JBaymore wrote on Oct 5^th, 2010 at 5:24pm:


There I go again. Screwing up in more ways than one. 

   It's been a couple of months since I've been in the forums section. I've been busy learning to make my own AI traffic plans. Yeah, I know, it took me long enough 

  I'll first say, that my main use of Flight Simulator is to actually "fly" the aircraft as close to by-the-book as possible. Although, I realize many folks like making nice looking screenshots and such, which is fine with an ok pc. The "flyabilty" factor demands a bunch more "horsepower" though, in order to make good, smooth take offs and landings, as well as low level "flight" such as being in the flight pattern for practicing touch & go's. THAT'S where my problem starts with new sims.

  I bought FS 9 in the fall of '03, but didn't get serious about it until '05 so I had a pretty good pc to handle everything well by then. I began learning more and more about the sim (add ons, changing textures, etc) and I was happy with it.

  Then I heard about FSX and all the cool stuff that it be capable of doing. I was really interested in learning the G1000 glass panel. I bought FSX right when it came out, and like many of us, I bought a new pc for the sole purpose of running FSX. The biggest beef that I had when coming out with a new sim is, that, it usually takes the hardware folks quite awhile to catch up and build components to process all the bells and whistles that the new sim demands - that was a painful process. I went through 6 pcs before I found a pc (i7 920 w 12G memory - Windows 7 only recognizes 10.5Gs) that would allow good "flight" performance for FSX.

  I became so frustrated with the first 3 pcs that I returned them to the store. Then I got physical, the 4th one I took a small 10 lb sledge hammer and smashed it completely. The 5th one, I threw it off of my third floor balcony and watched it disintegrate on the concrete below. The 6th one I took to a private gun range and shot it up with armor piercing and incendiary rounds with an M4, two 37mm flare grenades and finished it off with four 12 Gauge "Dragons Breath" rounds. Needless-to-say, nothing was left, it was completely incinerated, and I felt much better. Then after about two years and all of that, the i7s came out. I still needed to upgrade the memory, but it is finally flawlessly "flyable" and I am happy again.

  Right now, I'm looking at motherboards and a 6-core processor to build myself, which, I'm figuring, would be great for FS 9 & especially FSX. This pc MIGHT be a good start for the new sim, but if history repeats itself, we would probably need a 12-16 core processor, a motherboard that can handle it, we would need a 6-10G vid card, and an incredible amount of memory (probably somewhere in the range of 24-32Gs or possibbly more) in order to make the sim look good and fly well without skipping, studdering and jumping. And, not to mention, a Windows program that will accommadate, recognize and use all of this system's hardware.

  Another beef I have is that, I, and many others, payed a premium price ($80 USD in my case) for FSX when it first came out and then Acceleration came out ($60 USD ?) and most of us couldn't use them for about two years. The "Gold Edition" (FSX & Acceleration) has been out for 1.5 years and sells for $40 USD - that's a bunch of bvllsh!t in my book.

  I hope that Microsoft would let the hardware companies know what to expect will be needed to run the new sim, so the hardware folks will have a running start this time around, but I'm not banking on that...     

Semper Fi,

Dave

   As far as drowning a live pc, with my luck, it would shock the he!! outta me, fry my electrical box and burn the house down 

  Blowing sh!t up and destruction, in general, is no big deal for me. I "came home" from the middle east when I was 19 and I could make Archie Bunker sound like a very pleasant guy. I've only gotten worse... 

Semper Fi,

Dave

Travis wrote on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 2:35pm:


I have to agree with you on this. 

   Yeah, sorry Dave, I get side tracked a bit easily.

   Anyway, after some further thought on the subject, there are a few changes I'd like to see. Most have probably been mentioned numerous times already, but here goes...



  * Definately, a revamped ATC - everyone talks in order, planes are evenly spaced for take off and landing.

  * Maybe we can get some regional accents in the proper region that we are "flying" over.

  * Having a wider array of types of usable aircraft, meaning, we can keep the Wright Flyer, the Vickers, the trikes and the gliders, which are all fine aircraft, but are more niche type aircraft. For instance, the Piper PA28 Cherokee and the DeHavilland Dash 8 100 have been used solely for AI. Why not make them good "flyable" aircraft. Why not add a Piper Seneca so we can experience "flying" it compared to the Beechcraft Baron 58. Also, there are no Diamond or Cirrus' in the line up. New textures can always be found here on SimV, of course, if there are not as many textures available on the base Flight program.

  * Definately, backlit gauges. Most non-niche, modern aircraft have backlighting on there gauges. Why do we have to lose our "night vision" by turning on a bright dome light or the brightest flashlight available on the aircraft?

  * Definately, the ability to control the brightness of the backlighting. As nice as the Garmin G1000 is to fly during the day, at night you have a hard time seeing outside of the cockpit at night because the panel retains the same brightness as in the daytime. Other planes in the line up would greatly benefit from this also. Eaglesoft's Avidyne Entegra has this ability, and is my first, and only choice for night "flying" with a glass panel, so I know it can be done on the Garmin G1000.

  * Someone mentioned the ability to load only the section of "flight" included in the flight plan. I'd say maybe a 40 NM coridor to include some space for weather avoidance, alternate airport, and emergency airports if "flying" off course.

  * In the same vein as I mentioned in the above post, send a good, solid product to market. If the program is not ready for market, then it's not ready, don't send it. Get it right first Microsoft. Take your time with it, test it make sure the bugs and kinks are worked out. I'm sure something will come up after the product is sent to market, but let's try not to have such radical "patches" - read, reprogramming - like we had with FSX. That wastes your time and money, and it bums us out as consumers.

  * Also, please let the hardware side know what type of components will be necessary to run the program, so they will be available more quickly after the release of Flight. As I said above, most of us don't really want to wait a year or two with a great, but useless program. Most of us realize that the software and hardware folks rub shoulders. You can and will make money off of us, just try not aggrevate us so much in the process. We will buy new pcs and Flight when they come out - we always do, so get over your god complex, we get it already...
   


  Well, those are some of items that come to mind at the moment. I'm sure there will be more to come...

Semper Fi,

Dave