Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JimmiG

FS11 Wish List/Expectations

Recommended Posts

Hi Rich,I agree with most of what you have written but I'm afraid our opinions on FSX do differ somewhat. :-) If you had a league table of versions of FS then FSX would not be in the top tier. The expectation of what DX10 would deliver dealt it a massive blow.But I agree that SP1 did improve it a lot. It had to really otherwise it would have bitten the dust.I think half the problem of new vesions has been the need to retain backward compatibility. Aces have said FSXI will only be compatible with FSX so that should help free their shackles a bit.I'm happy to stand back and observe too. I've said my bit! :-)


Ray (Cheshire, England).
System: P3D v5.3HF2, Intel i9-13900K, MSI 4090 GAMING X TRIO 24G, Crucial T700 4Tb M.2 SSD, Asus ROG Maximus Z790 Hero, 32Gb Corsair Vengeance DDR5 6000Mhz RAM, Win 11 Pro 64-bit, BenQ PD3200U 32” UHD monitor, Fulcrum One yoke.
Cheadle Hulme Weather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JoeInCT

>Joe,>><with a fully functional FMC/autopilot system...>>>>That will not happen. An FMC/CDU is extremely complicated to>create and there's no way that ACES would spend so much of>their time on a FMC/CDU when 90% of the users would never use>it.>So you are advocating that users of FS11 and later versions continue to fly from VOR to VOR???? or use the pop up GPS to fly a route on the transport jets like the 747 or 737 etc???? Like I said, this is beyond lame. The idea is as antiquated as flying VOR to VOR. It is time for Microsoft to come up with something more integrated into the virtual aircraft based on real world autopilot systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>1. creating the sim for "todays" hdw., not tomorrows; in 5+>yrs. since Processors first hit the 3ghz. mark (default clock>speeds) and they haven't increased 1 full ghz.Yes but don't forget that a each core of a Core 2 Duo running at 2GHz is faster than a Pentium 4 running at 3...>never liked>nor understood the future proofing theory. give the video card>as much work as it can handle without it being a major>bottleneck. full multi-threading support from the ground-up.I agree to an extent, but I don't think it necessarily has to be possible to run with all sliders hard to the right on what passes for a mid range PC on the day of release. All sliders in the middle perhaps, and definitely the experience on that PC should be a good one, which arguably in the case of FSX it was not.>2. improve the atmospherics ie... more colors to the>sky/clouds during sunrise & sunset. more realistic looking>(3d) clouds and more different type cloud formations. Definitely, the other thing I'd like to see is a better sense of distance. The haze effect in FSX doesn't really work, in fact you often find that land further away from you is in sharp focus when you can hardly see the land right below you.>5. drop All backward compatability. Surely you mean "drop backward compatibility where it hinders improvement"? No point dropping it just for the sake of it... :)Colin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Nick_N

Wipe the slate clean and start over if that is what it takes to dev a consistently performant and enjoyable productFeatures cost perf and there is nothing wrong with that as long as the base is a solid platform that will without question display the same perf and visual result within a window of system specs. Past that is the bonus and it should be easy to see as a hardware upgrade option. The issues come up when the person on the 5000 dollar system has the same problem as the person on the 1000 dollar system and both have to jump through hoops to figure out how to tame the issues. I firmly believe most of the market for the product does not hang out in sim forums looking for fixes and in my opinion it would do the franchise a world of good if the issues were minimized so the typical user is not let down at what the product looks and runs like out of the box with no experience in computer and sim tuning/tweakingFeatures are wonderful and 'shoot lower' should never be a goal.. shoot strait and dev with an well considered perf and visual impact methodology of reaching the customer... you want them to install it and exclaim "WOW"! and not sit there and say WHY??? ;) Your recent blog entries suggest that mindest in development has already started and it is a very welcome sign of things to come. Looking forward here to reading more as time progresses.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>So you are advocating that users of FS11 and later versions>continue to fly from VOR to VOR???? Nope. Perhaps what we are advocating that users who really want to fly realistic airplanes with realistic autopilots and FMS start purchasing some best add-on aircraft that provide all these goodies including the FMS. There is absolutely no sense in equipping the out-of-the-box 747 (that is a Mickey-Mouse simulation to begin with) with an FMS - even the cockpit displays are highly dumbed-down and have little in common with their real world counterparts. The boxed product is really geared for the mass market that doesn't care about realism - if you want realism get yourself a decent add-on aircraft.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote: 1. creating the sim for "todays" hdw., not tomorrows; in 5+ yrs. since Processors first hit the 3ghz. mark (default clock speeds) and they haven't increased 1 full ghz. never liked nor understood the future proofing theory. give the video card as much work as it can handle without it being a major bottleneck. full multi-threading support from the ground-up.I couldn't have said it better FM.The following list for FS11 was posted on another site but bears repeating here (IMHO). Note item 2. It provides some measurable parameters for what IMHO should be target performance figures for "todays" hardware when FS11 is released.This is first of all a flight sim. If the sim part doesn't work, the rest is a waste of time. So, my priorities are to get the sim flyable, then work on the rest. FSX is a good product with some basic sim related problems. My list, in order of priority follows:1 - Make the VC editable by the user like the 2D panel. If Microsoft can't QA the panel functions (and they blew it in FSX) so they are the same in both and flyable, let the user do it.2 - Design for the top end machines at the time of release to be able to run the sim at 24 FPS and medium settings everywhere. This would still allow for a lot of growth. We still can't do this in major metropolitan areas a year and a half after release. My rationale for this is as follows. Here we are 1 and a half years into FSX release and many people are still on FS9 because of blurries, etc. Even the quad core machines at the sim convention in Seattle had blurries a year after release and those were state of the art. If the object is to make money, then your target should be to reach a larger FS market share. You have left a lot of the market behind.3 - Improve the AI as many have already suggested.4 - Tweak the scenery as many have suggested. Since getting UTX, I am almost satisfied (except for blurries) with this aspect of the sim.5 - Improve weather as many have suggested.My current machine is a C2D running at 2.6 GHz, 2GB 800MHz ram, nVidia 7900GS 256, and a 21" CRT running at 1280 x 1024 running on XP32 SP2. What I term a middle of the road machine. I run with most of my sliders 3/4 of the way up and low traffic. This gets me 28FPS (locked) around medium towns but only 15 or so around LA and even less around NY. I also get blurries so I perodically have to hit pause to allow the sim to catch up with my 737. This should not be necessary.Hope this doesn't fall on deaf ears like the comments leading up to FSX.An FS enthusiast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, it is hard for users to move to a new sim that has no sort of compatibility with at least the previous version if they have a lot of good addons, particularly payware addons. By the time some addons are released, it is a year and a half since the release of the version, leaving only one and a half to two years to enjoy it, and I'd like it to be compatible past two years, especially if I payed money for it. As a painter, I'd like my textures to be used past two years. Yes, people can run dual-sim for the addons that can't transition, but I'd like to run dual-sim as minimally as I can. I'll be happy with FSX-compatibility of some sort, enough to keep most of my addons for it running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I've always asked that MS use a totally new graphics engine for the next version, every time since FS2002. Yet every time they stick with the old one - And every time people have problems with blurries and stutters even on the latest hardware at the time. This has nothing to do with flight simulation being so complex.. The eye candy is responsible for most of the performance and display problems. Don't believe me? Try running the sim at the lowest quality settings at 800x600 - Still getting just 10 FPS? Didn't think so. The graphics engine is horribly outdated, dating back to almost the pre-GPU/Hardware T&L days. Since flight sim is such a niche product, there are no third party engines that can be easily licensed and adapted. They have to write one from scratch.2. The new sim should be written from the ground up with performance and scalability in mind. Every feature implemented should be optimized for performance right away. No beta versions that run at 5 FPS. The sim should scale with CPU *and* GPU's. If they have a very GPU dependant rendering path, the freed CPU cycles can be used to improve on AI and physics, areas of FS that currently get very little love from the CPU compared to the eye candy.The current FSX engine just does NOT scale well with either GPU or CPU performance. For example, when I upgraded from a 3500+ single-core CPU and X800XT videocard to a 4800+ X2 CPU and 8800GT videocard, the game Oblivion went from 12 FPS to 40 FPS in the same game world area - FSX saw almost no performance gains, though the "blurries" disappeared almost completely (then again, Oblivion had no "blurries" to begin with...).3. New scenery compositing engine that somehow takes a new approach to scenery rendering, rather than the current combination of vectors and textures. In current FS versions, roads appear to "float" on top the terrain textures, sometimes cutting roofs of 2D buildings in two or crossing the textured "fake" roads at odd angles etc. In general, urban areas don't look as good as rural areas.4. Better flight dynamics and weather (again).


Asus Prime X370 Pro / Ryzen 7 3800X / 32 GB DDR4 3600 MHz / Gainward Ghost RTX 3060 Ti
MSFS / XP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AV

>(then again, Oblivion had no "blurries" to begin>with...).And you're comparing a game that renders 16sq miles (oblivion) at a time to a game that has to render 22,500 sq miles at at time because? And don't tell me that those "far away" areas aren't blurred compared to the immediate environment. Unless you've downloaded some mods, they are.If FSX only had to model a landmass the size of a small borough in high detail, FPS wouldn't be a problem. But Oblivion doesn't even do that. It only renders out to a few dozen meters in high detail with all the objects.The only game out there that comes close to FSX in area needing to be rendered is IL2, and it pretty much ignores the ground. It only needs to display the endless steppes of Russia. If you go out there in FSX, you'll get higher FPS as well. It also has a better weather model, which is critically important for an air combat sim.The next version of FS needs better modeling capabilities for the aircraft (FSX took a few baby steps in the right direction), better weather modeling, and a better flight dynamics model. HELICOPTERS ESPECIALLY. With enough tweaking you can achieve what you want FDE wise with a regular plane, but helicopters are just totally borked. The programming folks have already chimed in that they love Simconnect and want more of it. These are the folks that get us the great addons and ACES really needs to pick their brains on where to go from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I chime in?I want better weather. How about hurricanes and tornadoes?Better DX10. It's a pain in the neck right now.How about some crash effects, like breaking glass?Realistic soundsets and panels--how about photorealistic views again?And most importantly, better ATC. When I run out of fuel, and start plummeting, ATC does nothing but tell me that they are going to cancel my IFR plan because I didn't listen to them.A sim utilizing the GPU more. A more current-hardware friendly sim.Better effects, like lights, spray, etc.I'll stop ranting but I bet I'll come back here after playing FSX a few more times. :)


Regards,

BoeingGuy

 

customer.jpg

ASUS P5E X38 | Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 3.2 GHz on 1600 MHz FSB (400x8) | 4 GB DDR2-800 RAM | EVGA GeForce 8800 GT Superclocked @ 679/979 | 320 GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 RPM HD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>1 - Make the VC editable by the user like the 2D panel. If>Microsoft can't QA the panel functions (and they blew it in>FSX) so they are the same in both and flyable, let the user do>it.This would not be possible. The VC is part of the model itself, so there's no way to "edit" it......of course, with the move to seperate models, someone could build an entirely new interior model (which is what the VC actually is), but that is a lot of work. There's a reason why it takes up to six months for any given model to be created... sometimes it takes even longer!>If the object>is to make money, then your target should be to reach a larger>FS market share. You have left a lot of the market behind.That is a specious statement. MS only makes money once, and that is when the sale occurs......with the sales they've already made, I'd venture they've more than met that goal! :)


Fr. Bill    

AOPA Member: 07141481 AARP Member: 3209010556


     Avsim Board of Directors | Avsim Forums Moderator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with almost all what is being suggested here.As a developer of scenery I feel backward compatibility would be great. However, I believe the time has come for a complete overhaul of FS and remove all backward compatibility to improve flyability etc. This will also add benefits in allowing other enhancements to be built in. Of course if ACES can give me a tool to convert my FS2004 sceneries to FS11 that would be ideal.My other request is to improve the way the clouds antialiasing is handled. It is frankly the only problem I have with FSX right now and causes me a lot of heartache when the sim starts to stutter and fps drops.Shez


Shez Ansari

Windows 11; CPU: Intel Core i7-8700K; GPU: EVGA GEFORCE GTX 1080Ti 11GB; MB: Gigabyte Z370 AORUS Gaming 5; RAM: 16GB; HD: Samsung 960 Pro 512GB SSD, Samsung 850 Pro 256GB SSD; Display: ASUS 4K 28", Asus UHD 26"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>My other request is to improve the way the clouds antialiasing>is handled. It is frankly the only problem I have with FSX>right now and causes me a lot of heartache when the sim starts>to stutter and fps drops.Yeah that too!Gary


Ryzen 7 5800X3D | Gigabyte RTX 4090 Gaming OC 24GB | 32GB 3200MHz RAM | 2TB + 1TB NVME SSD | 2GB SSD | 2GB HDD | Corsair RM850 PSU | 240mm AIO | Buttkicker Gamer 2 | Thrustmaster T.16000M Flight Pack | 75" 4K60 TV | 40" 4K60 TV | Quest 3 | DOF Reality H3 Motion Platform

MSFS @ 4K Ultra DLSS Performance with 2.0x Secondary Scaling |  VR VDXR Godlike 80Hz SSW OXRTK @ 4500x4500 Custom FFR CAS 50% | MSFS VR Ultra DLSS Performance - Windows 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...