pracines

I do understand about different settings for different PC setups. It is good that we have UI and cfg settings. But to dive into bios and registry to feel our way through complexity to get rid of stutters or poor performance; its out of control. It sure would be nice for LM to do a study, make a determination, HT, yes or no and why. Put it in a FAQ or in the Learning Center. This is one of the major reasons I protest against screenshot contests, forums, and hype revolving around screenshots (like MSFS does immensely). I do not mind a nice screenshot here and there to point out the good or bugs, but this community is so bent on screenshots. The emphasis of this very kind of thing allows smoothness/performance/realism to fly under the radar, and bite a giant chunk out of the experience. Take a look at many of the YT first look vids of P3Dv5. Most are loaded with 3rd party add-ons, starting on a runway, with a simple flight out of an airport in the middle of nowhere. Complete with all the oohs and aahs in the narration. Very few have the traffic sliders up, and maybe a couple utilize the ATC, but none have a complete experience that mimics reality at all. So in essence they are empty and fake first impressions of the product (a flight simulator) as a whole. Forums all over are displaying the true first experience (NOT impression), which I think is more negative than positive considering this is not a Beta and money has been paid. MSFS is on the same path, with Alpha testers on a campaign of who's screenshot will be chosen/showcased to be on the next update. All the while some "real-time" realism features are more likely to slip under the radar....I hope not. The focus needs to be on the realism of the experience. From the UI to preflight planning, to taxiing and takeoff, the reliability of the nav/comm's, to the ramp/gate experience. Screenshots and the striving to get the perfect shot, does its part in hindering what should be the focus. Once the realism and performance has been achieved, have at it with the screenshots. Realism and performance really go hand in hand if you think about it....how real is it to have stutters, or floating buildings or white squares flashing here and there? For those that do not care about realism, no problem, you can take off from the ramp and do loops in NYC all you want. You can lower the realism settings, and fly under clear skies and no winds to you're hearts content. But please do not protest against realism, we can all have what we desire if all of what we desire is available.

Silence over a product for P3D too? Not likely. However, if Vertx is working on MSFS then we should assume that all the talk about family illness was a bunch of lies. I personally do not believe Sean would allow lies about his family's health to circulate in order to cover up work on MSFS.

you may want to wait for this: https://www.vertxsim.com/ any day now

If the REX company would just get out of the weather generation business and just stick with textures, then they will do well. They did good when they separated the texture/wx product line, now all they have to do is cancel Weather Force, stop trying to create a weather generator, and they will succeed. Since REX persists in trying to compete with Hi Fi weather generation, they will be very slow with their hotfixes and they will continue to need endless patches for all of their products. No hard feelings, just the truth.

Robert, you misunderstand what I mean by require. We have every right to email DTG with our requirements of anything they produce. We have the ability to win the argument just like we did with the MS Flight attempt. MS ACES decided not to listen to our requirements and they now do not even exist. So yes we can have requirements and if they want to stay in the flight sim business, they better listen to us. There is great sense in raising pitchforks and hatchets when necessary. Its like if a vehicle you owned was supposed to be fixed and it was not, you would do what it took to get it fixed. But what if the mechanic said you have to pay again for the same repair, its time to "raise a pitchfork". Or do you just say its not a big deal. To people who don't really care about flight simming this is no big deal. But I heard this podcast make all kinds of claims and they have to do with long term, and so I gave my points that I made which are in opposition to the DTG strategy and I gave the reasons for it. You are looking to see, where I already saw, that is the difference between us. Super Cubs will very rarely be a training aircraft these days, and a Cub will never grow in popularity even close to a C172. This is just a case where DT will take the easy route (port over the FSX Cub and mod it some) rather than the realistic route. If they were truly trying to offer a realistic flight training simulation for the 21st century, then a C172 with a G1000 would be among at least 7 airplanes, including a C172 steam panel, a Piper Archer/Arrow, Diamond DA20, SR20, C162, and maybe a Grumman Tiger....not a Super Cub. Airplane choice is only one of the obvious problems. Other problems cant be confirmed, because DTG is either afraid or ashamed to release any other facts or at least screenshots about a product that is said to be released at the end of next month (which is another obvious problem in itself)!! The podcast told us that they have attempted to mimic a real life training program but we're given no further information about DT Flight School, its like what was the purpose of the interview...hype w/o substance. To be clear, I want DTG to succeed, but I want them to succeed at making something great for flight sim veterans, however it appears so far that veterans have to wait another 10 years for something new.

