Simviation Forum - A Cunning Plan for MSFS development

	Search the archive:

Simviation Main Site | Site Search | Upload Images

Simviation Forum › Current Flight Simulator Series › Flight Simulator X › A Cunning Plan for MSFS development

(Moderators: Mitch., Fly2e, ozzy72, beaky, Clipper, JBaymore, Bob70, BigTruck)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 2

A Cunning Plan for MSFS development (Read 1072 times)

Reply #15 - Nov 2^nd, 2006 at 7:12pm

Joe_D Offline
Colonel
"Takeoffs are optional,
landings are mandatory!"
NY state

Gender:
Posts: 839

Quote:

......And there are other issues surrounding Vista. That of third party access to its code. If this issue isn't resolved we won't see it in Europe AT ALL!!!! .....

Yes, this issue always seems to be put on the back burner/swept under the rug.
However, it is all important.

Due to MS', greed they just might sabotage their own OS!

Home airports are KMGJ and KSWF in Orange County, NY&&Stop by and say hello.

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Nov 2^nd, 2006 at 7:26pm

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

[quote author=vololiberista link=1162486166/0#13 date=1162509495]And there are other issues surrounding Vista. That of third party access to its code. If this issue isn't resolved we won't see it in Europe AT ALL!!!![/quote]
I can't see that happening. According to this it's been resolved. [url]http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6125560.html[/url]

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Nov 3^rd, 2006 at 4:30am

Politically Incorrect Offline
Colonel
Personal opinion given
free of charge!
Williamsport, PA

Gender:
Posts: 3915

Quote:

The bottom line is that sooner or later we'll land up upgrading our PCs and buying the new Vista and DX among other things if we want to run FSX.

This is the way business works, ALL businesses, I don't believe that it is MS being cohorts in the grand scheme of things with hardware and software, trying to dominate. It is them trying to keep with the times and technology looking towards the future.

Think of it like this, if the auto makers didn't improve and upgrade the vehicles they make (which yes means you must pay more money for a better car) then we would still be riding horse and buggy or Model Ts.

Same goes for software, operating systems, and computer hardware. If it was not for advances in Technology we all would still be using Altairs or worst yet nothing at all.

Point is it will always cost money for improvements no matter what it is your dealing with, this isn't only subject to personal computers and technology but everything in everyday life. Not many things you will see or touch today that hasn't been improved at one time or another without any added cost.

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Nov 3^rd, 2006 at 6:32am

DizZa Ex Member

Cool post and it's pretty much 100% correct. However, I guess I am in a boat in which no-one else is in; my fsX runs perfectly.

I just had an amazing flight, KJAC (Jackson Hole), to U59 (driggs reed mem). Turn up your mesh and texture settings, and take that Flight. You will enjoy it!

fsX by default runs like crap. Do ALL these tweaks, optimize your system, mess with driver settings, and boom, it made my fsX run awsome on my upper midrange system. (AMD 3500+, 2gb RAM, X850XT PE).

Vista RC2 runs OK. So I'm planning on getting a mid-lower end DX10 video card + Vista. With the Vista optimizations I hope to push some settings higher while still retaining the same framerate (Same Framerate is 20-23fps and very smooth).

Quote:

M(qualcosa)s

hehe I don't think Microsoft is going to sue you over saying MS, or M$. Cheesy

EDIT: I wrote M $ and it changed to M$. What's going on!?

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Nov 3^rd, 2006 at 8:26am

pepper_airborne Offline
Colonel
Voorhout - The Netherlands

Posts: 2390

I'm actualy glad MS didnt leave the visuals for once behind, compared to all the other flightsimulators. They have added a whole new shader engine too it, wich was needed if you asked me.

I think FS has the longest shell life i have ever seen on games(well, half-life is doing pretty well too, add up your occasional quake too it), even now it isnt below 30 euro's.

Your actualy saying that game developers shouldnt use the most modern techniques so low-end systems can run it. That is the same as saying, leave the airbags from the car, people dont cant use it anyway.

Really, blame the manufacturers. The game industry can go a whole lot faster in development, but the current rigs cant keep up with it. Just look at the crysis engine.

Optimized textures? Really, 1024x1024 is a standard, you shouldnt go below 512x512 anymore anyway. And those people wondering why i wouldnt run completely well should look back at the beginning of FS9.

I'm glad MS finaly released a state of the art flight and visual product. If people want a fine running product then they should go back to FS98. Wink

http://white-line.org/&&;

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Nov 3^rd, 2006 at 10:34am

DizZa Ex Member

Quote:

Optimized textures? Really, 1024x1024 is a standard, you shouldnt go below 512x512 anymore anyway. And those people wondering why i wouldnt run completely well should look back at the beginning of FS9.

My screen reolution is only slightly above 1280x1024. I do not inspection Autogen from 5 feet away, but looking at them from 5000 feet away.

And 1024x1024 textures are fine if needed, but doing things like 2048x2048 in Giraffes from 37 000feet is stupid.

IP Logged

Pages: 1 2

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Home

‹ Board

Top of this page