I remember the day MS (maybe even Bill Gates) dismissed the internet ... (He did learn quickly of his dumb error)
Hmmmmn... no, not quite. He did not dismiss internet as it was, he was sharp enough to recognize the potentiality of such a worldwide net and wanted to create an internet that was HIS. Personal. Constrained. Restricted. Bound only to him, M$ and their desires.
Who among you still remembers like I do the icon of "The Microsoft Network", on ALL the desktops of Win95? Ever asked yourself what it was and what was there for? It was a veritable Trojan Horse of the non viral kind. A Trojan Horse that was never welcomed in our citadels, fortunately.
A proper nightmare. Just think of an Internet ruled by M$... on which you can do whatever you want, bur only as long M$ agrees... and try not to puke.
M$'s hubris level back then redlined for the first, but sadly not the last time. And in fact, with the first and only patch the TCP-IP protocol was released (it was that or stand back and look at someone else doing it in their place) and everyone could connect to The Real Internet.The Flight team should be commended for their attempts; they were doing their job with the same passion and excitement we had come to expect for developers. In the end, it was their upper management and MS Corporate that flat lined Flight, plain and simple.
No one here with a brain blames the coders and programmers of Flight. Coders and programmers can be blamed for FSX (but it was another team) which code is rubbish at best, not Flight. Coders and programmers of Flight did their best to keep in line with what was asked of them. They could not make available a feature if the higher ups told them in a non uncertain way not to include, and even if the perhaps wanted Flight to be something better, the eggheads above managed to mess it up BADLY, and now are coders and programmers that are laid off.
A little like; I am a road worker, the head engineer tells me to lay down a road pavement in a certain way, it is discovered then that that road pavement is not adequate to the task, and I am fired instead of the idiot who gave the order.
It happens all too often, and the sympathies go to those who were wronged, not the SOBs that caused the problem. Speaking for myself, I've never blamed the coders and programmers of Flight. When I've hurled written lightnings to M$, I've always directed them to the idiots on the top, apparently so eager and determined to mess it up again, and again, and again, and then another time too.
FSX code rubbish?
The code is just too far ahead for todays machines,the code is one of the most expansive,look at the stuff we can do with FSX now!Can that be done in X-plane or etc?
FSX code rubbish?
Yes.The code is just too far ahead for todays machines,the code is one of the most expansive,look at the stuff we can do with FSX now!Can that be done in X-plane or etc?
Look, ALL you can say CAN'T change THE FACTS that FSX works fine enough NOW on VASTLY MORE powerful rigs than when it was born... but its NEVER CURED stability and compatibility problems that are STILL THERE in spite of the new hardware exist only BECAUSE its code is RUBBISH beyond any attempt of saving it.
Not to add that when you say that the code is "too far ahead" to me only seems a shameless excuse to justify the shoddy coding. A little like saying: "let's make a program that can be used only on SEVEN years from now hardware and THEN, to keep our asses out of danger, let's say our code is SO FINE and SO FAR AHEAD, it cannot be understood today nor maybe EVER by not enlightened people like us".
Let me guess, you don't find ANYTHING strange with the part among quotation marks written up above, do you?
Fact is: you like FSX? Use it freely. But try and make a favor to yourself and DO NOT BECOME BLIND TO THE FACTS.
As about your question, yes, it can be done on X-plane etc. Actually on X-plane etc you can do MORE, and without searching for workarounds. Don't knock it down in the name of parochialism unless you've tried it first, or you'll only be exposing yourself to ridicule.
No need to get angry,god!
But FSX is stable on my machine,and its an acer so.
But I do not deny that FSX coding is well..unfinished.
But the base is good,look at software like A2A,PMDG,ORBX.
The thing is:FSX is expansive,new things are still being made even tough it's a relatively old sim!
And how on earth is all that stuff a 'workaround'?
OH and also:name anything X-plane can do that FSX can't? (except model waves,wich I'm not sure is in X-plane either)
FSX's engine is perfect for its purpose. It's demise was the fact that it's very bad at using the multi-core systems. It only uses one of the cores at a time instead of using both. If you run it in a single core with the same power you'll see its true capabilities..
