Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

slashed2

Why can't FSX do this?

Recommended Posts

"The "F5" Graphics Menu lets you custom-tailor the 3-D window and Map Screen Displays to best suit your requirements and/or to Optimize the Display Frame Rate for your Computer System.""AUTO COMPLEXITY""When you run ***, the program checks your system configuration to determine how much Microprocessing Power is available, then AUTOMATICALLY adjusts the COMPLEXITY LEVEL of the screen display to MAINTAIN AN ACCEPTABLE FRAME RATE on your computer system."This Ladies and Gentlemen is from Page #143 of the Blue Handbook and Flight Manual of "Flight Assignment ATP" copyright 1990 by SubLOGIC.If they could do that then, why can't MS do it now, nearly 20 years later?Instead we are made to tweak and tweak, spend money on more and more hardware and programs to "TRY" to make FSX run on our computers.MS even has the nerve to tell us that FSX is made to run on "FUTURE HARDWARE" not what we have now. How stupid is that?If FSX had this feature, everyone would be able to tailor it to run to the best ability of their system instead of having to deal with slide shows around cities like New York, Los Angeles and the like.These settings can be adusted on the fly with just a key stroke or 2 so when sight seeing they can be set high and when landing they can be set low for nice smooth landings. After all, do we need to see the New York City Skyline during final?I don't think so!!!!!Come on folks. When is MS going to get it right?Just to cleaify some facts. I am 68 years old and have been flying Flight Simulator since the early 1980's starting with a Commodore 128, an ATARI 1040 and then PC's. I have flown ATP, Jet, F15 Strike Eagle, Gunship and all the versions of FS starting from FS2 on the Commodore just to name a few, so I think that I have seen the evolution of this hobby and I think that MS needs to step it up instead of just SAME OLD, SAME OLD.That's my RANT for the day.Thanks for reading it. RichardS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

>If they could do that then, why can't MS do it now, nearly 20>years later?Because then there were really very few variables to adjust. Today the FS got so complex with so many ways to tweak performance that two different users may chose drastically different ways to adjust performance. There is no "one size" fits all solution any more.>MS even has the nerve to tell us that FSX is made to run on>"FUTURE HARDWARE" not what we have now. How stupid is that?There is nothing "stupid" about it but I reckon you got up on the wrong side of bed today. >Thanks for reading it.You are welcome.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSX already does that when you first install it! The software analyzes your system and sets up "default settings" based on that analysis.Anytime you wish, you can open the options menu and choose "Reset Defaults."The majority of user's problems occur when they refuse to accept the pre-determined "Default Settings," and begin to tinker. Among the "tinkering" includes the probability that the original, pre-calculated "defaults" are lost...Furthermore, you can easily set up various configurations to match your preferences during various stages of flight, save them, and then load them on-demand with nothing more than a brief pause while the sim reloads the required level of detail."MS even has the nerve to tell us that FSX is made to run on "FUTURE HARDWARE" not what we have now. How stupid is that?"To which I reply, it is a business model that has proven successful for twenty-five years. Why change a model that is proven to work?The model is "Evolutionary;" not "Revolutionary." As time goes on and hardware is upgraded, the sim will continue to "evolve" to increase satisfaction, rather than remaining static and stale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael:I beg to differ with you. As the program became more complex the issues I mention could have kept in step. The talented people who make these programs could make any adjustments they want. That is the point. Nobody wants too. For whatever reason I don't know. I just know that I have spent thousands of dollars just to keep up with FS. I use my computer for very little else. As a matter of fact I have 1 computer that I use only for FS and it runs FS9 very well but FSX can be a dog around big cities. It is as maxed out as I can make it so I can't upgrade it any more. I do all my internet work on another older computer.I just think MS should look into making FS a little friendlier. Not everyone can afford to keep up. RichardS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill:AS I said to Michael, not everyone can afford to keep buying or upgrading their computers to keep up with FS.You mention making various configurations. Just how is that done? Where are they stored and how would you load them? I would really like to know. Maybe I missed something somewhere.That could be the answer to my question.RichardS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I just think MS should look into making FS a little>friendlier. Not everyone can afford to keep up.This is exactly what you can do in FSX as it is. Just move the scenery setting sliders a notch or two to the left and you've got your FSX a little friendlier ;-)Ulf BCore2Duo X6800 3.3GHz4GB RAM Corsair XMS2-8500C5BFG 8800GTX, Creative SB X-FiFSX Acc/SP2, Vista 32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>AS I said to Michael, not everyone can afford to keep buying or >upgrading their computers to keep up with FS.No one expects that. However, inevitably the day will come when you have to upgrade or replace something. Wouldn't you then like to be able to see something "new" or "evolutionary" that you hadn't previously been able to enjoy? I know that I sure am!Apparently the vast majority of FS owners do too, else MS wouldn't have achieved a record 25+ year lifetime for a single title!