like it just fine. I realize that never having tried any addons that I don't know what I'm missing, but I just have to put my vote in.Bob

[rhodges 6]

Bob, I see no reason for anyone to laugh or ignore you, but there are two ways to interpret the truth of what you have said, one favorable, and the other not so much so.If you "like it just fine" that sure is your business and not mine or anybody elses. By all means, do your own thing.However, you nailed it when you said "that I don't know what I'm missing", and IMHO that is a bit sad. I agree, YOU SURE DON'T! At least with some of the fine freeware contributions, I guarantee that they would make you "like it even better", MUCH BETTER.I would sure recommend that you at least take a peek.Respectfully:RTH

[Guest JeanLuc_]

Hi Bob and thank you for your vote, it is most welcome and certainly not laughed at. I wonder if you'd agree to continue the discussion and let us know what are the reasons you have not taken the step to install any addon in FSX though?

[Geofa 108]

Jean Luc-It is interesting that of the quite a few pilots at my local airports that have fsx, none of them have add ons. It seems strange-but they seem to be happy/overwhelmed with the assortment that comes with the sim. I keep encouraging them to try specific add ins but to no avail. As an example, one of my flying partners-a high time pilot with ratings in every type of aircraft and all instructor ratings can't get past the missions-he loves them! My other partner who also has a commercial sailplane license can't get past the sailplanes in fsx! Maybe in time...I'll keep working on them. :-lolhttp://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Guest GA Flyer]

Why would you say that if you were MS you would consider this option if sells werent at stake?Oxymoron? Only if you use the slider system for preformance and not as a way to customize your flight.

[Geofa 108]

I think I explained it quite clearly above.If all the sliders full right gave great performance off the bat-why would one want to customize that? That=oxymoron in my book.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[bobbyjack 61]

Jean LucI would love to continue this discussion. It is now 6:30 am and I have to go to work. I will post later.Bob

[G7USL 117]

Well a certain Mr 'Vauchez' achieved it with probably the best scenery for FS9 ever!I am referring to 'Flightzone's Portland'.If he can do it, then the 'Aces' should honour their chosen name and do the same, even if it takes four years to achieve.That is the way forward, the present, ISN'T.Even more recently, a couple of guys have transformed the KIA TAK area and for free.Please accept my apologies for the 'FSX readers only' group who may not have wanted to read this ;)We all appear to be unpaid beta testers for P.C. gaming by following, and trying to achieve 'fluidity' purchasing the newest hardware just to play a game.

[MatthewS 761]

>Jean Luc->It is interesting that of the quite a few pilots at my local>airports that have fsx, none of them have add ons. It seems>strange-but they seem to be happy/overwhelmed with the>assortment that comes with the sim. I keep encouraging them to>try specific add ins but to no avail. As an example, one of my>flying partners-a high time pilot with ratings in every type>of aircraft and all instructor ratings can't get past the>missions-he loves them! My other partner who also has a>commercial sailplane license can't get past the sailplanes in>fsx! >>Maybe in time...I'll keep working on them. :-lol>>>http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpg>>My blog:>http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/Microsoft should add an online "store" directly into FS11. That way casual users can buy addons directly from FS11. These addons would be automatically downloaded and installed.Sort of like the Valve Steam platform but for FlightSim.I reckon that would get a lot of casual users buying addons. Currently its just too hard for them to be bothered.

[DadJokeCinema 145]

This is a pretty awful idea. Imagine the shake-up if every add-on developer had to go through MS for approval for publishing of their add-on. Also, imagine the cost increases related to that. MS is not going to put a system in one of their programs that allows anyone to just throw some code up for purchase or download without verifying and certifying the code, because then they would be liable for what you download.

[Guest GA Flyer]

Yes I understand what you said...my point is to use sliders to customize your flight not for performance. When FSX first came out I believe it was you who liked the auto-gen tress but not the building because of the new look of the ground textures. In the config file you can adjust that. That is an example of not using sliders for prefomrance but to your liken. Just like The AI traffic sliders allow to customize the flight (with little hit to frames compared to other features depending on your system). If the next version was set so that at a required system spec or above you could have a smooth flight with all sliders right then the sliders could be used to customize the flight for enjoyment instead of for performance. If my point is lost then try this, whatever you have the FSX music set to (let it be on or off) change it. See what performance hit you have, if none then you have just seen what I mean. It is a feature that allows the user to customize the flight without worrying about a preformance hit. Sliders should be set to be the same way based on a mininum system spec. If it cant be enabled or used and get a smooth flight under the required system spec then dont allow it via sliders but in the config file editing.That way joe public gets a smooth flight and the hardcore simmer who understands the history of MS can modify the config files to get the sim they want understanding they are likely to loose some preformance. Just like how your CPU can run faster but is set at a level that will ensure smooth operation since it is being sold to the general public. Why dont they sell CPU chips to run at there very edge of preformance? Thats pretty much what MS is doing and its getting harder for people to understand the old way of thinking since technology is not increasing like it use too.