I sort of agree, however we needed that "potential" 10 years ago. We needed, what DTG is going to do in maybe 4-6 years from now, 8 years ago. I truly do believe in cutting some slack, but really the only new thing we seem to be getting (over P3D V3.1 or XP10 64-bit) later this year is having to wait for something new. Flight sim veterans will need to wait for new flight simmers to catch up educationally and technologically, but when will that scenario ever end? Won't there always be newcomers and new ways to implement captivating ways to draw newcomers? Why can't a successor with added realism and more features be presented...so newcomers wont be overwhelmed?? With this logic DTG needs to forbid itself from advancing flight simulation, because DT Flight School will be irrelevant as soon a another idea comes up to make things easy for newcomers to be drawn. The later to be released DT Flight Simulator seems to be taking the same approach; made for people new to flight simulation as they gain their DT Flight School license. And veterans who buy the sim will be compelled to buy the same add-ons all over again because newcomers don't have them and DT is accommodating newcomers this time around. Will these newcomers even stick around? If I can be promised that they will, then that is another matter because I do care about newcomers. This may be an easier approach for DTG and 3rd parties but the end users will again have to wait possibly another 10 years for something truly new. All I'm saying is what about us veterans? We veterans who know that the technological possibilities exist and yet the next offering remains quite old. Granted 64-bit is very welcome, but we are still going to have to repurchase that PMDG, A2A, ASN, ORBX, and scores of other products for us to notice the 64-bt advantage. For some, possibly many, it will be the second or even third purchase for the same thing! Is there an end to this madness in sight? We veterans have already been in it for the long haul (just about daily since 1988 myself), but the last decade has been slower than a sloth, then we get something new and now we will be only as slow as another sloth. All for the sake of "potential" newcomers as DTG says, but I know bad decisions are being made behind the scenes by managers and marketers. This is how MS Aces was eliminated and the same will happen to DTFS if the same bad decisions continue. For example, a Piper Super Cub as 1 of 2 choices of aircraft in a flight school?! A very bad decision that could not have been made by a pilot or instructor, but by a non pilot manager who calls the shots, and pilots and programmers on the team cannot say a peep. If there were a choice of 10 planes, a Super Cub would be great, I enjoy my A2A Cub and have nothing against any Piper planes. The flight simulation genre is in a state of stagnation for all the wrong reasons and that is why hatchets come out blazing - this is not a shame, its a good thing. We need to require developers and programmers to present new technologies, not be caking on the makeup. Flight sim development needs to make good sense and then the hatchets will be buried.

Interesting that there is talk about how diverse the world's flight schools are and the attempt to mimic this, yet a Piper Super Cub is said to be 1 of 2 planes available. There are no Super Cubs available for training at any flight school in the NYC area and most other major metropolitan cities in the world. I would be correct that one is more likely to fly in a C172 or one of 20 other aircraft than a Super Cub. If DTG wants DT Flight School to be taken as authentic, the Super Cub choice should be reconsidered (probably too late). In my view only students of bush flying may be presented a Super Cub limiting (not diverse) Flight School to a very small segment of aviation. If there were 10 planes then there would be no problem, but with a choice of only 2, a Super Cub is a very limited first choice according to reality.

Something about a security certificate expiring on the Insider website. Plus, DTG's folks have been quite silent lately. I wonder if this is a sign that the new DoveTail Games Flight Simulator will finally get some attention in the form of news or something. I was told by DTG that we will hear news in January 2016 about DTFS, and I'm hoping for news we can all be very happy with....not saying we will all be happy, just would be nice to hear something we can all ( users of FS9, XP9/10, FSX, FSX:SE, P3D, AeroFly, Aerowinx, FlightGear, and any other flight sim out there) be pleased with. I miss the days back in the late 80's and early 90's when flight simmers were one big happy and united community.

