Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
WebMaximus

FS11 - Will the scenery engine improve?

Recommended Posts

Have read through roughly half of this thread now and read all your comments and I do have two questions for you:1. Do you really think it's too much asked when people who have the best PC money can buy but still can't get a smooth experience in FS without sacrificing the graphical quality think this feel a bit so-so?2. Do you personally think the core in FS when it comes to graphical quality/performance could be improved to make better use of today's hardware or do you think what we have today in FSX is the best it can get?Looking forward to your comments!


Richard Åsberg
Beta tester for FS2Crew and HiFi Simulation Technologies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zevious Zoquis

well, as far as Q#1 goes, you use the phrase "sacrificing graphical quality". What do you mean by that? Does running the sliders at 50 or 60% instead of full right mean you are necessarily "sacrificing" something? Is it a sacrifice if FSX at 60% still looks significantly better than the previous version did at full slider settings? Q#2 is tricky. I think it goes without saying that FSX isn't the most efficient piece of software on the market. THere are many reasons for that - most obviously the effort to keep it somewhat backwards compatible. Otoh, you ask if what we have today in FSX is the best it can get, to which I would respond that I don't see too many other serious contenders in the civvy flightsim market. X-Plane maybe, but I'd imagine if X-Plane included all the superfluous details that FS does it might not run so smoothly either...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>well, as far as Q#1 goes, you use the phrase "sacrificing>graphical quality". What do you mean by that? Does running>the sliders at 50 or 60% instead of full right mean you are>necessarily "sacrificing" something? Is it a sacrifice if FSX>at 60% still looks significantly better than the previous>version did at full slider settings? >>Q#2 is tricky. I think it goes without saying that FSX isn't>the most efficient piece of software on the market. THere are>many reasons for that - most obviously the effort to keep it>somewhat backwards compatible. Otoh, you ask if what we have>today in FSX is the best it can get, to which I would respond>that I don't see too many other serious contenders in the>civvy flightsim market. X-Plane maybe, but I'd imagine if>X-Plane included all the superfluous details that FS does it>might not run so smoothly either...Hi there!First of all my questions were mainly for jwenting but thanks anyway for your answers ;)About nr 1 all I'm trying to say is I don't think people having the best HW money can buy are whiners simply because they express their opinions about having a hard time understanding why you develop software that can't be played the way it's meant to be on today's hardware. Maybe I'm just plain stupid but I honestly can't see why you would like to do that?About nr 2 with the risk of beeing considered one of those "whiners" I think MS really should have a good look under the hood of FS and consider what needs to be done to take advantage of the HW we have today and also how the different techniques used could be changed - maybe they could learn some by looking at other game engines?Personally I'm more than happy that we have the FS series not to mention all the amazing add-ons making it even more fun and realistic and I'm very greatful to all developers including MS making it possible but imagine if we could have what we have today but with even greater graphics and this running with great FPS on HW that can actually be bought today - wouldn't that be a great thing? At least I think so and if even a small part of what holding us back from that scenario is an old game engine in the FS series that doesn't make best use of our HW I really do hope that will change any time soon and no...I don't think that makes me a whiner even though I've been around in this community too long to know I will be considered one of some people in here ;)I can take some flames realizing there's an equal amount of opinions as there is people but what I can't take is when I in some rare situations have felt almost beeing freezed out in a forum simply because I haven't said "You're the best, you're always right" about the developers. Kissing #### like that to me is all but mature and I can't do anything but feeling sorry for all those people obviously lacking their own mind and thoughts or simply beeing afraid expressing them. I actually left a company as a customer even though they make stunning products for this very reason and I will never understand how a professional company can be comfortable with loosing paying customers just because they can't take valid criticism - doesn't feel that professional to me.Both for FS itself but also for various add-ons there has always been these same two corners where the people in one of the corners keep protecting the developers no matter what and no matter how wrong they might be sometimes and then in the other corner we have these people that always find something to complain about no matter how good things are. I like to think I'm somewhere in the middle, I realize FS and some of the add-on products are very complex which put very high demands on the HW but standing up and throwing out the question "Hey, is there maybe something in here that could be done better and/or in a more effective way using the latest technology available in a smarter way and thus making better use of current HW?" that doesn't make you a whiner but rather shows you're a thinking human beeing playing with IMHO a very helthy thought - there are very seldom there is no room for improvement.Happy flying all fellow captains out there and I hope it will eventually be in an environment that really gives us 100% of what our HW actually can deliver!Best,