>You mention making various configurations. Just how is that>done? Where are they stored and how would you load them? I>would really like to know. Maybe I missed something>somewhere.>That could be the answer to my question.On the Options/Settings Menu tab, there is a button labled "Save" and another labled "Load."Simply set up a number of different configurations and "Save" them with some friendly name, such as "Low and Slow," "High and Fast," et cetera... ;)I have two which see frequent use during my model testing:1) Everthing OFF/LOW2) Everthing ON/HIGHas well as a dozen others for specific flying scenarios for use during those few precious minutes I actually get to "fly" instead of model/program! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill:Thank you for that info. I will try that. You see, my main problem is that I live in Queens, New York not far from JFK and I made my own airport where my house sits in real life. I have to deal with all that scenery whenever I take off or land. I can fly the "ES Citation X Light" at altitude at a constant 15 to 20 FPS but when I hit NY I'm down to below 10 or less so you can see why I would like to be able to get rid of unneeded scenery.Will this work when I am flying an IFR flight plan or only VFR? RichardS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's new, FS9 was in the same mold. Sure I get FPS down to 15 in the busy areas but that is because I have AI traffic set at 61% and "MyTraffic" installed. In open country I achieve over 70FPS (a rate I never did achieve with FS9). But that is my choice and I can eliminate the lousy FPS I busy areas by zapping AI traffic with one push of a button on my control system.Personally I support Aces approach to designing for the life of the product. And my first flight sim was on an Amiga although I am two years junior to the OP and I still have the Sublogic maps. In my case my FSX is simply the best Flightsim in terms of functionality and performance I have ever had to date.Now, there is my rant for the day, touche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Will this work when I am flying an IFR flight plan or only>VFR?It doesn't matter. It will work anytime you use it... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can adjust a myriad of settings within the program to tailor it to best suit your system.A modern computer (multi-core, good vid card) can actually run FSX quite well. Keep in mind that the software is pushing the hardware, and I certainly remember FS3 pushing the XT I had at the time to it's limits, where I would get a slideshow but the faster computers at the time could run it fine, just like today.Again I repeat, you can always lower the settings if you need to, that option is still available. Alternatively you can get better hardware.And of course it's designed for future technology when released, which is available now, and gives it greater potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As one who has upgraded my computer at every fs incarnation since fs1 in 1981-I have gotten the cheapest upgrade and most bang for my buck in this incarnation (fsx).I remember well upgrading to a Pentium 1 when fs4 came out-cost me about $3000 at the time and I was elated to get 6-8 fps-without of course ai traffic/real weather/terrain that we take for granted now. When I got my first voodoo graphics card and upped fs4 to 12 fps I was really on cloud nine!This year I spent roughly $1000 to upgrade-now getting 25-45 fps with everything pretty much to the right. Seems to me things have gotten much better! Let's factor in inflation and make it even more unfair! Fps, program features, cost to keep up with it-all logarithmically better than when I started in this hobby 27 years ago! I see no reason to be unhappy-on the contrary! :-)http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAICT, everything OP wanted is in FSX, except I don't think there is anyway to assign a key to move sliders left and right.scott s..