Why I will no longer purchase any add-on Aircraft...

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

My system - P4-1.8/geforce4Ti4200/768megs PC2100 ram. I'd say I run the sim at about 65% in terms of overall visual settings. 1152x864x32 2xfsaa/4x aniso. I keep the autogen at sparse but scenery complexity at dense. 100% 3d clouds but I use FSUIPC to reduce visibility to 30 miles. Consessions? Sure, of course. But the sim still looks great and I rarely get less than 20 fps with any planes - payware or not. If I was seeing 5fps (or even 10fps) I'd be looking for the problem with my system, not the add-on developers. As far as the Flight1 172 goes, my framerates are only 1 or 2 fps off what I get with the defualt 172 - basically 22-24fps (locked @ 24)...

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"Jon and John,I will reduce the tone as best I can and remain human."That was the response I was hoping for yesterday Rob when I asked my first question. People don't have to agree with you--they just have to see where you're coming from and qualifying your answer with your experience helps. We're birds of a feather. I've worked in development and design of business software for just shy of two decades. I don't code at all anymore except for personal projects--not since I inherited oversight of our WAN. But I sign off on every deployment plan put forth by the design team, and have metrics in place for all the potential impact our deployments may introduce.The add-on area could improve--especially in terms of how dll's are dumped into MSFS. Some products dump code in the modules folder ignorant of other developers doing the same. All heck breaks loose and often that needn't be the case.But on the issue of performance, many here give fps second fiddle to fidelity. They want to sink into cushy armchairs on their virtual bizjets, and they'd rather look at an FMC than look outside--it's quite addictive when it's done right. Search the forums for discussions on Eaglesoft, Feelthere, PMDG, and so on, and the majority want more, not less. Introduce discussion of performance into those threads and you get skewered alive--I know as I have received "skewer burn" a couple of times.But, you put forth a lot of sound ideas--one can have a "light" model without a lot of extra work. Whether the developers do listen to that idea depends on how it's delivered. We seek better performance for different reasons--I don't invest a lot in hardware as MSFS is a casual hobby, but my work and family comes first. I do invest a lot of time in the forums here, because I find the friends I gain in this hobby are more solid than any I've had through the workplace or outside the workplace, outside of the friends my wife and child are to me.I won't see your reply until midweek next week--have to leave town and work over the weekend. Please keep the tone as you have in this reply and hopefully there will be some interesting ideas when I return.Regards,John

[Guest A_Delta_Sierra]

JohnC -- I looked up the price/features of the laptop you are now using and I sure wish I could have one. Maybe when my "extra paycheck" from SS kicks-in in October. You got a lot of power for corporate MsWord/PPoint/emails.At times I wish I was still working so I could have a new, company provided, killer laptop every year. But then I wake up in a cold sweat and realize, I don't have to do that any more. Life is good.Regards,BobShttp://s95171098.onlinehome.us/junk/aopa.jpgSeems the rage to talk about the "size and speed" of each others computer. Beat this if you can for solving novel/unique problem anywhere in the cosmos. ..Have K&E and know how to use it!

[Guest griffinflying]

Rob, If you take a look at the other forums, you will find that people want MORE not less in terms of eye candy and complexity. For extreme examples, wander over to the discussion in the PMDG forum and their upcomming 747. One gentleman was asking for the turbine blades to windmill WHEN ON THE GROUND. Others obsess over windshield wipers and the exact color and shape of the displays. It is getting to the point that if you ring the FA call bell and a graphic of a cup of coffee doesn't appear on the glareshield, the plane must be junk! The trend I am afraid is more not less complexity. Even GA aircraft released have radio stacks that real owners wish they could afford. If there were enough call for features like you want, the developers will put them in. Otherwise the majority rules, and the rule is full speed ahead on eyecandy and #### the framerates.

[Guest darrenecm]

On the topic of optimising Gmax polygon counts in aircraft it's hard to know whether commercial aircraft models are the cause of low framerates because the 3D models are always contained in the MDL format that can't be opened up for examination. Am I correct in thinking this or is there a way to check just how many polygons your favourite aircraft is gobbling up? It's far too easy to be lazy and create a great looking aircraft without being mindful of just whether it needs all those polygons to look that great in the first place. Who knows, it might prove very enlightening if we could easily extract aircraft models and load them into Gmax or 3DS Max to make sure commercial developers are putting great importance on keeping those polygon counts down :)I've yet to take on creating an aircraft and haven't used Gmax (I'm busy trying to demystify the art of gauge programming at the moment). However I've done numerous low-polygon modelling for characters and faces using 3DS Max 6. When it comes time for me to optimise such models the Edge Turning, Edge Dividing and the good old Vertex Welding features are the critical optimisation tools you should have in your polygon-crunching armoury. You just need to have the necessary polygon complexity in those areas where curvature is high and use Vertex Welding ruthlessly to reduce polygons in areas that are 'flatter'. Automated polygon optimisation tools are okay for some situations but to keep a tight, cast-iron fisted control on just where the optimisations are done, it's better to optimise by hand.Does anyone know if FS2004 has a level of detail function for aircraft at a distance? If not I hope that real-time level-of-detail techniques will be implemented for all 3D content (aircraft and terrain models) in the next installment of Flight Simulator. - Darren

