Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest ThrottleUp

FS11 Wish List

Recommended Posts

Hi Falcon,Nice idea...but it will never happen.Anyone who has been around the Flight Simulator series over the years...and I have been since the first edition...has NEVER been able to "max everything out" and get 30 FPS with ANY new release of FS.Although I never play other 'games' it's interesting to note that reviewers of games such as Crysis suggest that with fps of 25 the game is barely playable. 25 is the often suggested sweet spot for FS.But getting 30 with everything maxxed out is quite simple. All you do is buy the current version minus one of FS. :-) In two years when FS11 will probably be available you build a new PC and then buy FSX. ;-)If you stick to this policy you'll always get brilliant performance from FS. I'm fed up building new PCs for the latest version of FS and being disappointed in performance. In this respect FSX has been particularly poor.I know it's always been the policy of Aces for hardware to catch up with FS but some of us are getting fed up having decent kit and getting very moderate performance unless we buy 300UKP graphics cards and ultra-fast CPUs.Fly! produced some wonderful clouds 10 years ago and good frame rates. It was only the lack of ground textures that stopped it replacing FS as the premium flight simulator.It's about time that Aces rethought their strategy.


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

----"I seriously doubt you are still running FS9 on the same computer you had when it came out. How many upgrades have you done since then to get to those "maxed 30 FPS" with FS9?"------------------Falcon- I'm still running FS9 on my 5+ yr old AMD XP2200. In fact still running smoothly with the original FS9 load- never had a CTD. The FS9/CD has never been removed other than to load CD add-on planes and UT/GE scenery. Extra RAM (now 2GB) is the only thing upgraded since new.Of course I'm not "maxed 30 FPS", but everything is very smooth at 16-24 FPS @ 3072 x 768 resolution! That's way more pixels to my eyes than most simmers see with a brand new 'puter. And with a 150

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex,Exactly like you said. I'm not trying to unload on anybody here. But like you said, with your original FS9 computer, you can't max out everything in FS9 and get 30 FPS. The only way you can get 30 FPS in FS9 with everything maxed out is with upgraded hardware. I've currently got a Q9650, 4 gig RAM, GTX 260 1 gig memory card, and my system is configured to run it's best for FSX. I know how to do it based on over 25 years IT experience. But I can still bring FSX to a crawl if I want to. "Max Everything" in it, and I'll get a slide show in some geographical areas with certain combinations of addons.It won't be any different with FS11. People need to make realistic choices. If they can't spend the money (or won't) to get the hardware to run the latest version of FS, then they need to just be happy and use the last version that will run on their hardware. Or learn to make choices in the latest version appropriate for their current hardware.But to suggest that any future version of FS should be able to run "maxed out at 30 FPS" on any current version of any hardware available at the time of the FS release is just plain unrealistic. The FS version would become outdated within 6 months of release. CPU speeds double in as little as 6 months nowadays. I don't want a version of FSX that will be obsolete 6 months after I buy it. If that ever happens, I might as well trade in my desktop and go buy one of those "boxes" that run "flight simulators" that don't allow for addons, upgrades, etc.FalconAF


Rick Ryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Falcon,I've currently got a Q9650, 4 gig RAM, GTX 260 1 gig memory card, and my system is configured to run it's best for FSX. I know how to do it based on over 25 years IT experience. But I can still bring FSX to a crawl if I want to. "Max Everything" in it, and I'll get a slide show in some geographical areas with certain combinations of addons.And therein lies the problem. FSX is now 2 years 2 months old and even today's blisteringly fast hardware can't 'max' all the sliders. Quite frankly that is disgraceful and the main reason why take-up on FSX has been so slow. And by the time you add 3rd party airports and Ai it just gets worse. :-(It won't be any different with FS11. People need to make realistic choices.Perhaps Aces need to make some realistic choices? Why, after 15 years of experience, does FS have to be two or more years ahead of the hardware required to run it well? If Aces make the same mistakes with FS11 as they did with FSX it will not bode well for the future.