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill:Thank you for that info. I made a setting where I took out everything and now I can land at a SMOOTH 15+ FPS. My only problem is that I use Flight1's GEX Enhanced normally and without it the ground level at my airport is about 6ft higher then with it. So my airport becomes subterrainian as I descend below 150ft. Small price to pay for the increase in performance. RichardS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ATP did indeed adjust complexity levels on the fly without a reload which is the price we pay in FSX config loading as it has a tendency to pause things for a bit.If intelligence could be added within FS that would take into consideration the overall capability of data throughput, processing power, graphics power, disk speed etc... and adjust the complexity of the scenery based on this evaluation transparently within the sim that would be a major desire of mine.Consider this, when I fly the feelthere 737, lower my settings to reach an fps setting of 12-15 at my departure airport. When I take off it jumps to 20 locked as I leave the urban areas and then drops to 12 when coming for a landing depending on location. It would be nice to set a desired FPS and let the program adjust scenery levels to maintain that fps throughout the flight.You could set a priority as to which parts of the scenery to adjust and what the minimum would be. Say set autogen to priority one, and set a minimum of 500 per cell. When you approach an area that begins to bring FPS down it will slowly drop your autogen levels until it reaches the minimum then it'll move to the next priority level which could be AI traffic.Instead of having to set a minimum at takeoff and then load a config file as you fly and then another one for landing have the system adjust on the fly based on settings you can fiddle with.Granted, loading the config file doesn't take much and it's a nice feature to have but it would be even better to have it automated and non intrusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "problems and solutions" mentioned in this thread fail to take one major concept into consideration:WHO should decide what is "important" to the end user of FSX? I certainly don't want Microsoft to be doing it for me.The Flight Simulator series has always been about the end user being allowed to make CHOICES in how they want the sim to perform. Any new release of FS has historically NEVER been able to run on the most current hardware available at the time. Microsoft has provided a flight simulator that allows the end user to decide...through CHOICES...how they want to fly in the sim. Low and slow? Crank up the sliders. Low and fast? Might have to crank a few of them down to avoid slow loading textures and stutters. The POSSIBILITIES for an almost unlimited range of flight conditions in the sim make it necessary for the end user to DECIDE what is important for them, settings-wise, for each session.The only REAL problem occurs when an end user expects to be able to crank everything up to maximum, ALL the time, and get "aceptable performance". There are just too many variables available in the sim in this case for most users and their hardware to get away with doing that.Adjust the sim accordinly for the type of flying you are going to do in the current session. It isn't hard to do, nor really inconvenient. YOU have control over the settings. Thank you MS for giving us that. And no...I don't WANT MS to incorporate any sort of "automatic" settings in the sim. They couldn't possibly know how I want to use it "this" session. I may want more autogen, I may not. Cars, boats, AI (and at what level), clouds, etc, etc. No way they could know. I'll decide with the settings I can "choose" to change.Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The "problems and solutions" mentioned in this thread fail to>take one major concept into consideration:>>WHO should decide what is "important" to the end user of FSX? >I certainly don't want Microsoft to be doing it for me.>>The Flight Simulator series has always been about the end user>being allowed to make CHOICES in how they want the sim to>perform. Any new release of FS has historically NEVER been>able to run on the most current hardware available at the>time. Microsoft has provided a flight simulator that allows>the end user to decide...through CHOICES...how they want to>fly in the sim. Low and slow? Crank up the sliders. Low and>fast? Might have to crank a few of them down to avoid slow>loading textures and stutters. The POSSIBILITIES for an>almost unlimited range of flight conditions in the sim make it>necessary for the end user to DECIDE what is important for>them, settings-wise, for each session.>>The only REAL problem occurs when an end user expects to be>able to crank everything up to maximum, ALL the time, and get>"aceptable performance". There are just too many variables>available in the sim in this case for most users and their>hardware to get away with doing that.>>Adjust the sim accordinly for the type of flying you are going>to do in the current session. It isn't hard to do, nor really>inconvenient. YOU have control over the settings. Thank you>MS for giving us that. And no...I don't WANT MS to>incorporate any sort of "automatic" settings in the sim. They>couldn't possibly know how I want to use it "this" session. I>may want more autogen, I may not. Cars, boats, AI (and at>what level), clouds, etc, etc. No way they could know. I'll>decide with the settings I can "choose" to change.