MSFS 'future-proofing' strategy poll

[krigl]

This is a poll related to the discussion here regarding the strategy of 'future proofing' flightsims by aiming them at hardware only available and affordable to the average simmer after a couple of years:

http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2 ... 1195126037

It's intended as a serious and well meant poll, not an MS-bashing exercise. I'm just trying to find out if people agree with the current pattern. Please forgive the rough and ready nature, I'm in a hurry.

[b]Which strategy for MSFS production would you prefer, given a choice?:

1. FSX and previous sims: A flight sim with enormous potential for awesome graphics, which is only unlocked over perhaps 3 years, after multiple expensive hardware upgrades (or not upgrading at all or playing it at all for 2 years and then a big jump) - at the beginning even the most advanced comps have trouble with it as it's designed for stuff due out 2 years after release. Many people are dissatisfied for the first year or so because they can't run it nicely, though it does offer plenty of new features and fun if you can. Just as a system to run the sim finally becomes affordable and you are enjoying it to the full, they release a new sim with, again, crushing hardware requirements. I'm trying to describe FSX and previous sims here guys..sorry if I'm not doing an objective job.

2. Alternative: A flight sim which runs well after one admittedly expensive upgrade (but worth it for the hobby) to a modern standard, with some new features, new planes, more possibilities, some realism issues dealt with - a noticeable improvement, though some would like to see it test their systems more. Graphics wise, if you can run the last sim on Max, you can run this one okay, it looks as good as the old one did at least even though you're not seeing the best it can do. After 6 months many people have "all-sliders to the right" and the graphics are now much nicer. A few data-disks keep up the novelty factor until the new sim comes along in two years, with further upgrades and improvements. You have another upgrade to do, but again, you've been saving for this

[NickN]

you are not being fair


I made one admittedly expensive upgrade and my FSX runs quite well

I dont get to see everything with 40 frames but that is expected for at least a year or so

Most people buy new computers every 2-4 years so your logic is a bit off

I understand where you are coming from but if you are saying you want a MSFS that runs and looks like FSX on a 1000 dollar computer, thats being unrealistic.

Go get the latest DX10 titles and see how far you get on that. And those are games, not simulations which require a 150NM calcualtion grid

[Brett_Henderson]

Man.. that's a tough poll to post...  Good job though, in diplomacy and getting to the point. After living through the FSX intro, I'm inclined that ANY alternative is better..  But if it ends up being like an FS8-FS9 move, I'll have to fault to the greatest common denominator and say, "keep shooting for the moon, my current sim will hold me over and I'll always have something to look forward to"... not to mention that this pushes hardware makers to up their products more quickly... and shortens the time period for the next-gen prices to come down..

[krigl]

Hi Nick, I'm trying to be fair.....it's based on what I've heard about what the sim is aimed for (from you

[NickN]

Brett - I agree, not much changed between FS8 and 9, but 9 looks a lot better, at least to me. The new features in FSX are great, but like I said, how many required the 'great leap in hardware' to be made I'm not sure.
Krigl

there you have it, you do not have an 8800+ video card on a quad core CPU

In 2 months there will be dual GPU Nv and ATI cards with 4 slot motherboards with dual quad processors


I know where you are coming from and I appreciate your frustration, but, if you want to play and you want to see what we do in FSX, you gotta pay


or wait till the end of next year,,

[NickN]

You have to understand that MSFS is not all about MS profits. its a PARTNER situation. if you want the HARDWARE to be able to do what the ARTIST thinks it can, it requires PARTNERS in software and hardware work together to make it happen

If there is no software for the hardware, there is no reason to make the product and visa-versa


its works hand in hand. They work together to create the market

The market is expensive for new and improved, it gets cheaper as new and improved goes to standard equiptment and the process starts all over again
'
This thing about MSFS being ALL Microsoft's deal is so far from the truth its silly. there would be no FSX if they did not get with Intel, AMD, Nvidia, ATI, ect and work as PARTNERS.

[reider]

I'm sure you might be able to think of other alternatives, but would appreciate it if you'd cast your vote one way or another.

No, not going there.  You may not have intended it but that just reeks of vote under the circumstances I have dictated and no others, not a chance on this earth!  Thats the trouble with polls of this nature, they can lead people down any path you want.  When the politicians start this nonsense on tv I just switch off, same here.

Reider

[Fly2e]

Posted by: reider Posted on: Today at 3:51pm
Quote:
 Thats the trouble with polls of this nature, they can lead people down any path you want.  