Once again my offer for hope for the OP having to do with OOM's gets met with anger and disrespect. I wont and never have said FS9 is bad, I was replied to with false comparisons of FS9 and FSX/P3D and I corrected them. I wonder if you would tell the flight simming community that PMDG products and the PMDG company is garbage. Your trying to be a thug, I know for sure you would not talk to me like that in person. Some questions you likely wont want to hear but, they are valid in response to your points. So how's the iFly 737 NG's HUD in FS9 compared to PMDG's HUD in FSX? Oh its not as good huh? How about the weather & terrain radar on the ND? How is the tessellation in FS9? oh you mean your stuck in DX9? oh ok. No wonder the screen shots aren't and can't be as good pound for pound. Just take a screen shot of the default flight in FS9 w/o addons and one of P3D default flight w/o addons and see which is better- then add all the addons you want to FS9 and let the same kind of addons be added to P3D, you guessed it.... P3D is better -- same location, time , weather, (apples to apples) no matter what FS9 is not able to be as good as P3DV3 How do you fly your iFly 747 over the poles in FS9? oh you cant even fly near the poles? I can fly over the poles no problem in P3D. So how many addons do you need in FS9 just to make it look as good as P3D w/o addons? How many NI adaptations need to be made? and finally how are them billboards for clouds doing? talking about 2D cartoons... its not a matter of feeling or opinion no, its all about facts. I wont say that iFly products are bad, but I wonder why they don't make a 737 or 747 version for FS2000? Why not FS2002? Just guide your passion for FS9 with correct facts and there is no problem. Truly I say to you, taking your frustration of being stuck with FS9 (for whatever reason) out on me is fine, you cant hurt me...my life is better than great and that is why I replied with hope to the OP....I'm not here to fight. OOM's are the #1 nightmare for flight simmers and its time they became a distant memory, not much longer to wait.

For me its not a sad scenario, because I can fly in FS9 and then go to P3D V3.1 and enjoy much better realism if I want, using the much better ASN, GSX, PMDG 737NGX/777, A2A C182/172, with Orbx Global packs. FS9 does not have this advantage, most of the addons are old and not as good as the new. Hi Fi would never make a worse weather program for a newer sim would they? And I have the original PMDG 737 for FS9, compared to the NGX is it quite sad in comparison - great at the time it was released yes, but not anymore now that we have the NGX available. If one cannot agree with this then one's head is buried in the sand. Screen shots of the best of FS9 and screen shots of the best of P3D are going to tell the truth somewhat. Its better to compare flying real time with the best FS9 setup (sad compared) to the best P3D setup. Unless a simmers day consists of screenshot taking rather than flying, it will always be the flight experience that counts, not how nice a still image looks. FS9 was a very nice version and I still use it on occasion. For fun I still even use FS1-FSX-SE and ATP,FU3,UFO,Flight Light and even the ancient Thunder Chopper. When I want the best immersive experience, I'm compelled to go with P3D V3.1 which is the latest and greatest for now, at least until NGFS is ready or maybe DTG will release a worthy flight sim soon. The OP is about OOM's and my response to this OOM problem is telling people that a company is working to get us all out of that dilemma. This is likely going to require that some people leave FS9 for a moment and try NGFS, it may also mean a hardware upgrade. But I'm certainly never going to tell people they have to leave FS9 ever, and nobody has to even listen to my suggestion about looking into NGiS, I just offer the information with some facts that may hurt some who love their addons and sometimes they take offence, but really there is no need to be offended, just let the facts speak for themselves. In closing I want to make it clear, I have nothing against using older programs and hardware. As a matter of fact this weekend I intend to bring out the old ATARI 2600 and SEGA Master System (they still run excellently) on 2 old 32" tube TVs I still have working, to enjoy some laughs with friends and family. All the while my main PC will have a 777 on a 12-15 hour flight in P3D, and I will have other PC's going so people can fly around or play a version of the original Wesson Int'l TRACON on a Windows 3.0/DOS 6.22 system. After all that we may just play a board game (talking about old games!) of RISK, Monopoly or CLUE... we'll see.

Flight simulation has always been "cutting edge" -- that is the name of the planet I'm from :-). So I, and those who live on the planet I'm from, consider a flight simmer even staying with XP 32 bit, flying in FS9 still in 2016 as their best experience a sad scenario; this is considered very criminal/rebellious/blasphemous on our planet. I came to your planet to offer hope, since you reject, I laugh while I leave. Is your planet called "frustrated"? ROFL

