Why can't FSX do this?

[FalconAF 213]

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

[Guest UlfB]

>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

[RichardS 0]

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

[FalconAF 213]

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

[michal 44]

>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

[FalconAF 213]

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

[n4gix 4,947]

>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?

[FalconAF 213]

>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?

[JSkorna 137]

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.Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

[n4gix 4,947]

>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

[JSkorna 137]

How could I! :-rollJimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

[FalconAF 213]

>>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... :-lolYup! I just gotta laugh so hard (then take a Valium) when I see "addons" for drivable cars in the forums. And the users who, in all seriousness, recommend that Microsoft include TRAINS that you can actually drive (Engineer?) in the next version. Just what I want to spend my Flight Simulator money for...a "driveable train" in the next version. PS - I'm on your side, guys. As a developer of addons for FSX, it amazes me you don't go batty trying to meet the expectations of some users of a "flight simulator" product. *:-*

[n4gix 4,947]

Oh, I don't know... I can imagine sometime in the future when the entire world is hosted by a massive on-line system that integrates something like the Sims, Trains, Busses, Ships, and of course Aircraft into an integrated package.I mean, how cool would it be to have (in real time) some couple walk up to your FBO and hire you to "fly them" to some real destination......their avatars climb into your trusty Citation X bizjet and you fly 'em to the Bahammas for a weekend getaway, then pick 'em up a few days later for the return trip?They pay you of course in 'virtual currency' which you can then spend on maintenance, fuel, insurance, etc. :)

[cklink 0]

Good point's ..And in doing so, I'd like to see the priorties ironed out as well.Load the the mesh & ground textures, then autogen. If things slow down, let it be the autogen and whatever else (jetways, birds etc)that can't keep up.And increase our LOD rings, for just the mesh & textures.Dynamics, Ground, Sky, then the "accessories & extra stuff".Regards'Garett

[Guest thx1137]

Come on, tell us what you _really_ think... :-)FalconAF, very good points of course. I think most users of flight sim products are tourists first and pilots second. There is no problem with that of course. It has only been in the last few months that I really used FS as a flight simulator after having purchased the private pilot training manuals.I now have two distinct types of flying. 1. Practicing procedures and properly flight management2. Number 1 + sight seeingReally guys, if you can and a really interested in realistic flying, get your countries private pilots flight training material and use it to help fly realistically. It is soooo much better. In Australia I paid about $150 for the kit, it included:1. A log book2. Radio communications training manual3. Basic Aeronautical Knowledge training manual (how a plane flies, rules, procedures, etc)4. Flight Training guide (like a heap of lessons)I now use a real-world flight planning program called AirNav VFR for my sim flight plans.I guess I got it bad :-)Steven.