There you go reider, now you can vote as I have added "other".  ;)

[NickN]

[quote][quote]Posted by: reider Posted on: Today at 3:51pm
Quote:

[krigl]

Hi Nick.... what is 'a phoenix'? Do you mean 'rising from the ashes'? I don't think the situation with FSX is that bad...
Love the statement that 'ESP is not an acronym', my only response can be the well known acronym 'WTF'

[alrot]

I see things in the opposite way, as a non-member of the elite who can buy such stuff at will...and the definition of elite is... most people are not in it. So, I suppose that I'm in the majority. And it's the majority MS is selling to right? You are still only giving them the price of 1 game; just like me. Why should only 10% of owners enjoy it to the full when it's released because they have access to the best hardware? This is not a sportscar aimed at the rich, it's software they hope as many people as possible will buy. You're doing all right....good for you. The majority are not. FS is the only software released to the general public I know where things are organised to such an extreme extent, and I think this policy is wrong, not just for consumers, but also from the perspective of maximising MS profits.


Krigl

Krigl For President!!!

Sorry for bring this back

[NickN]

Hey Alrot

I have no hard feelings about anything. Krigl and anyone else are entitled to their opinions

Problem is, if MS did what you guys wanted them to do we would not see an FSX type sim till 2012 so I am firmly against holding back or reverse engineering.


No matter what was said or posted by me.. I am not upset with anyone. I respect Krigl and his opinion and from what he has posted he respects mine and that is all that counts.


The only thing I will not tolerate and will totally let go on someone about is blatent unfounded statements about Aces or MS. Other than that, anything goes as long as it is respectful and keeps within a healthy debate standard.



the only thing I did not like about this poll was the way it was written which is a bit one sided and places the majority in a position of being scared to vote other than the

[Mothball]

I'll admit that I'm a knuckle-dragging neandrathal, grunt. I use a hammer to fix my computer. I also don't know exactly who I'm posting with, but I know I'm posting amongst folks who know what the hell they're doing. So, hopefully nobody will take personal offense to any of my thoughts. With that being said, first of all, is it possible, that Bill Gates, who's company makes the software that run most of the pcs in the world, and also creates the software that drives the Flight Simulator and also has partnerships with many part suppliers, can get his company and his company's associates to use the "ready, aim, fire" method instead of the "fire, ready, aim" method? In other words, any piece of equipment is only as good and reliable as it's weakest part. If associated parts are substandard the piece of equipment is going to suffer as a whole. Mr. Gates put FSX out before it was really ready. It seems he would rather put out a product full of kinks and bugs, rather than to get his company and ALL of his associates to get their collective sh!t together first, and then put out a solid, quality base product that can then be expanded upon, solidly. We have a very limited hobby, almost exclusive to Microsoft products, we're not going anywhere, and we will spend our money on the product eventually. Mr. Gates did the same exact thing with Vista. I appreciate the fact that there were delays in the release of both FSX & Vista, but neither one was really ready or solid enough. FS9 and XP were solid enough bases to hold out another year or so to smooth alot of things out, at least at the basic level. The guy makes billions and he will get more billions. Microsoft has reminded me of the American auto industry back in the mid '80s when American cars were built to break in two or three years (do see any old Taurus', Cavaliers or Escorts around?) and the industry figured that everyone would just go out and spend more money on another crappy vehicle. The market eventually caught on and the fat cats got their azzes handed to them by the jap car companies. History repeats itself, I hope Mr. Gates and his fine associates can change course... and soon. With much respect, Semper Fi, Dave

[NickN]

Bill Gates works with his wife in the Gates Foundation

You need to talk to Steve Ballmer who now runs Microsoft

By the way, neither would bother worrying about MSFS, MS marketing takes care of that. They would be more concerned with Vista and their server software, not FSX.





As for hardware costs, that is NOT Aces fault. Had ATi brought the bacon to the market back in April the cost of the GTX-GTS hardware would have DROPPED like a rock. The merger between ATI/AMD which happened well after FSX was developed SLOWED the process and in doing do it has allowed Nvidia to keep the price of the video hardware FSX really needs HIGH.

Once ATi/AMD gets back into the game over the next few months the hardware needed to run FSX with good results will FALL.

Hardware cost is NOT an Aces issue. All they did was develop for the hardware they thought would be available within the fist SIX MONTHS of FSX release. Its now PAST A YEAR and it is not ACES/MS fault Nvidia wishes to gouge you to the ground with year old technology because they are taking advantage of the down time ATi took for developing their new cores.  ;D


By this time next year, probably sooner, all this crying will stop

[NickN]

You guys need to STOP calling FSX an MS problem. Its ACES who made FSX, not Microsoft. Aces was responsible to have the software communicate correctly to the DirectX API, which in turn acts as an interface for ALL other elements, OS, hardware, etc... to connect to the software like a network hub.

ACES IS NOT responsible for the OS or any problems with it. They ARE NOT responsible for driver issues or ANYTHING that is not working in FSX due to external programming/hardware because as long as the code THEY WROTE is communicating properly with the DX API, the rest is the WINDOWS division, AND, the DRIVER/HARDWARE manufactures responsibility.

ACES catches too much FLACK for Windows and hardware related issues that is completely out of their control, AND, not their responsibility to fix.