Quote:


Glad I got up for a glass of water... you forgot one Brett, from his first post

Quote:


Since he knows all about LOD_RADIUS, his assessment of what the sim will be like with the DX10 and update patch is also as knowledgeable as a 2 year old who wants their candy and can’t have it.

Quote:



They didn’t miss anything Brett... If they had catered to multithread everyone on single thread processors right now (which is the majority of the people on this board), would be screwed. He has absolutely no concept of what it would have taken code wise to develop multithread for a simulation and then turn around and rework the entire sim for single thread use. He doesn’t even have a concept of dual core use in Vista which will power the FSX engine but instead what he does is choose rant posts carefully so eventually when he start in on the 'corporate board room' posts they hold more water.

It’s a joke

And that is my take on his introductory posts to this thread. I don’t need a referee to tell me what someone meant or said or how I should respond. I am quite able to read and see what’s going on, as I demonstrated quite clearly what hes doing, and will now let it go.

@ Kat

My blood pressure is fine. I know pure bull when I read it and sometimes I will only read so much before I will call someone on the carpet for it.

Quote:


No, it doesn't give the budget user the pleasure of doing using FS9 now, because the budget user who loves FS now wants FSX, it's human nature - it's the best, the newest. It's very existance takes away the pleasure of using FS9. MS of course wants us all to by FSX, they don't count on us still using FS9 and ignoring their product until we're able to run it, do they   They hope of course, that it will keep selling for ages, but I'm sure they'd rather make a fast profit now rather than rely on an unknown future trickle of cash.

The problem for many people is, the new hardware is

a. basically a purchase of a new computer, not just a processor and graphics card upgrade, but new mobo and new memory too - hard to manage in one go and

b. what's really needed barely exists. I can't even upgrade to it yet, that's the most frustrating thing.

I of course expect to upgrade my hardware for a new FS, and I'm not arguing for 2003 graphics, please don't misquote me, I'm arguing for 2006 graphics and engine NOW, not 2006 graphics (maybe) with a 2008 engine that most of us will be able to run properly in 2009 when MS will release and advertise a new simulator, triggering our desire to buy it, leave the now properly functioning simulator and then suffer subsequent (for many) disappointment and frustration once again.

You guys who can afford to spend thousands on new rigs naturally have a bit of an 'I'm alright, Jack' attitute about this, a certain lack of empathy for the average guy, a 'you're complaining just because you don't have the cash to build a system that can run it, fool' type of approach, or 'just suck it up' (great phrase Nick  ) but MS are mass-marketing their product - it's not just for hard-core sim-pilots who'll sell their grandmothers for a new fs rig any more. It's marketed like it's supposed to be for 'everyone', not wealthy computer maniacs, and designing it for use in 2009 isn't going to please the majority they are selling to one bit. Yes, it's their conscious design policy, from the horses mouth. And yes, their conscious design policy is....flawed.

The fact 'FS is a simulator, not a game' is irrelevant (wouldn't it follow that flight models and ATC are more important than massive texture files then, anyway?), particularly as they are doing their best to make it more entertaining for a mass audience, and less like a simulator. And there are other simulators which taxed high end machines when they came out, but people quickly caught up and - the product is still selling now. Like Sturmovik, I believe. So why release something few average users can run well without tweaks? Aces member: 'We've decided to shoot ourselves in the foot after seeing all the complaints about FS9 on release by releasing FSX to a huge group of excited people who cant run it very nicely due to hardware constraints,  and we fully intend to continue disappointing and frustrating people with FS11 - just like with FS9, they'll get over their complaints and problems eventually and discover it's true potential not too long before our new 'revolutionary' product comes out to be bought and to frustrate once again" Great. Just because it is their policy doesn't make it a good one. I think they are so enamoured with pushing the envelope and working with the latest technology, because they can, they are not thinking about the end user, and instead are lamely trying to justify their approach.

