A plea to Aces/Microsoft

[krigl]

Hi, the post below is a post I made in another thread ("What's with the scenery", now deleted from there) which basically hijacked it - it would be better posted alone...

It is not intended as 'yet another MS/Aces/FSX bashing thread'. I am very grateful for these products, I love using them. Including FSX, which with SP1 is a lot better than it was, so much so that I am now recommending it to people, at least for low and slow.

It's not meant as an attack on Brett...if he's happy with things that's cool

[krigl]

I'd rather hear complaints that the software is too much for a person's computer, than have software that's behind the hardware curve.. 'cause that's what it boils down to.
SO.. in that regard.. THANK YOU ACES, for giving us an almost open-ended piece of software !
-- would you rather sit on a brand new computer and have no software to push it to its limit ? --

Response to Brett as a representative of this viewpoint.

In short, Brett, YES. I want to be enjoying the best of FSX now, not in two years when FSXI is out and the screenshots from the next best thing are flooding in. I want to be spending my money on add-ons, payware - not more and better hardware - and exploring all the wonders FSX has to offer. I want to see my airports full of AI, to fly complex aircraft over cities without a slideshow. I want to do that, one year after game release, with the best hardware that was available when the game was released which is now more affordable.

I would like to think that, if I spent a ton of money upgrading my computer to be among the best on the market, I could run all titles including FSX happily on that computer without any major problems and without being told that, no, it's still not good enough and I am going to have to wait and then spend another ton and upgrade again to get the most out of the sim. For a lucky few who have plenty of disposable income, upgrading constantly and tweaking is a fun hobby. For the majority however, we expect to upgrade to the next generation of hardware to play the most demanding next gen games...but anything more is just stupid. FS9 is a wonderful experience now. FSX is great, but I still fly mainly FS9 because I can do everything there. I'm still buying FS9 addons because I can use them to the full. I haven't swapped over. FSX has not replaced it, still. At least they've got my money now though.... And I am enjoying the things in FSX I can do....before the sim crashes due to insufficient memory, for example.

Why look so far ahead? What is the point? As has been pointed out a million times, the same happened with FS2002, FS2004. Well, why don't they LEARN. It is NOT POPULAR with most of their customers. Surely they don't want people to stick with FS9 - they want them to upgrade and buy the new product and rave about it to their friends so they can make money. It seems so simple to me: Produce a sim using normal next-gen hardware that ordinary people can upgrade to and enjoy to the full. It will be easier and quicker to design for and cheaper to produce. Release a few datadisks with high quality additional material. Make lots of money. Payware companies also make more money, as people are buying their newest products and not hardware and old FS9 stuff. Get fewer complaints. When all is clear about the next generation of technology, move on to the next one. Move in smaller steps, thinking a year or two ahead, not 4. Think about the majority of users, what they are going to say and think and do....look at 'The Sims', look at the EA sports franchises. Regular upgrades and datadisks, solid fan base that are happy to buy the newest... Include new high quality defaults along with old favourites. Include the newest variants of planes. Make the weather, ground textures, ai a bit more like the payware companies do, more complex, interesting, attractive, useful. The payware companies will build on what has already been done and make stuff even better....

As it is, it seems to me that the Aces are enjoying challenging themselves and boosting their personal skills/employability by working with the most extreme and innovative hardware they can find while not paying enough attention to the needs of ordinary customers who are not even able to buy the stuff even if they had the cash because it doesn't exist on the market yet. Like the backwards compatibility issue. Most people want to use their high quality FS9 addons in FSX and beyond. But let's just ignore what the customers want....and remove all backward compatibility in order to be free to push the envelope still further. Even though something similar failed with CFS3.

FS gets it's strength from the massive community of freeware developers, not all of whom have endless pockets. It's a hobby game, played by people who want better weather, better ai, better graphics too but not to the extent the game has to look worse than FS9 on the same machine that FS9 looks great on. It's not a sci-fi FPS.... Yet each new release seems to be aimed at an elite with high spending power (good for them  :)), who of course are very happy to keep forking out another thousand dollars to upgrade to the very newest and best every six months and of course have no problem with the Aces/MS approach. But most people fly flightsim because they don't have the cash to fly in real life.... Will they ever grasp the significance of this contradiction??