Your OOM problems are due to the 32bit WinXP OS and the addons you run in FS9. Windows 7 64 bit may just solve your OOM's in FS9, but not completely/permanently. FS9 would have to be a 64bit program and that will not happen. To answer your question, there will be a demo of NGFS released so you can see for yourself. You could even ask to be a beta tester and report on the performance of XP 32bit. A brand new NexGen flight simulator will have DX12 and 64-bit technology so we can move on from the old to the new. However, the NGiS team is working to make a 32bit version as well, that is less advanced for flight simmers who still have older systems/OS and/or who don't care for the added realism or extra cost. How the advanced version runs on an older OS or older PC is yet to be discovered, but what is the point? Its like "lets buy a $600 paint job for a car that could not sell for $100". To expand on my answer, I have a WinXP 32bit system as well, but I would never even install FS9 in that system. The flight simulators I run on Windows XP 32bit go up to FS2000. In my opinion Windows XP 32bit has no business running FS9/FSX/P3D/XP10, unless you keep default settings and leave out the but the simplest addons - and who does that? But really an I7 PC with Windows 7 or 10 64bit can be bought for like $300-$500 at some outlets and you can still keep your XP system to run what you need to run on it, like I do. I have Windows 3.0, XP, Vista, two 7's, and 10 systems available to run what I want, when I want. I hope you have a windows 7/10 64bit system and your just asking about your older system. If you have not yet made the jump from XP-FS9 to FSX/P3D-Win7, making the leap to NexGen-Win10 is likely to shock you :-)

A permanent and much better OOM fix, rather than lowering the sliders, saving flights, or any other solution, will eventually be realized with http://nexgenflightsim.com/ Development has begun, its a full round detailed earth, DX12, 64bit, and a demo of Corsica is intended for us all to evaluate value & performance.

Another hope for the future is at http://nexgenflightsim.com/ Development has begun, its a full round and detailed earth, with so many features we all have wanted.

Go here for history and downloads of ATP with extras: http://mujweb.cz/havlikjosef/fshistoryenglish.htm

Now all we need is for a company to revolutionize the home based flight simming industry and get us out of this rut.

It is very interesting that there are dedicated entire (yet useless) forums for: Charts Aero, Official Drawbridge Designs Forum, FLY! Legacy, The Rise of Flight General Forum, among others.

I use FS real time for all my flights in P3Dv3. I'm not aware of any time (zone) corrections in P3DV3.

To a degree, all flight including the basic trike has a level of sophistication, but I think many flight simmers long for a new sophisticated world in which to fly to make them circuits or long hauls feel much more real. Well hopefully the flight sim experience will be much improved for all styles of flight; from the Wright flyer to the A350, helicopters, floats, gliders, fighters, its all great. Dovetail is saying that info about their new flight sim will be revealed in January. http://www.dovetailgames.com/ ----maybe a full world. Aerofly 2 for the PC is said to be released pretty soon. https://www.aerofly.com/aerofly_fs_2/index.html ---- full earth but small detailed area. NGiS intends to begin development in January for a brand new flight sim http://nexgenflightsim.com/ ---full earth and all detailed. So here is hoping for some added sophistication in the virtual world we fly in, not to mention the likely much smoother performance with more current technology.

http://nexgenflightsim.com/discussions/#/discussion/239/port-angeles-tech-demo-now-available-for-download

Maybe no white knights sinking millions, but its been reported that there are quite a few white knights dedicated to the development of NGFS (time is money). I totally agree about the Dovetail question mark and how their flight sim will fair. Well we don't have too much longer to wait because I was told that we should see some information in January about this new DTG FS. X-plane...I think there would have to be too many drastic changes to the basic XP planet (weather, seasons, major city recognition) to even compete. But your right, who knows what XP 11 holds. Patience, is an interesting topic, and I have my take on it. I have patience with a child who spills their milk, but I will not have patience with political correctness to the point of blinding a group of people or an entire society like what is happening these days. PC is being mistaken as kindness or tolerance just like envy and jealousy are all mixed up. Tolerance has to end at some point if wrong is happening, 10+ years of the same old stuff is wrong, while all other software genre's leave us in the dust, so the time for patience for me is over. I'm so glad that the people at NGiS agree that now is not the time for patience, its time for action.

I would not be so concerned about if its going to be viable, 4 Terabyte hard drives are on most basic gaming PC's these days. By next year or when NGFS is released 8 TB HD's will be likely a modest amount of HD space, likely to be at a reasonable price, and have an option for a SSD. Would it not be awesome if NGFS required 4 TB of HD space just for the scenery- think of the detail....forget the past.

Some ok shots, however I note that there is no FPS counter for us to see, yet the topic is titled as primarily about FPS. I see very few AI car traffic in the city streets, no AI boat traffic at all, and I see no tour planes/helicopters. I do see blurry textures. Just being observant and objective.