[sascha 314]

I think there are may ways of improving a future flightsim which ACES should be looking at even before addressing the performance issue.To name a few: realistic ATC procedures, ground effect on all planes, generally improved flight models, better ground handling (momentum, idle taxi etc.), better weather.Performance-wise, I can't believe what some of u guys are suggesting. What I scan from the comments on the line of "every future FS will always perform badly compared to its predecessor version on a contemporary state-of-the-art-rig" is that I should ALWAYS buy at least one development cycle behind. One-and-a-half if I believe the guys who say that FS2004 will run on max only now - more than a year after FSX.We now have quad-core rigs to run FS2004, I guess this means we will have to wait for quantum computers to run FSX at full blast!My old FS will look good and perform at max when a new one is released - so why buy a new sim for the next 2-3 years after release?So, I will buy FSX when FS11 is released, FS11 when FS12 is released in about 5-6 years and so on ...And save myself a lot of hassle and disappointment.;-) Sascha

[sascha 314]

I think there are many ways of improving a future flightsim which ACES should be looking at even before addressing the performance issue.To name a few: realistic ATC procedures, ground effect on all planes, generally improved flight models, better ground handling (momentum, idle taxi etc.), better weather.Performance-wise, I can't believe what some of u guys are suggesting. What I scan from the comments on the line of "every future FS will always perform badly compared to its predecessor version on a contemporary state-of-the-art-rig" is that I should ALWAYS buy at least one development cycle behind. One-and-a-half if I believe the guys who say that FS2004 will run on max only now - more than a year after FSX.We now have quad-core rigs to run FS2004, I guess this means we will have to wait for quantum computers to run FSX at full blast!My old FS will look good and perform at max when a new one is released (maybe) - so why buy a new sim for the next 2-3 years after release?So, I will buy FSX when FS11 is released, FS11 when FS12 is released in about 5-6 years and so on ...And save myself a lot of hassle and disappointment.;-) SaschaP.S. Sorry for double post!

[Guest GA Flyer]

Heres an off the cuff solution. Create the next version as planned. Then determine what the average computer is. Find the settings that allow the next version to run smoothly on an average computer. Adjust the sliders/setting/configs to those settings. Release two versions. Average spec and way higher system specs versons.MS does this with many of there programs. There OS software, Office software. Not to mention FSX has a deluxe and standard version. THe average system spec version allows for smooth preformance but not all features enabled. The higher system spec version allows for more features but requires a state of the art computer but is available at current release. Finally remove sliders that have a major affect on prefomance but allow for them to be editted in a config file for hardcore simmers.

[FlightLevel180 0]

Something that so many folks seem to forget is that for one reason (or many) there are arguments both for and against FSX and its current use.Ive seen tons of people complain about it, but then Ive seen many folks say how much that they love FSX. I think we tend to get caught up in our own situation so much that we forget that just because we experience the sim one way, that others may have a totally different experience. For me personally, FSX looks awesome but I dont use it for my full size Learjet 45 flight sim. I use FS9 because my PC handles it decently. I have a really old PC right now, but you know what? I bought FSX quite a while back and it actually looks great and runs decent if Im careful where and what I fly. However, I could never fly it in a detailed addon aircraft and at KJFK with all the AI running. Some folks here need to realize that people like Geoff have no reason to lie when they say they get fantastic results. However, many people have state of the art PCs and get horrible results. Why? Who knows? Anyone can take a look at Newegg and see how many different components are available to build a PC. That's one issue. The other is, how well did the system components match up? Another, how well does the user know how to optimize (I know very little). Another, what is the person's expectations on how well it should run?All in all, I think that FS11 is going to be spectacular, but we need to realize that MS has a set budget, a limited time scale, and can only do so much. Hopefully it will run well out of the box (Personally FS2002 ran circles around FS2000 on the SAME PC) and have room for growth. But, it may not. If not, then keep using FS9, or FSX, or somthing else. We all have a choice- no one twists our arms to buy or 'fly' any of these packages.I for one think that the engine will improve, but I believe it will be at a cost to add-ons until the new structure is learned by the 3rd party base.