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

Can someone explain to me the benefit of being able to run "maxed out", as opposed to just being able to run in such a way that is visually pleasing and gives a good sensation of flight?If FS11 with all sliders halfway across looks and feels better than FSX or FS9 with everything all the way to the right, is anyone seriously going to complain? (I have a feeling that's a silly question. :) )I'm not suggesting that FSX doesn't have performance issues that could, and hopefully will, be improved upon in the next version, but I don't see anything wrong in principle with the notion of developing a product that will improve with hardware developments between the date of release and whenever the next version comes out.Colin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Colin,Can someone explain to me the benefit of being able to run "maxed out", as opposed to just being able to run in such a way that is visually pleasing and gives a good sensation of flight?If I've paid for something I expect to be able to see it. Anything less than 'maxxed out' means you're paying for things you can't see. Some may say that what you don't see you don't miss but even with sliders well towards the left in FSX performance is still not clever.If FS11 with all sliders halfway across looks and feels better than FSX or FS9 with everything all the way to the right, is anyone seriously going to complain? (I have a feeling that's a silly question. :) )We'll have to wait until FS11 to see what performance is like before that question can be answered.I'm not suggesting that FSX doesn't have performance issues that could, and hopefully will, be improved upon in the next version..They had better be radically improved otherwise FS may be in serious peril. To be fair Aces usually learn from their mistakes. FS9 didn't have these same problems and hopefully neither will FS11.The problem with FS is that unless the default sim gives you excellent performance it rather messes up the possibility of adding 3rd party stuff which will further degrade performance. That's why for the first time you're able to buy an airport package for FSX and get FS9 thrown in for nothing. or vice-versa.If you fly 'low and slow' FSX with all its eye-candy does look very nice. But for 'high and fast' pilots like myself it offers nothing that FS9 with all the quality addons can't already give. The difference is frame rates in FS9 are three times what they are in FSX for the same airport (Heathrow Extreme).That makes staying with FS9 an easy decision.


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

------"I've currently got a Q9650, 4 gig RAM, GTX 260 1 gig memory card, and my system is configured to run it's best for FSX. I know how to do it based on over 25 years IT experience"-------------------Falcon- here's an interesting FS9/FSX comparison test I've long wondered about in contemplating moving to FSX.Can a state of the art computer today- such as yours, satisfactorily run FSX with triple monitors & triple views? (You need sim settings to yield FPS in the 40-60 range on a single monitor to be able to satisfactorily drive triple views.) Having been flying this way on the same 'puter since FS9 came out, I regard it as the absolute minimum requirement for simming. (No 150

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex,Sorry...I forgot to mention I'm running FSX on FOUR monitors...not just one or three. I've got a TH2G setup for the main display, and a 24" side LCD for "extras" I use while flying (FSC, RC, other stuff). All of the monitors are running off the single GPU. Do I get 60 FPS everywhere, all the time? Of course not. But I regularly get over 30 FPS. Unless I CHOOSE a combination of settings in FSX that will "kill" the sim presentation. I don't expect to be able to max everything out in FSX under most circumstances. And I don't feel "cheated" at all because of it. I've got a car in my driveway that is designed, manufactured, tested, and certified to "run" at over 120 MPH...but I never drive it that fast on a regular basis. I have driven it at 120 MPH, but only under "extenuating circumstances", like when I paid to drag race it at a certified racing facility. Key is I paid the extra money to do that, because I CHOSE to pay it. Under normal day to day circumstances, it runs just fine also at only 60 MPH. My choices on how to operate it. 60 MPH instead of 120 MPH doesn't make it any less of a car. It's still a car.FSX allows the user to make choices. If they want to fly low and slow, then they can and normally won't encounter "blurries, frame stutters, performance issues", etc...if they have a reasonable computer, maintain it properly, and make sensible choices with the sliders. I can just about max out everything doing that, including manually setting my LOD Radius in the fsx.cfg file to 8.0 on my system. That makes any photo-real scenery very impressive. I CAN'T do the above in an F-16 flying at 600 KTS at 500 feet altitude and expect the same results. I'll still "outrun" FSX's ability to draw the scenery fast enough to avoid blurries then. So if I want to do that, I have to make "compromises" or "choices"...even on my computer. FSX allows many different types of flying...low and slow GA, high and fast commercial, even military style ops that are low and fast. It's a great program in that it DOES allow the many different users of it to CHOOSE the type of flying they want to do. With that many options available, it is totally realistic to expect that if you selected "max" on ALL of the available settings in FSX...ALL the time in EVERY situation, you would encounter "display problems". Keep giving me choices. I'll make them. Even when FS11 comes out. I'll use it in the manner needed on whatever current computer I have at the time to get the most out of it for my current computer's capabilities. The last thing I'll do is complain about not being able to "max everything out" in it. That's never been, and probably never will be, a realistic option in ANY current version of the FS product line.FalconAF