Let's then take FSX NOT MODIFIED with outside fighter gun packs. Let's take two P-51D with WORKING GUNS for FSX. Let's connect on peer2peer WITH FSX and have a slugfest IN FSX'S SKIES. I challenge you, Sir.
Crap. We can't do it, can we? FSX STANDARD just... can't.
With X-plane STANDARD, on the other hand, you only need to install the peer2peer module and choose the planes and the place for the slugfest.
.............I do know for one that some people think that FSX only looks good at high settings...
So you think it should all be done standard?
So you think it should all be done standard?
I seem to have forgot. Remember me please who was the one that dared the other to say what X-plane could do that FSX couldn't? :-?
Of course, I must add, NOWHERE at the same time I wrote that EVERYTHING must be included in the standard package either. Even if it would be awfully nice, I recognize it's a tall order, so I'm not one to request THAT.
Keep in mind in the end that I'm not preaching about the non use of FSX. I'm not telling you to stop using it because it's rubbish. That'd be fascist. If one want to use a given program, so be it... on his head the consequences of a poorly made choice.
I'm simply stating, reiterating and concluding... FSX's code IS rubbish. Full stop. Nothing more and nothing less.Correction: Obsolete.
You see, it's cyclical. I call it the Wheel of Rubbish. Sometimes, though rarely, it skips a generation, like in the case of FS9, but it's till pretty much cyclical. Follow me and you'll understand:
FS98's code was NOT rubbish. It was a great step forward if compared to FS95's rubbish code, yet FS95 (which was one and the same ad FS5.1, only FS95 worked in Windows... the TOTALITY of the GREAT job on the code of FS5.1 was to have it work natively under Win95... and badly, I might add... so it was a patch of sort... but one that was repackaged and resold AS A TOTALLY NEW VERSION... which says a lot about M$'s honesty if you stop to think about it) had at least the excuse it was the bridge generation. The generation that passed from DOS to Windows, and it was BOUND to have problems.
FS2K's code WAS rubbish. Full stop. Beyond any attempt to rescue it. It was BAD enough that a lot of people preferred to remain with FS98 (just like it would happen six years later, with FSX being rejected by the majority of the users for the old but better behaved FS9).
FS2002's code was NOT rubbish. It was what FS2K should have been and more. Notice please, it was THE ONLY release of FS that NEVER felt the need to receive a patch. Unprecedented and with no followers.
FS9's code was NOT rubbish... well, maybe slightly... at times I think FS9 is what FS2002 should have been from the start... yet even with that slight taint on its honor, it at least worked and still works without making too much of a fuss, after the patch.
It all ends up in FSX's code being rubbish. Beyond. Any. Dispute. Two patches and is still a MESS. QUITE LIKE FS2K, and maybe even worse.
And if someone asks about Flight, I'm going to take a plane and go to his home just for the pleasure to kick him in the jewels.
More in depth, when I say FSX's code IS rubbish, I'm not talking about it being able or not to use more then a CPU core...
...I am talking about its THIRST of power at all levels to do things that OTHER softwares do with much less (like FS2K in its times, and remember, it's widely acknowledged that FS2k's code was rubbish)...
...I'm talking about the INSTABILITY that is its tallest banner (like FS2K in its times, and remember, it's widely acknowledged that FS2k's code was rubbish)...
...I'm talking about its COMPATIBILITY issues that still haunt every of its user (like FS2K in its times, and remember, it's widely acknowledged that FS2k's code was rubbish)...
...I'm talking, in the end about the fact that FS9 (the version of FS that FSX failed to replace, like its spiritual predecessor in rubbishness FS2K with FS98) is still being used by people that don't want to replace a working software with one that... guess what... is rubbish.
Sorry chaps. You may want to use it, and I am no one to tell you not to do it, you may even LIKE it, but still the hard fact is that even if you change its name with something more appealing, rubbish IS and REMAINS rubbish. Full stop.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 135 guests