Richard Åsberg
Beta tester for FS2Crew and HiFi Simulation Technologies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why even bother with certification?Just have a shop page inside FS that has banner ads (companies buy ad space off Microsoft) and when the user clicks a banner ad it opens the website in Internet Explorer.Suddenly every casual user will become aware that there is an "addon industry" dedicated to supplying add ons for FS.


Matthew S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) I have 3 month old hardware-does that quality as "today's hardware"? ...I seem to be running as "it as meant to be run" if one considers running "as meant to be run" with most sliders full right and frame rates the majority of the time in the mid 30's, along with fex,utx,gex,asx,10m mesh,mytraffic, and even 30 cm res scenery. I actually was never able to accomplish this with the last version and what was "todays hardware" at the time.I even thought I was running it "as meant to be run" with my previous 4 year old system when I turned down some sliders, so that I could see the new improvements of fsx 10m mesh, high detail textures, high vis 3d cockpits/instruments,shared cockpits) at the expense of some features that were not as important to me-while I waited to upgrade my ancient hardware.2)"Kissing #### like that to me is all but mature and I can't do anything but feeling sorry for all those people obviously lacking their own mind and thoughts or simply beeing afraid expressing them." From fs95 till fs2002 I completely abandoned the Msfs series as I felt it wasn't up to par (maybe you were in the Ms camp at the time?). I posted constant compares of Real/Pro pilot/Fs'98 on webpages showing the superior 3d mesh of Pro Pilot, went to Xplane when Pro pilot went under and to the 2 Fly series as both a beta tester and user. I didn't come back to MS fully till fs2002.At this point I haven't found a finer sim out there than Fsx-or I would gladly jump ship again-I have a record of doing so, and I have no loyalty other than duplicating my r/w experience as well as possible on a home computer. So maybe it isn't "about kissing ####", or "lacking their own mind" but some including myself simply having an opinion that is different from yours? A difference of opinion and critics I understand. "Kissing ####,all but mature, lacking their own mind" I don't.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/


Geofa

WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE-the best Flight Sim!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Why even bother with certification?>>Just have a shop page inside FS that has banner ads (companies>buy ad space off Microsoft) and when the user clicks a banner>ad it opens the website in Internet Explorer.>>Suddenly every casual user will become aware that there is an>"addon industry" dedicated to supplying add ons for FS.Sounds like a great idea to me, if you're interested in add-ons they are very easy accessible and if you're not interested you don't even have to look at that page within FS.


Richard Åsberg
Beta tester for FS2Crew and HiFi Simulation Technologies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Except that there would be fewer add-ons at a higher price ->even if Microsoft were prepared to become involved. What's in>it for them?>If it did become involved, Microsoft would charge developers>for providing that service and some developers wouldn't bother>to get certified>>Maybe... Or maybe the system will work very well and sales increase significantly because you'll reach a bigger audience. A much bigger audience.When i can rely on getting a well working good quality product, which will keep me headache free for a long time, i'll fork out 3 bucks more. But maybe that's just me. Heiko


Cheers

Heiko

 

i920 D0 @ 4.2 Ghz water cooled | 200x21 | Gigabyte X58A-UD3R | G.Skill 6GB F3-16000CL9 @ 2000 MHz 9-9-9-24 1T (1.60v) | 2x Intel X25-M G2 160 GB SSD, 2x Raptor 150, 1x WD 2500 KS 16 MB S-ATA2 | Tagan 1100 | EVGA GTX 480 Hydro Copper FTW @ 865/1729/2000 -> 59 C | 24" Benq FP241 6ms LCD @ 1920x1200x32, 2 x 19" Samsung 970P 6ms LCD @ 1280x1024x32 | Sound - Xonar Essence ST, Fatality HS-1000 headset | Saitek X52 Pro | Win7 Ultimate 64 | SuperPi 1M - 9.6 sec