Rick Ryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest byoungblood

>>What is everyone's fascination with being able to declare>>emergencies? I'd much rather have the ability to ask for>>deviations for weather and decline a clearance or>>instruction.>>I'd lump that in with my "decline clearances etc" :-)>>>Frankly, there's no need for SVFR in FSX. If you want to>take>>off and the weather meets SVFR standards, just take off. It>>isn't like the FAA is going to come take your virtual>license.>>There certainly is if you include Class A support. There's>lots of airports around London, and the Channel Islands you'd>never get to without SVFR. Also, since the minima are higher,>you're more likely to get declined (see above). Also, since>night VFR isn't allowed in this part of the world, you'd need>SVFR to fly in Class D at night.>>Frankly I don't care about the virtual FAA. The virtual CAA>though, is a different matter... ;-)>It boils down to one thing though...its just a simulation. Frankly, most people won't know and won't care that night VFR is prohibited in certain countries or that SVFR even exists for the purposes of getting out of an airport without having to file an IFR flight plan.We just don't use it in the US very much because it really isn't safe. Yes, it does give someone without an IR the option of departing when the weather is reported to be OK a few miles away, but there's always the possibility that the weather has changed in the time between the briefing and takeoff. So you have to ask yourself, is the average sim flyer going to go into that much detail or research to even find out what it is? Probably not. If they get the "Denied, airport IFR" message, they'll either just file a flight plan or takeoff anyway. As I said before, there's nobody there to take away your virtual license. The time and effort spent implementing the rule could be better spent on curing some more of the more annoying behavior of FS's ATC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Falcon- nice setup you have- enough to make a simmer want to go sit on Santa's knee at the mall!The reason for the enquiry re 40-60 frame rates is that with the three separate views displayed (Views LFwd,Fwd,RFwd)on triple mons, FPS will drop by 50-66%. The actual amount depends on monitor View Height. I generally use 1/2 screen height for the secondary views and fill in the lower portion with popups. (Most popups use very little horsepower.)So a 40-60 single view frame rate becomes 14-30 FPS with my triple view horizon spanning 150

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 747-400 luva

I am hoping that they have more ground equipment and real people that work around your aircraft. I also hope for real clouds so that when you fly through them you can't see anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>It boils down to one thing though...its just a simulation.>Frankly, most people won't know and won't care that night VFR>is prohibited in certain countries or that SVFR even exists>for the purposes of getting out of an airport without having>to file an IFR flight plan.Just because something doesn't exist - or isn't implemented - in the US is no excuse to exclude it from the sim. Or shouldn't be. Many people in this part of the world DO know, and would love to have OUR rules and procedures implemented.>We just don't use it in the US very much because it really>isn't safe. Yes, it does give someone without an IR the option>of departing when the weather is reported to be OK a few miles>away, but there's always the possibility that the weather has>changed in the time between the briefing and takeoff. Its primary purpose here is to allow VFR pilots (and in the RW, an instrument rated GA pilot is rarer than hens teeth) access to airports inside class A that would otherwise be totally inaccessible.>So you have to ask yourself, is the average sim flyer going to>go into that much detail or research to even find out what it>is? Probably not. If they get the "Denied, airport IFR">message, they'll either just file a flight plan or takeoff>anyway. As I said before, there's nobody there to take away>your virtual license. The time and effort spent implementing>the rule could be better spent on curing some more of the more>annoying behavior of FS's ATC.And there I disagree.Anybody training here for a licence (and a lot of FS users are either PPL or training, or intending to) will want and need to know, about correct procedures and airspace. You often hear people ask why FS isn't used more for flight training. Well this lack of correct procedures and airspace (and R/T terminology, even) is one big reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ziporama