What makes the best games (I know, it's not a game ) long lived are their moddability and quality, not making running them well years out of reach of people with normal budgets. I bought FS9 long before I could run it properly and suffered stutters, blurries etc for ages - and now I've just got it working perfectly FSX comes out. Wouldn't I have been more satisfied if it had looked great for much longer and I could enjoy all my mods, skins and add-ons in full detail for a year before the new release, not 3 months? After upgrading my graphics card I can now run Dark Messiah and Oblivion nicely. Am I unhappy that I don't have to wait a year before I can play them on highest settings? No. What kind of arguement is it that it's better to irritate people now so their pleasure can grow over time. Sillybillies  
And if I don't undergo this drawn out process of improving my sim from looking weak to looking great I'll get bored and give up playing it? Yeah, right. The modding community and screenshot posting keeps my interest alive more than adequately, and real sim pilots are hardly going to get bored in the two years before the next release. If you can fly 15 hrs real time on long haul routes your boredom threshold must be uber-high. The only people who will get bored are people who thought the sim was a game and have completed all the missions... unfortunately, they don't get that far because once they unwrapped their Mum's christmas gift, loaded it in for one hour and then got 5 FPS they have already lost interest in 'playing' it.

My position is that FS2006 should have been released in 2005 ala previous release pattern with top end graphics for that time (ie, a bit better and heavier than FS9) and all the great new stuff that's in FSX. As far as I can see, there is very little in FSX that wasn't already done by freeware and payware developers for FS9. Just the heavy textures, mesh, autogen and ai seems to be beyond today's machines, if I'm not mistaken. Better flight dynamics, weather effects, ground textures, mesh, airports and payware quality planes all exist for FS9, don't they? Yep, it's called freeware and payware. Only missions are really new, I think, and I'm sure they wouldn't have been impossible to build into a 2005 release.

People with top end machines would have enjoyed it in 2005, and the rest would have caught up in 06. MS would have made a ton of money and have more satisfied customers.

FS 2008 (FSXI) (for DX10 Vista) should be released in 2007 for people with top end machines in 2007, and the rest would enjoy it in 2008. Again, more money for MS, and a greater percentage of satisfied customers. They would also have an easier time of developing the product if they aimed it at a shorter timeframe, and might catch more of the bugs.

All decent games have a shorter term outlook (ie. 6 months ahead of the average user, perhaps, not 2 or 3 years), and yet are bought and played for years, even after they are no longer cutting edge, and why FSX has to be different - because it's a sim - I really cannot imagine. In fact, it is it's very moddability and nature that ensures that users will stick with it for a long time, not it's 'ahead of it's timedness' and the slowness and blurryness people experience out of the box. The fact that you don't just 'play through it', that you use it again and again for years,  doesn't mean it absolutely needs to be so horrible when you first install it, until you tweak it, are a system maintainance genius or rob a bank, of course.

It's not like FSX is really cutting edge anyway - only graphically, perhaps... and even then - I have reflective water in Morrowind from 2002, for example, so I'm not sure about that aspect for a start.... - all else was possible in FS9 - the extra features are cool, but they're not resource killers in themselves I think -  it's mainly the HEAVY mesh, textures, autogen, ai that are bringing today's top systems to their knees, at least before tweaking. Right? FS2006, released in mid-2005, could have had better mesh and textures but not to this extent, and it would still have been a welcome improvement that would not have crippled comps with high end specs.

IMHO, none of the 'but it's a sim it has to be like this' and 'I've got tons of cash for upgrading and I can run it so I want it now and you peasants who don't can just deal with it and look at my screenshots ' and the 'it was exactly the same last time, be patient' arguements take away from the fact that MS are practicing a very strange and flawed marketing/development strategy especially for the mass market, which creates unneccessary buggy products, thousands of dissatisfied customers, and less wealth for them.

It is, in short, stoopid.