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> 1) I have 3 month old hardware-does that quality as "today's>hardware"?You can always debate what should be considered "today's hardware", I think what I meant was that if you're buying the latest/fastest hw and the latest version of FS they should go good together without having to think about performance issues.How come do you always have this same problem with FS but not with any other games? I know...this is a very washed-out subject and the answers are always the same that FS is far more complex with far more things going on behind the scenes but is that REALLY true these days when we have games looking almost like it would be on TV from a graphics point of view but yet with LOTS of things having to be calculated behind the scenes both for AI as well as for the physics for how all different objects in the "virtual reality" should behave at any given time and depending on how other objects behave at the very same time and still you can have all this with smooth performance on current high-end hardware - do you really think that is only because FS is more complex or could it also have something to do with the fact the FS in it's current shape isn't using our HW in the best possible way...just think about that for a while.Then we have other things playing a role as well, for example I heard one of the FS developers I belive it was telling with pride that all the stars were simulated to be at the exact same position as IRL and I admit that is a cool thing but personally I would rather be able to perform a landing at a huge and busy airport without having a hard time hitting the r/w because my FPS is so low it's almost like a slideshow rather than a movie. After all the main goal with FS is to simulate operating an a/c, not watching stars or am I wrong? Then if you can also have all these extra "goodies" that is great but I don't think you should have them until you have made sure the primarily goal of the simulator is achieved in a good way.I'm in no way a programmer myself so please realize these are only my strictly personal thoughts but I do have a very strong feeling that the FS series could both look even better but especially run smoother if it was rebuilt from scratch using the very latest techniques and game engines. I think the main problem achieving that is that FS together with the HUGE add-on market simply has grown into a giant and you can't change a giant's direction in an easy way once it has been moving and growing for so long and for the very same reason it's very hard for other companies to take up the competition and not having anyone to compete against has never been good for the development in any business.>At this point I haven't found a finer sim out there than>Fsx-or I would gladly jump ship again-I have a record of doing>so, and I have no loyalty other than duplicating my r/w>experience as well as possible on a home computer. So maybe it>isn't "about kissing ####", or "lacking their own mind" but>some including myself simply having an opinion that is>different from yours? A difference of opinion and critics I>understand. Like I said in my previous post I realize there will always be an equal number of opinions as there are people and I have no problem accepting that or accepting people seeing things differently but what I will never respect are people obviously lacking their own thinking and always backing up the developers even when they could do better which we all would benefit from - both we as the users but also the developers themselves by having less performance-related support issues. Just have a look in the various FS-related forums all over Internet and notice the percentage of issues directly or indirectly related to performance issues of some kind...I think that speaks for itself don't you...?All the best,


Richard Åsberg
Beta tester for FS2Crew and HiFi Simulation Technologies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Maybe... Or maybe the system will work very well and sales>increase significantly because you'll reach a bigger audience.>A much bigger audience.>When i can rely on getting a well working good quality>product, which will keep me headache free for a long time,>i'll fork out 3 bucks more. But maybe that's just me. >>>HeikoI'm with you Heiko!


Richard Åsberg
Beta tester for FS2Crew and HiFi Simulation Technologies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zevious Zoquis

re: other sims, I'll reference earlier what I said. I've got many games that I can't max out on current hardware. NR2003 for instance is approaching 5 years old and it's only now on my new system that I can totally max out the visuals and still get a decent framerate. In my experience, that's not an unusual circumstance at all. I can't think of any really serious game/sim (by serious I mean a game that really attmepts to "move the bar" or push the limits of technology) that I was able to run full out on release day. Afaik, there aren't many people able to max Crysis out right now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'll let this go after this post, I guess I already made my point clear regarding what my opinions are on this topic and like we already agreed everyone is entitled to have the own and I will go on hoping for a FS version that utilize our HW in a better way than what is done today because I'm confident there's a lot of room for improvement that would benefit all of us including you and I can only hope the developers will eventually come to the same conclusion.And as a sidenote I would be more than happy if I had the same smooth performance in FSX as I had in Crysis...with current HW and everything maxed out...Now I will try to talk less and fly more ;)


Richard Åsberg
Beta tester for FS2Crew and HiFi Simulation Technologies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Rhett,>>I find it hard to believe that you have never touched one>thing in your config file. Any config file. >Oh no, I've done lots of cfg tweaking over the years. But you said, you might want to see two versions. I said, I don't want two versions. :)The "with sliders configurable by me" was just an aside. :) It goes without saying that I also meant "and with extra cfg tweaks possible, too". I am all about extra cfg tweaks.Main thing is I don't want two versions. That would be a waste of limited resources and devtime in my opinion.>Lets say changing Mesh Terrain from 19 to 20 or 21 in FS9. >Same thing a slider does in FSX was done by changing the>config file in FS9.>>Just couldnt live with that huh? Something we already have.>Not if it kept the general public from having a bad time when>using FS. Glad that your thinking of yourself first.Whoa, is this a shot out of the dark! That's real nice of you, I don't think I deserved that...what do you mean by this? You turn my smiley :) to a frown :( nice job.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


Rhett

i7-8700k @ 5.0 ghz, 32 GB G.Skill TridentZ, 1080Ti, 32" BenQ, 4K res

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest GA Flyer

Rhett,FSX has two different versions (standard and deluxe) of which some items are not available unless you have the deluxe version. FSX-A is yet another version that has features not found in the Standard and Deluxe versions.So when I read your opinion of you would like that, I didnt see where you were coming from since we already have that. If MS is going to release different versions of the same title why not make it so that it pleases the two markets of the general public and the hardcore simmer? My opinion is that is not a waste of limited resources and devtime because its providing the demand to the two different markets.I dont feel I need to say I'm sorry because your opinion only states what you would like. Where I was stating how FS could be developed to make it more enjoyable for others and not thinking of myself and what I would want.However, you are a role model and asset in this forum and I was out of line to address you the way I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest byoungblood

Just my .02, but I think you'd have people complaining about the sim being dated after a year or two after release if you built it to run at full quality on the hardware of today. That's what largely happened with MSTS, when it came out ca 2000, it would run maxed out on hardware that was already a year or two old. When I first bought it, I was running an overclocked P3 700 (OC to 933) with a GeForce 2 GTS and had very little problem running most everything maxed out at 1024x768. If it weren't for people making add ons and other scenery enhancements, it probably would have lost alot of peoples' interest rather quickly. Personally I don't mind them keeping ahead of the curve a little bit, just as long as it doesn't mean having to have really horrible quality to get it to run at all without laying out big bucks on an expensive video card or CPU. Thus far, I'm rather satisfied with the quality I can run FSX at on my current setup. Since the prices on 8800GTs are dropping a bit now, I might pick one up and try out DX10. I'm pretty confident my rig can handle it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see where you're coming from and actually to some degree I agree with you but...my opinion is what you say would be fine if FSX already gave you the same combination of graphic quality/performance as you find in other titles running on the very same hardware. Then you could have what almost looks like TV but still with good performance on tomorrow's hardware by having the sliders all the way to the right but that is not the case and it has never been with any of the FS titles.What I think is that when you don't get the performance/graphical quality that you might have had with a better written code that used your current hardware in a better way...then I don't think it's wrong to make that point and wish for a FS version that would use your hardware in a way it has never done before.Just to mention one thing, today's graphic cards are extremly powerful but despite that fact you benefit very little from having a powerful graphic card for the very simple reason that FS doesn't use what the graphic card has to offer but instead rely heavily on the CPU also for the graphics - don't you find that strange when you have a graphics card in your PC that could do that job in a much better way than your CPU that is already heavily loaded doing all kinds of other calculations?And again...if FS would make better use of today's hardware that would benefit everyone...both us as users with less performance-related issues but also the developers and 3'rd party companies having to support us because of all such kind of issues that most of us contantly seem to have.Best,


Richard Åsberg
Beta tester for FS2Crew and HiFi Simulation Technologies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...