A Total Joke

[RollerBall]

Those shots are absolutely beautiful and something for everyone to aspire to. Excellence stands to be respected at any time.

[Fly2e]

Posted by: RollerBall Posted on: Today at 10:59am
Those shots are absolutely beautiful and something for everyone to aspire to. Excellence stands to be respected at any time.  

Thanks Roger!

[JBaymore]

[quote]And also for all the cry babies who said they did not know about the FSX requirements, you should have known just by doing research and reading lots of different forums out there.

[Daube]

No, let's scotch this one that keeps popping up.

FS2004 did run out of the box pretty well for most people because by then the 'average' PC was some way above the minimum spec on the box. That's why people could laugh about it.

Really ?
I had an average PC at that time.
To be able to get over the 20 FPS, I had to:
- reduce the traffic
- disable those magnificient  new 3D clouds
- restrict the clouds density as much as possible
- set drawing distance to MINIMUM
- disable water reflects (or use a texture with big waves, since small waves are ressource-hungry)
- reduce the autogen, else flying over a city was a slide-show
- disable those nice scenery object shadows (I still MUST disable them TODAY, with a 6800 GT !!! )
- etc....

Strangly enough, this reminds me of FSX  :P

Then we went on to improve our experience by tweaking and installing add-ons. We didn't have to work on the damn thing just to make it run at all on our machines and that's the difference between FS9 and FSX.

Sure, nobody had to install the reduced autogen textures, nobody had to install the "HiFPS" clouds from SkyWorld, nobody had to delete the "default.xml" file in the autogen folder, etc... short memory, boys...
FS9 still cannot run smottly on todays average PC at max settings, and you complain about FSX performance ? You should complain about FS9 performance instead.

[Daube]

M(qualcosa)s have designed a programme for a technology that doesn't exist yet!! I bet that doesn't appear on the packet under Minimum specs!!!!!!!!!

DX10 is still under development. All that exists is an artist concept image of what M(qualcosa)s "hope" the game will look like. As for Vista, remember that at the beginning of this year they decided to throw it away and start again 'cause they couldn't get it to work!!!!! AND, now they won't let third parties access the kernel code. ......I ask you this question would you trust your PC to a virus checker written by M(qualcosa)s ?? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Vololiberista

What the hell are you talking about ?
FSX is not optimized for Vista
FSX is not optimized for DX10
FSX screenshots on the box, as well as EVERY shots we've seen so far are DX9 shots.

[JBaymore]

FS9 still cannot run smottly on todays average PC at max settings, and you complain about FSX performance ? You should complain about FS9 performance instead.

BINGO!

Cutting to the chase........

Why would one who cannot run FS9 at absolute max settings with at least 25 fps go out and buy FSX to run on the same machine at this point?  Seems to me that it is an exercise in frustration inflicted upon ones-self.  

FSX is likely going to be great............  WHEN hardware catches up, and WHEN Vista and DX10 are out.  

Patience grasshopper, patience.

best,

....john

[Katahu]

What the hell are you talking about ?
FSX is not optimized for Vista
FSX is not optimized for DX10
FSX screenshots on the box, as well as EVERY shots we've seen so far are DX9 shots.

Uhm dude, FSX IS optimized for DX10 and Vista. Haven't you been reading the articles?

FS9 still cannot run smottly on todays average PC at max settings, and you complain about FSX performance ? You should complain about FS9 performance instead.

Anyone around noticed that the image on the package that came with FS2002 pro sort of looks like that of FSX? Service vehicles, nice water, awsome shadowing, etc. Yet when you pop FS2002 onto the drive, it feels like you're flying in FS2000?

I'm guessing that the guys at Microsoft wanted FS2002 to reach the level of quality shown on the box, but were held back by poor management. Heck, even Microsoft admitted publically that the organization for development was poor and insuficient at the time and still was for FS2004.

I'm thinking it's going to be a few more years before Microsoft gains back our trust EVEN if they were to hire better developers NOW.

[Brett_Henderson]

surely the time to release it is when that kit is, or is just about to be, available.