I'm not bashing FSX, I expect it to have bugs and issues and whatever, and it looks great in the right hands, the new stuff sounds wonderful. In fact, I'm planning to buy it and expect to have a lot of fun with it. I'm just frustrated at MS policy that kept me from enjoying a new sim last year, is stopping me from fully enjoying FS9 now, and will keep me from enjoying FSX to the full until goodness knows when - as I can't see myself getting Vista for a long time, and DX10 neither.

Just my opinion  

Krigl

ps. sorry for another 'hijacking' post, but I thought I'd add my different point of view to the discussion. Few seem to agree with me, but, whatever, I can but try.
Try what? - That's the question....

And Krigl... You made some excellent, respectful and well thought out observations..  But in a way.. brought the good, big picture into focus. Because of the open-ended, gearing to hardware of the furure that has always been the the FS theme; there is, and will be for another few years, an FS for every budget and enthusiasm level. I think that's a win/win. You can get some pretty satisfying simming in for peanuts.. or, if you're so inclined.. blow $3,000 and have the future right now.. AND even that future has room for growth..

It's all good  


edit:  Even if it's a byproduct of MS' questionable marketing.. It makes no sense to tell those who want it all now, that they have to wait.. does it ?  FS9 is still a wonderful thing. The introduction of FSX didn't render it un-runable.

Quote:


Opinions and point of views are always welcome when they are given with arguments and details

I can perfectly understand your frustration. Of course fr normal users, seeing a new sim with top graphics like FSX, without being able to run it at full settings is quite difficult to accept, but what's the problem ?

I mean, now a normal user has a choice:
- either he buys FS2004, plays at full graphics and enjoys the FS2004 + FS2002 addons already available,
- either he buys FSX, cannot run it at full graphics but still can enjoy all the new features.

When it comes to the payware addons that already brought to FS2004 a big part of the FSX new features, well, you are basically saying that thanks to microsoft, we are now getting for just 70 bucks exactely the same than what a guy got on FS2004 for more than 300 bucks:

- some payware quality planes: a payware plane cost at least 20 bucks, right ? I talk about small props, not liners, because FSX liners are not complete enough to deserve the "payware quality" title.

- some "best freeware" / payware quality scenery: not everywhere, of course, but some cities are beautifull, and the rest of the world has quite a good mesh I would say, and the new forests and new autgen radically transformed the look of jungles, cities, and even whole continents that were almot inexistent in FS9.

- a lot of  payware quality airports (moving vehicules are only offered by payware addons, excepted one freeware addon for a single German airport if I remember well)

- a real multiplayer flight, allowing close formation flying: this, no payware could offer it to you. Only freeware IBNet Player, known by only a few users, and still very much beta stage, would allow it.

- and so on....

If you want an FS2004 that is as complete as default FSX is, you would have to spend a lot of money, so even if you cannot get the top-notch graphics immediately, you are still getting a lot of stuff to enjoy out of the box, and for a quite limited amount of money, don't you think ?

That's my point of view. The performance problem is always the same with all the games:
- X-Plane is even more heavy than FSX
- LOMAC was running a 2 FPS on my GeForce Ti4400 long after it went out
- IL-2 didn't allow me to play at max settings for a long while, and even max settings were not looking that good anyway
- FS2004 is juste running well today, just like you stated it.

Nevertheless, (excepted for LOMAC), I have been enjoying what those games offered since the beginning.

Quote:

Quote:


You have not hijacked anything the rest of us have not hijacked    Its what we all live for...  

Thanks for ringing in Krigl.. Healthy discussion about the bad and the good is what its all about, even if we dont all agree!

I very much understand and respect where you are coming from. The approach I used when I turned in my report and met with other members of the evaluation team at Redmond was based on the hardware limits. I also made it quite clear that there would most likely be a loss in sales from the end of the market which cannot afford better hardware once they catch wind of what will be needed to run the sim where they are use to with FS9. 