>>Rick Agree. Period.Ulf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick:First let me ask if you ever flew ATP? The Auto Complexity feature was purely user operated. If you didn't want to use it you didn't have to. Also there were 15 items to choose from in making your adjustments.I recommend you look on the internet at some of the many sites still active about ATP. Try to find the site where you can look at the blue manual and check out pages 143 thru 147. Maybe then you will understand what I mean. RichardS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard,I know what you mean. I've been a PPL real-world for over 30 years, and am retired IT Professional from the Air Force. Been flight simming since the "Trash 80" from Radio Shack. ATP was a great sim for it's time.But things change. Ever since Flight Simulator 2002, with every release people complain about how "bad" it runs on their computers. That's just bull. No release of FS since 2002 has been able to run "full bore" on any computer available at the time of release. Microsoft includes enough "stuff" in each new release to bring a current computer to it's knees if you try to run everything in the program at the same time. Heck...most people are only NOW able to run FS2004 "full bore" with everything maxed out...using a Core2Duo system.My experience is this...and I've helped a lot of FS users over the years:1. Read the darn Flight Sim Learning Center to learn ALL the options you have. Heck...there are plenty of people right now who don't know there are TWO ways to set the weather options in FSX. They've never even gone to the advanced settings page.2. The fastest computer is useless if you don't do regular maintenance on it. FSX = $40. Then the user buys hundreds or thousands of dollars in add-ons...software, hardware, yokes, etc. But they won't buy a good Registry Cleaner or Disk Defragmenter...then wonder why the computer won't run FSX "acceptably". FSX is about using the settings INTERNAL to FSX to make choices. You can SAVE these choices very easily for different flight sessions using the Save Flight feature. There is no NEED for any "automatic" settings application to be included with FSX. It would actually be more of a hinderance than a help...unless you want someone else deciding how you want to use the sim.Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The Auto Complexity feature was purely user operated. Instead of auto-complexity I would like to see something else. I would like to be able to 'program' complexity per route, in advance. For example I takeoff from A and intend to fly to B and say this is a jet, I want to fly high and above clouds, don't care about terrain while enroute. It would be nice to say - please don't do any terrain updates while I am more than say 50 miles from destination. This way all the CPU power would be devoted to aircraft, clouds and weather rather than trying to keep up with terrain you can't even see.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael,OK, I'll buy that. But based on what you are saying you want to do, you can already do it in FSX.1. No terrain updates at altitude? Go to Display Options and turn the Terrain Mesh slider down to zero.2. Do the same with the Autogen slider.3. Go to the Advanced Weather settings. Create a Visibility Layer that extends a thousand feet above the highest terrain during your flight. You won't see ANY ground then. Note that if you use a third-party weather generator (or the FSX real-world weather update), it will reset this during the update it does periodically. But heck, if doing numbers 1 and 2 above don't solve your problem, then it is really time for a new computer...or at least some major user maintenance on the current one.50 miles from your destination, go move the sliders back to where you want them for arrival. Yeah...it isn't "real" to do this, and it takes a few seconds for the stuff to load again, but hey...this is a computer simulation. It isn't "real". At least in the sense that I can't remember ever flying my real airplane over the past 30 years while having an open can of Budweiser sitting next to my yoke and arrival charts. :-beerchug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>FSX is about using the settings INTERNAL to FSX to make>choices. You can SAVE these choices very easily for different>flight sessions using the Save Flight feature. There is no>NEED for any "automatic" settings application to be included>with FSX. It would actually be more of a hinderance than a>help...unless you want someone else deciding how you want to>use the sim.One of the features I'm "lobbying for" is an auto-scalar algorithim that will scale down the user's "desired level of complexity" based on the stages of flight......IOW, the system would begin automatically reducing values from the user's base line settings when those 'features' are no longer relevant.Do we really need 6000 trees and autogen buildings per cell while at flightlevels?More intelligent implementation of jetways and aircraft vehicles would also help. Do we really need to have animated jetways and airport traffic at all airports within 100nm radius? We can't see them, so why bog down the system with constantly updating them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>One of the features I'm "lobbying for" is an auto-scalar>algorithim that will scale down the user's "desired level of>complexity" based on the stages of flight...