I agree Paul, and this is why I'm fighting for those all important features under the hood. The NGiS features board ( https://trello.com/b/HPJrNcQM/features-voting-board ) has many things, and its being added to often. The intention of NGiS is to implement those features most requested (most votes) in version 1.0 and add additional features in subsequent versions. This is why it seems to me that now is a good time to be an active part of this project....NGiS needs us much more than we "need" them and they realize this. They have a vision but it is not so hard and fast that they ignore reasonable suggestions or kind critique. Realism is the vision and I think we all can agree on that. Dovetail has the MS platform and a pretty solid history on which to build. They are asking for what we want, but there is no indication as to whether we are going to be faced with a DLC business model like MS Flight, or if they will exceed the features of FSX/P3D out of the box. All in all, they don't "need" us but the good thing is that they do seem to care very much about keeping flight simulation alive and well. FSX:SE has done well and has kept the dream alive. AeroFly is on version 2 which is said to be released by the end of 2015, also be a full earth for the PC version but still with a limited flying area according to post #9 here:( http://www.ipacs.de/forum/showthread.php/7006-aerofly-FS-Development-Status ). I'm not interested in a planned limited flying area, because it will take way too long for the rest of the world to be developed and I already have the whole world in P3D V3. XP is on version 10 and yes it has some very nice features, but lacks in so many as well. I think the problem with XP10 is it relies too much on 3rd party development and by doing so progresses too slowly. FlightGear is another one developed, and yet the latest version (3.4) major enhancements involve still improving the basic platform, and fixing a slew of known bugs, so this is more like an ongoing beta test to me. I understand its free, but its been 18 years and while it has some nice features, it does not even come close to FSX in my opinion. We need something to exceed FSX by leaps and bounds. I want to be clear that I'm not against 3rd party development, I have been very pleased with many add-ons. The thing I see is that our current simulator choices actually need add-ons to keep us interested. This need in turn results in lots of purchases, and in turn "stifles" (so to speak) a new flight simulator platform or even a new version, because many don't want to let go of what they invested in. I flew in my copy of FS4.0b with many add-ons just last week on an older PC system, so by me getting FS5.0 I still have not given up my FS4 and that's how its easy for me to long for a new version; I never have to give up what I currently have or had - none of us do! I'm pushing the NGiS developers to get away from the "need" for add-ons like airport scenery or planes so that 3rd parties will have to go on to bigger and better things for the future. For example and/or hypothetically, if NGFS were to have an NGX quality plane as their 737 default, then PMDG would either improve on that or even better make a 787 with equal or likely greater realism. I want all NGFS airports to all have an interesting character about them, even the private farm strips ( similar to how the missions do in FSX e.g.. Midwest fly in - but much better), this way 3rd parties would have to improve on that, but the improvements would be far beyond what we have now, because NGFS default KSFO is better than anything we have now, and it does not cause the sim to crash OOM. We have an opportunity to mold NGFS into a really great platform for 3rd parties to climb much higher than we ever thought possible. If we just settle for making NGFS a platform for 3rd parties to enhance by keeping things too basic with version 1.0 out of the box, then we will have stayed stagnant as we have been for many years. We must raise the bar. I'm doing just that on the NGiS forums and it would be great if I had lots of help because I cant think of everything, and many others have many much greater ideas then I have, and even have ideas as to how to implement features. Your ideas about the weather, I agree, are of the upmost importance. Eye candy is fine and dandy but without effect like { the actual weight of those passengers boarding the plane and the CG that constantly changes as they board that goes with the eye candy}, it is meaningless to have avatars boarding. So yes if the eye candy is there, we want the effect of that to matter. NGiS intends to make the effects optional for users who do not want to concern themselves with such details, so this can satisfy a broader audience. I, even this very moment, thought if cockpit shadows are there, then avionics cooling systems should be a part of that eye candy. As the sun beams down on instruments one can hear the cooling fans speed up ever so slightly and as needed....this is the detail that we can all have if we raise that bar. This way it remains a simulation more than a game, but it still can have the qualities (in the form of options) of a game to attract many, a true win win situation. I can see it now: NVidias home page with a very realistic flight simulator advertised, and a dedicated graphics driver specific to that flight simulator. A flight simulator can finally once again become king of all programs....<huge grin>

Thank you for the links. I was in error about the post being deleted. I knew that something annoyed me and it was because the topic was locked, not deleted. It surly is a shame that the topic died and here we are months later and topics like "new version of KSFO released!" (what is that the 20th rendition of KSFO for FSX?) get so much attention and its all about ancient platforms that need to join the archives to reminisce occasionally.