[n4gix 4,947]

>Am I correct in thinking this or is there a way>to check just how many polygons your favourite aircraft is>gobbling up? While you cannot "open and edit" a compiled .mdl file, you can load it in ACM (Aircraft Container Manager) and it will give you a poly count... Of course, ACM can't tell you how many of those polys are "visible" at any given time, so that's not a good yardstick in the final analysis.>Automated polygon optimisation tools are okay for>some situations but to keep a tight, cast-iron fisted control>on just where the optimisations are done, it's better to>optimise by hand.Been there, done that, got the t-shirt! In addition to mesh optimization, I also make extensive use of embedded XML code to control visibility of objects. Why have the sim draw detailed sections of the model if they cannot be seen in - say - Spot View?>Does anyone know if FS2004 has a level of detail function for>aircraft at a distance?Yes, FS does support model LOD, but no longer supports "per part LOD." You can create separate, simpler models for multiple LODs.WRT the OP, I only have this to say: "Those who can, do; those who can't, complain..." ;)

[Guest robains]

Bill,If I had posted such a comment the moderator would have jumped all over me. I find your comment so out of context as to be pretty meaningless and very naive. But applying your very simply philosophy, I guess third party add-on AC producers "can't do" ;).As to the other comments about "removing detail" -- as I've pointed out, my suggestion is to NOT remove detail, but to provide a lower detail alternative in ADDITION to the high detail model. For a $50 package, I'd expect this level effort.Also, you need to hang out at other Flight sim forums and newsgroups and perhaps read some letters to the editor for various FS magazines. You'll find that there are many folks that have very similiar findings to mind.As with anything "retail", ultimately the market will decide it for the add-on AC publishers. But for any developer serious about his/her work, ignorance is NOT bliss. My company takes in ALL enhancement requests and complaints from end users for several reasons:1. They're our market and we sell to them, keep them happy.2. They have a unique perspective that we often overlook - the human factor.3. Some of there complaints are valid and we know it because what we produced was a compromise in time & effort (and we know that at the time we released it).Rob.

[n4gix 4,947]

>As to the other comments about "removing detail" -- as I've>pointed out, my suggestion is to NOT remove detail, but to>provide a lower detail alternative in ADDITION to the high>detail model. For a $50 package, I'd expect this level>effort.>>Also, you need to hang out at other Flight sim forums and>newsgroups and perhaps read some letters to the editor for>various FS magazines. You'll find that there are many folks>that have very similiar findings to mind.Rob, that remark was directed at your initial post, in which you used a very wide brush to spread tar on all developers. Your subsequent followup posts have been more balanced and moderate, as well as well-reasond and rational.There are, in fact, many developers - both pay and free - who do precisely what you've outlined as the "ideal:" e.g., multiple models in one package with varying levels of complexity. If your research had been as exhaustive as you alluded, you would have realized that fact.I can only smile at the above remark, as I invest (yes, I said "invest!") at least four hours each day to reading plethora flightsim forums and newsgroups, and actively participate in most of them... ;)Returning to my "throw-away line" for a moment, think of it as a challenge. Demonstrate to the world what your "ideal" is. It's remarkably easy to be an armchair critic, and even be correct in such criticism... but, until you've personally invested the effort to realize that which you propound with such profundity in practice, they remain just that - words. You may just find that it's not nearly as easy to accomplish as you think, especially given the rather confusing and skimpy SDKs that MSFS foists off on us poor modelers.

[Guest iholrf]

> Rob,> If you take a look at the other forums, you will find>that people want MORE not less in terms of eye candy and>complexity. For extreme examples, wander over to the>discussion in the PMDG forum and their upcomming 747. One>gentleman was asking for the turbine blades to windmill WHEN>ON THE GROUND. Others obsess over windshield wipers and the>exact color and shape of the displays. It is getting to the>point that if you ring the FA call bell and a graphic of a cup>of coffee doesn't appear on the glareshield, the plane must be>junk! > The trend I am afraid is more not less complexity.>Even GA aircraft released have radio stacks that real owners>wish they could afford. If there were enough call for>features like you want, the developers will put them in.>Otherwise the majority rules, and the rule is full speed ahead>on eyecandy and #### the framerates.I am afraid I have to disagree here. Richard Nixon coined a term in the fifties when he was on a political campaign. The term was "The silent majority". Irrespective on how you feel about Nixon, his premis was correct. In the case of simfan forums, the oppinions of the people who make the most noise do not necessarily make up the majority of users... they more likely make up the loudest minority. "The squeeky wheel gets the grease". Also forums are a lousy sample (in both size and randomness) to use to try to make statistical predictions that generalize the industry as a whole.Like others here, I have also worked in the development industry, and have even had the pleasure of working for IBM. I can tell you for sure that "The customer is never right". If IBM, or MS actually listened to their customers the industry would be in chaos. Why? Because the 99.99% of their customer base is not very educated in IT Technologies and are not actually qualified to make rational decisions (I know this sounds elitist, but would you suggest to a doctor how to perform surgery?). It doesn't mean that IBM and MS don't keep "Wish lists" they do, and most (but not all) customer wants will be included when the state of the art permits its effective incorporation.I suspect that the vast majority feel as I do ... FPS and in-flight quality are important ... and yes it ####### me off when my reasonably powerful mid-level machine comes to a crawl or crashes when trying to display a tool tip because the swap file is 1.6gig in size due to some crap module that has a memory leak or race condition. That does not mean I am critical of the industry as a whole, I just get ###### and delete the plane. Fortunately none have been payware, or I imagine I might end up writing a rant much like robains.The point I am trying to make is that developers have the responsibility to consider the needs of ALL end users and not just the few noisy ones or the ones who live on the bleeding edge. "Meet the needs of the many not the few" is all I ask.CheersShad

