Why can't FSX do this?

[RichardS 0]

"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

[michal 44]

>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

[n4gix 4,947]

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.

[RichardS 0]

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

[RichardS 0]

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

[Guest UlfB]

>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

[n4gix 4,947]

>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! ;)

[RichardS 0]

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

[yellowjack 28]

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.

[n4gix 4,947]

>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... ;)

[Guest Jimbofly]

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.

[Geofa 108]

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/

[scott967 62]

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..

[RichardS 0]

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

[slashed2 53]

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.