>>...IOW, the system would begin automatically reducing values>from the user's base line settings when those 'features' are>no longer relevant.>>Do we really need 6000 trees and autogen buildings per>cell while at flightlevels?>>More intelligent implementation of jetways and aircraft>vehicles would also help. Do we really need to have animated>jetways and airport traffic at all airports within 100nm>radius? We can't see them, so why bog down the system>with constantly updating them?>Good point. But from a "system usage" point of view, I wonder just how much system resoures would be used by the "auto-scaler algorithm" itself. If it had to constantly scan an area of say 100-mile radius around the aircraft, it might be redundant in the amount of system resources IT uses.And I wholly agree with your other points about not needing 6000 trees or autogen building per cell from altitude. That is, UNLESS the user isn't really using a "flight simulator", but rather a "whole world graphics eye-candy" simulator.What is a "Flight Simulator" supposed to "simulate" in the first place? Take a look at any (most) of the multi-million dollar commercial and military "flight simulators" in use today. They simulate the "flight" part of "flight simulator". A commecial pilot doing a 6-month recurrency check gets into a multi-million dollar COCKPIT simulation of the aircraft in question. The GRAPHICS he/she views out the front window are equivalent to the old ATP flight simulator. There is a runway, maybe a few trees spread around, and a horizon. There isn't tons of autogen displayed all over the place...cars, boats, other airplanes, AI traffic, etc. GIVE one of these multi-million dollar simulators to most FSX users, and some of them would STILL complain that "the product sucks" 'cos the graphics "aren't real". Well, you don't NEED all that extra "eye candy" for a Flight Simulator. Even for VFR flying. If you have a few roads and rivers...even if they are drawn only as "lines", you could still navigate VFR (anybody remember ATP? Or the first versions of FS when the roads between cities were just white lines on your screen?). In multi-million dollar military combat flight sims, you will see "other aircraft" in flight. You need these to teach air-to-air combat techniques, etc. But the graphics of those airplanes come nowhere near what we see in FSX. And again, the "ground" in these simulators is bare-bones. Imagine trying to sell something like that (and make a profit) to a home computer "flight simulator" user today. Can you say "company goes bankrupt"?FSX includes TONS of stuff that are NOT related to a real "flight simulator". Heck, people spend so much time complaining about the parts of it that AREN'T "flight simulator", and STILL spend more money to "upgrade" those same parts with more "realistic" ground scenery, detailed airports, terrain mesh, etc, etc. Then they just have more to complain about. You may as well call it the "Microsoft What The Real World Looks Like With A Flight Simulator Added To It" simulator.Don't get me wrong. I love FSX. And I'm guilty of buying all those addons also. But if I really want to simulate FLIGHT, and I have a complex aircraft with a complex VC and I just can't run that with all my graphics sliders maxed out, then I have a CHOICE to make. And that is turn down some of the "non-flight simulator" parts of the program to make it all work. On the other hand, if I want to view all the "eye candy" maxed out, then I may not be able to use a complex airplane to do it. I've had LOTS of fun just loading up FSX, going to "Tower View" at a major airport, cranking up all the sliders, and watching the AI traffic go nuts. Or getting the UltraLight out and flying low and slow over the coast west of Los Angeles with all the "boat" AI maxed out, and watching the boats on the water. Or flying East of Portland, OR in the valleys/canyons there, with all the "road traffic" maxed out, and watching those cute, silly cars and trucks bounce over the roads from an altitude of 100 feet. That's all great to do in FSX...but it has nothing to do with "flight simulating".What are we expecting from Microsoft and Flight Simulator? They include all this "extra" non-flight simulator stuff in every release of FS. They KNOW that with all of it included, that NO computer at the time of release will be able to run it ALL at the same time. They ADMIT that to the community. Yet the community (some of it) still feels they got "cheated" somehow because their two-year old computer won't run it all at the same time. And they complain. And they will complain again, even if they just bought a new top-of-the-line computer today, as soon as FS11 comes out. Huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>But on the flip side we have users who want every blade of>grass to blow in the wind and every leaf on every tree to not>only move but properly reflect the sunlight depending on the>time of day. Then they want all this to happen on a 4 year old>computer with a FPS of 60 or higher.Don't forget the drops of water on the leaves when it rains, and dynamic mud puddles... :-lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites