FSX is such a beautiful simulator...

[Guest]

> It sure is, But only because FSX's engine is 10 years old.It is common knowledge the graphics engine dates to the 90's. To ACES embarrassment, you are 100% correct.

[Guest]

Your a L-O-S-S_E-R!Flight simulators like ACE Combat 6 put FSX to shame. Both in terms of graphics and performance. And this is on old hardware (Pentium 4 style, dx9, 1GB memory)There is no more excuses.

[Palebushman 0]

Shall I bring some Vaseline for that cat too Bill?:-badteeth

[SimNutt 0]

>I'm just dissapointed with the programming. On my computer I>can run Crysis with everything on high except antialiasing,>and it still runs smoothly (20+ frames constant, and I must>say, it looks a lot better than FSX. My computer can handle>FSX okay in most places, but when i go to cities with a lot of>autogen, the frames drop under 10. (LA, San Francisco etc.)>When I turn on clouds ( i love clods :() the frame rate is>also bad. I heard ATI cards ( i have one) dont seem to run>them well, but they work just fine with nvidias.>> I'd like FS11 to look like FSX with all the expansions (FEX,>GEX, FTX, UTX), and run a lot better.>>Do you think they can program FS11 to run better?If FS11 uses the same engine it at has been using for what seems like forever, you can rest assure that it will be every bit the frame rate hog that FSX is!Do I think they can program FS11 to run better? My answer is yes. Will they? Most likely not!Regards Chris,">Be cool, insert lame signature here<"

[FalconAF 213]

Uh...I'M a "L-O-S-S_E-R!" ???"Losser" is spelled "LOSER"And there's a difference between the "hyphen" and "underscore" keys on your keyboard. :+

[ramprat 8]

Uh..."your" is also incorrect. It should be "you're". And the use of "is" when refering to more than one excuse is incorrect. It should be "are". Boy, we give English lessons here on the forum as well as flightsim advise. What a bonus. LOL!!!

[ccaughie 0]

>I was also talking about game engine. They really should start>from scratch and build a new one, ...Everyone who feels inclined to suggest this (and there seem to be a lot of you) should read this:http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.htmlAs Joel says, there is a common delusion, particularly amongst programmers, also apparently amongst flight simmers, that any problem in software can be solved by throwing away the old code and starting from scratch. (As a programmer myself I have succumbed to this temptation more times than I like to admit.)In theory this is true, but in practice you run out of money before you're even halfway done, and even if you don't you've got a good chance of turning out a lemon.Much of the code in FSX probably was present in the versions from the 90s. But so what? It worked then didn't it! Moreover it worked on hardware that was much less capable than what we have nowadays so must have been relatively efficient.So, I very much hope (and I'm fairly confident that this is the case) that ACES have the sense not to rewrite the engine from scratch, but instead spend their time optimising the bits that are slowing things down while leaving untouched all of the code that has been doing its job well for most of the history of the series.If not, FS11 will be out sometime around 2020, and be more full of bugs than FSX ever was.Colin

[FalconAF 213]

ROFL !!!!I was trying to be nice, Bill. I didn't want to rag the guy TOO much for having FOUR errors in ONLY four sentences. Heck...maybe his native language isn't English.;-)

[nateanderson 1]

>>I was also talking about game engine. They really should start>>from scratch and build a new one, ...>Much of the code in FSX probably was present in the versions from the>90s. But so what? It worked then didn't it! Moreover it worked on>hardware that was much less capable than what we have nowadays so must>have been relatively efficient.I'm not sure what the original poster meant by "game engine;" however, most likely he was referring to the graphics engine--the system that actually creates the display which we look at. The area of greatest advancement in PCs lately has been in the graphics processors (GPU). Some graphics cards now cost more than the motherboard and CPU combined. FS has always been CPU intensive--thus the hit on frames. There are far more instructions which can be offloaded from the CPU to the GPU today than there were in the 90s. Doing this requires more than a simple tweak. It requires rethinking the logical flow of the program. That is why MS was not able to fully support multi-core processors for FSX. It was designed for single core and converting existing code for multi-core takes a major rethink and recoding of the processes involved--time they did not have. The same is true for offloading processes from the CPU to the GPU.MS must recognize this because ACES has a whole team just working on a scenery engine which will be used for all their other simulators (TS, FS, etc). In spite of all the complaints about "apples and oranges", with current computers any program which tries to simulate the world, or any part of it, is trying to do the same thing. They all want to give the illusion of reality by throwing as many triangles as accurately as possible up on the screen.The article you referenced is from 2000 and deals primarily with office programs. Those are not graphics intensive like FS. Word processors and spreadsheets have not changed much in the past ten years. Games have.You make a good point that the parts of FSX that work well should not be changed. The interface, navaid and flight control systems comes to mind. Improvements can come in those areas simply by tweaking.Unfortunately, FSX came out at a bad time during the transition from XP to Vista, DX9 to DX10 and single core to multi-core. I use FSX exclusively and am reasonably satisfied with it; however, I am looking forward to FS11. The large majority of the FS community seems to have stuck with FS9 because of high frames and thousands of add-ons. If FS11 comes out stable and cutting edge, I think many in the community will be ready to move up.Ben

[nateanderson 1]

Your = possessive of "you"You're = contraction of "you are"The post was correct with "your keyboard."