Dear ACES, ... what I wish for in a future release:- slider to control bloom effect intensity- button to clear all button/joystick assignments in one click, this helps with complex cockpit setups- sliders to control sensitivity of TrackIR type devices, this helps with tuning response to eyepoint movement- no more flat airports/runways, specifically allow for variable slope runways to more accurately depict fields, and allow for terrain features on airports (embankments, hills, sloped access roads, etc) that can be used by AI objects.- improve turboprop simulation (doesn't quite seem right)- better rain/snow effects- add heat blur effect- better air turbulence effect- more realistic wind transitions- fewer hand-offs of AI ATC (it does get ridiculous sometimes)- it would be nice if ATC knew about sid/stars for major airportsAdd-on development specific:- keep plugin current with several versions of 3DS, including the currently available version from Autodesk when the SDK is released- expose SimConnect API to add/position/control effects dynamically- expose SimConnect API to interact with scenery objects to control their animation (eg, hangar doors, jetway, baggage truck ramp, etc...)- expose SimConnect API to get terrain features (altitude, terrain type) at specific lat/lon- Bit more descriptive error messages in the console- Corrections to the documentation of what is readable/writable and what is notCheers,Etienne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I really want to see included in FS11 isn't related specifically to the display/function/FPS of the release. What I would like to see is a more extensive "user interface"...one that makes managing the overall simulation experience easier for the end-user. For instance...1. FSX was released with a scenery setting "user-interface" (the scenery sliders) that now limit the end-user's ability to make modifications to those settings above and beyond the "default" FSX ones. Two examples are the LOD Radius sliders and the "TextureMaxLoad=" settings. Whenever you enter the Scenery Settings menu area of FSX and make any changes to any of the sliders, FSX defaults back to at most the highest LOD slider setting (LOD=4.5) and the highest possible slider setting for "TextureMaxLoad=1024". This is raising havoc with using addons like FEX SHD that use 4096 cloud textures. There are work-arounds (saving and loading scenery.cfg files, etc, instead of using the sliders), but it isn't user friendly. FS11 should not have a "scenery" slider system that forces "default maximums" on ALL slider entries when the end-user changes only ONE of them. If I manually set my "TextureMaxLoad=" to 4096, changing my AI percentage should NOT make it go back to 1024.2. Scenery Library. Please...include a way to manage the Scenery Library without having to start and run FS11! This has been a pain in the rear for me with any release of FS. In FS9, if you owned FS Navigator, the addon included the navDBC utility that was an exact duplicate of the Scenery Library function in FS9. You could run it outside of FS9, add, delete, move up, move down, and edit any scenery library entries. No reason whatsoever to have to "run" FS9 to make changes to the Scenery Library. This should be an integral part of ANY future FS release. Yes...there are addons available now for FSX that will do it, but it should be included as part of the core FS11 release.FalconAF


Rick Ryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And aircraft library too. The amount of time to takes, once you have a bunch of addon aircraft, to bring up the change aircraft dialogue is ludicrous. I'd personally suggest something more akin to the explorer tree view, that only needs to load a few thumbnails at a time. But that's only an idea. Even reverting to the FS9 way would still be better.

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...