Without violating any ND agreements, I do wish to correct the assumption that Microsoft wants FS9 canned and taken over by FSX, on the contrary. It was a key point in my discussions with Microsoft that since reasonably priced hardware has come of age which will allow full experience of FS9 the FSX market will cater to the next generation of hardware enthusiast and to FS9 fans as they migrate into the right hardware. Jut as you can still run FS8 and migrate into FS9 with hardware upgrades, the same is true for FS10 so that entire subject is mute.

With all due respect, saying you are taunted by Microsoft to buy FSX because of its features and new sim, that’s your problem, not Microsoft’s. 

They provided the race track, it’s up to you to provide the car and how fast you go on that track is determined by your budget in that car, just like anything else when it comes to play-toys in this world. 

It is another false assumption if anyone thinks that because of the hardware requirements or glitches it is going through, FSX will fail or be abandoned. That’s just silly. And I can assure you that Microsoft is not worried about low end hardware people putting any type of dent in sales. FS9 will remain supported for a period of time and if you want FSX in full visual content and what it has to offer otherwise, you will have to buy the right hardware to run it. 

If you intend to migrate to Windows Vista, it is the same and no different from FSX, so placing Microsoft in the position of being the bad guy because they did not think of the person who does not have the cash to upgrade, it outright ridiculous. 

It is not Microsoft’s responsibility to make sure every person in the world can run Visa and FSX or any other software title they produce, at 100%+. They have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, not the board of directors (the board of directors is responsible to the shareholders), and as such they are responsible to produce and sell software and some hardware devices and keep up with innovation so future development and sales/profits continue. That’s it, nothing else. 

With Vista and FSX (along with their other products)they are/have provided said responsibility.

The issue of multithread support has come up and a developer has been quoted. Please keep in mind, developers are sometimes game geeks who may see the future a bit clearer however they can also be selfish sometimes and want the software to run on the hardware THEY are using. If Joes developer had his way MSFS10 would be limited to multi core users and that means Microsoft would loose a large market share of users based on today’s typical home system. It would also mean you guys with single core processors would be outside the store window looking in with a big sad face. Microsoft recognized that innovation was needed but they also took you guys with lower budgets into account and made sure both single and dual core users would have equal time. It was absolutely not all about pushing it out to the market as quick as possible as some have suggested. The factors were carefully considered at the time.

The bottom line is the majority of the market is NOT on a multithread computer technology and probably won’t be for another year or two if the current trend remains, and that is something that is just becoming known now. 

The decision to go with the current platform was made a long time ago well before multithread was a large enough market in the gaming industry to be worth investing. Therefore, spending the time and money to develop a 2 simulator thread option when the market demand was unclear years ago would have been a huge risk and may have driven the cost of the product up dramatically, especially if the market demand would not support a lower price tag. The issues of coding are an entirely different matter and you would have to be a developer to understand the logistics involved with such a massive undertaking.

That is not to say down the road a major rewrite may occur for multithread (as it was originally in line for Vista)and more than likely any next installment of MSFS will be geared for it 100%

I listened to the others at the meeting who were both for and against release. We all knew what Microsoft was going to do in the end because the factors in place dictated there was no alternative but to –go- unless there was a serious problem with the code that would cause major issues and force some type of recall or require an emergency patch which in either case the software would suffer a major public humiliation. 

The software as it stands does not display major code issues or present problems which would require such measures. 

No one is saying there are not any issues or problems. Of course there are problem and they will be addressed based on level of importance and fixed. 


Off to work… and its freaking COLD here tonight   

oh, oh, oh...Its My turn!!!!!!!
When I bought FSX, I knew that my current set up would not run it well, due to my video card. With marginal frame rates, and all the little tweeks used, I still believe this sim is better. I have some planes that wont show textures because, as Nick said at one time, "if you video card is getting low on memory the AC textures are to first to sacrifice" With all that, and sliders down I still believe the FSX is better.

Quote:


I want a Massaratti (spelling?).   I drive a Nissan pickup.    It's all good.

best,

.....................john