The hardware to run FSX is, and has been out for a while. It's just VERY expensive..

I think the frustrating thing (to me anyway) is that I'm reluctant to spend $500 on a v-card that might not be DX10 ready. Which is kinda moot, cause if my v-card was running it fine on DX9.. I'd just avoid DX10 until I'd gotten my money's worth out of the DX9 card...

If you wait until the software/hardware/cost/obsolescence curves all line up so you'll always get

[Hagar]

Uhm dude, FSX IS optimized for DX10 and Vista. Haven't you been reading the articles?

Once again I'll quote from the official FSX FAQ page. http://www.fsinsider.com/About/Frequently-Asked-Questions/Technical-Questions/Vista-and-DirectX.htm
[quote]Does FSX require Vista and DirectX 10?

No. Just Microsoft

[Brett_Henderson]

If someone could convince me that a new, mega video-card could me made DX10 ready with new drivers.. I'd buy it now..

(but see ?  that's me ignoring my own advice and hoping for all those curve to line up.. and they never will)

[Katahu]

Once again I'll quote from the official FSX FAQ page. http://www.fsinsider.com/About/Frequently-Asked-Questions/Technical-Questions/Vista-and-DirectX.htm

I stand corrected then.

It's that by MY definition, there is a fine line between requiring and optimizing. To me, requirements are what's needed to actually run the sim at its minumum and functional settings while optimizing is what the sim is better suited for when it comes to higher settings. For example, no one is required to have vista and DX10 installed in order to RUN FSX at minimum settings but DX10 and Vista is best suited for FSX for max settings.

But like I said before, I didn't buy FSX just to enjoy it. I bought it for the SDK so that I can continue my work.

In which case, why the heck am I wasting time posting messages like this when I could be wasting it on my Hummer?

Guys, I think it's time to take another rest, have Fozzer prepare some food for us [no spices for me please] and chow down. This discussion is making me hungry.

[Hagar]

I stand corrected then.

It's that by MY definition, there is a fine line between requiring and optimizing. To me, requirements are what's needed to actually run the sim at its minumum and functional settings while optimizing is what the sim is better suited for when it comes to higher settings. For example, no one is required to have vista and DX10 installed in order to RUN FSX at minimum settings but DX10 and Vista is best suited for FSX for max settings.

OK, here's my interpretation of it, then I'll let it go. DX10, Vista & compatible hardware have yet to be released so I don't see how it's possible to optimise any software for it. That's why they will need to issue an update at some time in the future.

[Katahu]

OK, here's my interpretation of it, then I'll let it go. DX10, Vista & compatible hardware have yet to be released so I don't see how it's possible to optimise any software for it. That's why they will need to issue an update at some time in the future.

There are certain times when i agree with conspiracy theorists that Microsoft already has DX10 and is not telling us given they're financial status.

But then again, conspiracy theorists have been known to be wrong most of the time.

[RollerBall]

The hardware to run FSX is, and has been out for a while. It's just VERY expensive..

Brett, I think that what you've said is part of the problem. No matter what MS are saying now - they need to sell boxes - there is no doubt from all the original promos and videos that the launch of FSX was intended either to coincide with Vista and DX10 or even to follow shortly after (the FIRST game actually written to take advantage of all the new features etc blah blah....)

But woopsy - everything has turned pear shaped. No Vista, no DX10 - but FSX development still bubbling along.

Question - when was FSX originally scheduled for launch? Now as I recall it was considerably earlier this year - the spring maybe?

What can have caused this delay? Not rewriting surely, to dumb it down to run with XP and DX9.

I don't know - I'm only asking. I won't get any answers I know. But there has to be some reason why such a much-hyped piece of software has turned out the way it has ( Alcatraz, Alcatraz .......look at FSX's sloppy Alcatraz compared to 04.....totall symptomatic of the problems).

[Brett_Henderson]

Good points.. I'm frustrated too..

These are the things monopolies can get away with... MS isn't worried about us running out to buy a MAC and run X-plane (though I've considered it)