[sipos 0]

Actually, I think the engine is going to be much more developed this time and will run smoother then any other version yet. You got to remember there is now a

[Mike T 208]

Hey "Falcon":"Your are a "disgruntled" FSX user..." I'm sure that during the course of earning your college degree you learned the difference between "your" and "you're", i.e, your is an adjective: "Your bloviation is amusing", vis a v, you're, which is a contraction of you and are: "You're bloviating." This too can be "learned" by using the Internet today!"Just what I want...a program I buy today that won't have added capabilities I could run in it if I buy a new computer a year from now"Welcome to Microsoft Flight Simulator, a hobby with more 3rd party enhancements than any other software available on the market today. As such, the obsolescence of the software is not dictated by the software itself, but by the 3rd party support it enjoys. Apropos, if there were no 3rd party support for FSX do you really believe that thousands of people would be waiting anxiously for the latest chipset that will allow FSX to be run with extremely dense autogen in two years? No one would care.Microsoft has always attempted to keep the product "fresh" throughout the product lifecycle by developing for future technology. This paradigm has caused unnecessary ire. The fact is that MSFS does not keep itself fresh, 3PDs keep it fresh. FSX has no capability to inject enhanced clouds, mesh, textures, aircraft or hyper-real flight decks therefore, what exactly would be "fresh" about a base FSX install in 2-4 years? More trees and prettier oceans? If, somehow, in two years one's processor would allow one to move a slider to the right and experience GEX type terrain, FEX type clouds, ASX type weather, or LDS type aircraft then your argument would be valid. However, since that cannot happen then the buyin to the justification of poor performance is a tad misguided."Don't bet on it. People said the same things about FS2002, FS2004, etc, etc."I'm sure that in the course of your 89 posts you would know that the release of FSX has been FAR more severe, in terms of the path to adoption, than any other since FS2000. As we approach the two year mark since release, FS2004 releases are still flooding the market, whereas FSX releases unfortunately are still dribbling in OR are released in conjunction with a FS2004 version. Dare you say the same of any other version of MSFS? "Your choice again. Not everyone else's. Load up FS2002 then and go for it."A kneejerk reaction and a sophomoric conclusion. Users such as Jim are the ones that NEED to be helped (read: dragged kicking and screaming) to migrate to FSX. For every person like you who are totally satisfied with FSX there are those who are either not satisfied or indifferent. That's a problem young "Falcon". While Aces may extol that FSX is the best selling version of MSFS to date, most 3PDs are feeling the pain and FSX's sales successes are not translating into windfall profits for them. 3PDs now have to continue to support two platforms or risk going out of business. The vast majority of 3PDs who proclaimed themselves "FSX only" shops 1 1/2 years ago have backtracked. FSX NEEDS Jim and everyone else like him to buy into the simulation. Ask Flight1, Eaglesoft, PMDG, LDS, Dreamfleet, et al if they would rather have people like Jim buying FSX products or sitting on his wallet for 2-3 more years until FS11 arrives. It

[Guest JIMJAM]

Thanks Mike but I chose to ignore this Mensa candidate.I am mid forties,spend thousands a year on addons and 3/4 of my post are helping people. Been flying in real world since I was 16 until a few years ago. After a little incident, I am now 2 inches shorter and the back doctor says my flying days are over.And if I get upset after spending 45 minutes flying to a location and CTD out of the blue on short final, deal with it.My best freind owns a computer store so lack of knowledge,ability or desire is not a issue.This guy falls into that arrogant group that if "enter game title or anything in life" works for him and not you, you are a idiot.Well FalconF*** ,figure out the Nvidia menu ctd using your plentiful grey matter. Neither Aces , Nvidia nor the gurus can so become a hero and tell us the answer..I could lay out a long list of problems you can figure out for the rest of us less fortunate but I do not want to take up so much a a true national treasures time.

[Mace 1,927]

Isn't Bohica a town in El Salvador?RhettFS box: E8500 (@ 3.16 ghz), AC Freezer 7 Pro, ASUS P5E3 Premium, BFG 8800GTX 756 (nVidia 169 WHQL), 4gb DDR3 1600 Patriot Cas7 7-7-7-20 (2T), PC Power 750, WD 150gb 10000rpm Raptor, Seagate 500gb, Silverstone TJ09 case, Vista Ultimate 64ASX Client: AMD 3700+ (@ 2.6 ghz), 7800GT

[fbobum 0]

Yes, it is..."My parents went on a vacation to BOHICA and all I got was this stupid t-shirt"...