[Guest robains]

Bill,I didn't suggest it was easy -- optimizations often do require some TLC and manipulation by hand to make it look good -- but this is where graphics designers excel and developers don't have the patients.The pay products I've used have offered "performance help" but only in terms of reduced panel quality and or reduced audio quality or turning off smoke. Neither of these have significant performance benefits as compared to a well optimized (and more simplistic) 3D model. I have yet to see an add-on AC (from retail channels) that provides multiple 3D models (other than AI models).Keyboard maps are easy -- there is no technically difficult challenge to emulate the same spec as the default AC and just expand on those features not present in the default AC. Or at the very least provide two mapping options and let the consumer decide.Also, some of the DLLs these folks produce can and do cause conflicts and some are not coded as well as others (just look at the increased resource usage on the thread associated to the DLL).I have invested the effort to communicate the problems I've experienced with retail/purchased 3rd party add-on AC.Hopefully your response is NOT typical of the majority of 3rd party Add-on AC publishers.Rob.

[mgh 89]

>The point I am trying to make is that developers have the>responsibility to consider the needs of ALL end users and not>just the few noisy ones or the ones who live on the bleeding>edge. "Meet the needs of the many not the few" is all I ask.No they don't. If they make more money by targetting a specific group of consumers why shouldn't they? If that means making products you don't like then that's your misfortune.

[Guest robains]

So exactly who and/or what is "the Target"? Realism is obviously NOT the target as no serious simulators provide an outside birds eye view of the AC in flight. As I've said before the 2D or 3D panels is NOT the major killer of frame rates, it's the 3D AC model.I'm involved in my flight sim -- I have $1000+ in GoFlight equipment, $7K in real flying lessons, $5K computer, WideFS (registered), FSUPIC (registered), FS Live, with FS Tracker (running on a separate laptop), a host of scenery and many 3rd party payware AC, actually read the AC manuals (some very lengthy but with no actual working startup procedures), etc. etc.Oh, BTW, most of the extreme detail panels provided are operated by a co-pilot and/or navigator in the real world, the pilot doesn't perform ALL the duties.Why would anyone want to limit potential income when the level of "change" I'm suggesting is primarily in cleanup work, and little more effort in optimization, and better DLL coding -- refinement of what already exists which certainly is NOT a new target consumer.So far my results from this thread are:1. I'm a troll2. It's very difficult to deal with the FS SDK3. I don't match the targetted profile4. I have no idea what I'm talking about5. nothing wrong with making a living6. My delivery is not "PC"7. Stop complainingThe more I get into this thread the more I feel like I've been suckered -- nothing to do with "fitting a certain profile". This is actually pretty sad state of affairs.

[crvm 0]

1] Stop buying. 2] If you can do it better, then by all means produce your own aircraft in the very manner you desire. 3] No one forces you to buy anything in life do they? I know of certain snake oil products that flash on my TV daily, but certainly do not feel the need to tell the whole world about what I think about such products. Maybe you think the flight simulator comunity is somehow ignorant flying around all these heavy FPS aircraft, if only someone would post an informative post to wipe away the scales so we can see clearly... [h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]

[Guest iholrf]

>>The point I am trying to make is that developers have the>>responsibility to consider the needs of ALL end users and>not>>just the few noisy ones or the ones who live on the bleeding>>edge. "Meet the needs of the many not the few" is all I ask.>>No they don't. If they make more money by targetting a>specific group of consumers why shouldn't they? If that means>making products you don't like then that's your misfortune.I don't know about elsewhere. but here where I live one usually makes more money by targeting as broad a consumer base as possible. There are cult bands, cult movies and so on. They are not usually a financial success. Mainstream products with broad appeal are what make the doe.Maybe I am wrong though.CheersShad

[N400QW 205]

>> 1] Stop buying.>> 2] If you can do it better, then by all means produce your>own aircraft in the very manner you desire. >> 3] No one forces you to buy anything in life do they? I know>of certain snake oil products that flash on my TV daily, but>certainly do not feel the need to tell the whole world about>what I think about such products.>> Maybe you think the flight simulator comunity is somehow>ignorant flying around all these heavy FPS aircraft, if only>someone would post an informative post to wipe away the scales>so we can see clearly...>[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]Nicely said Randy :-)