I really like my FSX, but I wish I could have bought it a year ago, and I wish I could erase FS9 from my hard drive because FSX is running almost maxed on my E6600 with a GeForce 7900 and 2MB of ram. But I guess I'm going to have to wait another 2 years before I can afford a 4 or 8 core processor and the next gen successor to the GeForce 8800...and Vista maybe, and some more ram... while paying for my house, car, family, holidays... this kind of thing may make you happy Brett, but me...well....no.

Krigl

[NickN]

http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2 ... 4548/15#24

I understand your point of view

Please keep in mind that the MSFS title is a simulator and not a game. In order to meet increasing standards which make simulations more and more realsitic the software must push the envelope and beyond.

You can expect to see 4 PCIe slot motherboards in the next few months. AMD/ATi's new chipsets are designed to allow the CPU and GPUs discuss things in real time and multiple GPU cards are the next step, meaning you would have 8 GPUs mated to a dual quad processor in which each GPU will have a direct connection to each core through the memory controller.

It is that type of hardware which FSX, and I am sure FS11, will be geard toward.

There is a business aspect to the title in which hardware partners appreciate the challenges as much as Aces appreciates the technology. It works hand in hand. If you want to see a simulation go to places it never has before it must be written to do so, and, to challenge current and future hardware.

FS9 was no different. There were the same gripes for 2 years after and now everyone is on the FSX bandwagon. By 2009 it will all change again and FSX will be the greatest thing next to sliced bread with FS11 being the focus of the gripes when it is released. Its the same song, just a different tune.

MS gave us the software. It is up to us to buy the technology. They dont sell MSFS consoles which are designed, tested and approved by MS for 100% full visual potential, they sell the software. In that, it allows the user to make upgrades a console will not ever allow which allows the MSFS experience to increase significantly with the same release title over time.

[krigl]

http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1195044548/15#24

I understand that Aces were left holding the ball, or rather, I believe you and Mr Taylor when you say this  :)
I hope you're right about getting everything optimised for FS11 too, though it will certainly require Vista and DX10 and probably will not be backwards compatible: result being that I probably won't be able to, or even wish to buy it for some time unless at least someone, maybe ACES, includes a CONVERTER to 'translate' old files from FS9/X into FS11   ... especially when FSX is shaping up to be such a good-looking sim.

Howeer, my very point is that FS has been too much ahead of its time since I've been aware of it (back to FS8 only). I doubt if this will change with FS11 as they obviously didn't try to rein themselves back a bit after viewing the frustrations in the forums on the release of FS8 and 9. Instead they went even further with FSX. FSX is, afaik more or less based on the FS9 engine. Much of what is new in FSX: great default planes and VCs, the gliders and thermals, the animals and boats, the better mesh, the nicer autogen: are all things which could and often were done in add-ons for FS9. I really don't think there was a need to make FSX so hungry and heavy to go with these welcome innovations.  

Got to go....

[NickN]

FS11 is 2 years+ out

By then I am sure you will have migrated to a DX platform.

The FSX game has just started. I expect it will slowly become the sim of choice over 2009

What you will see is people upgrading at the end of next year and 2009 and then posting "OH MY GOD, I CANT BELIEVE HOW MUCH BETTER THIS IS"

LOL

Its just like the difference between owning an economy car, a fast sports car, or a very high performance professional race car. The MSFS title is a track. How fast you go on it is based on your budget. As the professional race cars get faster and more efficient the typical sports car and even the economy models increase in features and performance for the same or less investment.

Only pros and the rich get to play with brand spanking new professional race cars

its like that in everything on this planet. MSFS is no different

[Brett_Henderson]

this kind of thing may make you happy Brett, but me...well....no.

It doesn't make me happy, that any simmer sees frustration, instead of fun. It does make me happy that a $70 piece of software has an opened ended possibility, that grows as hardware becomes affordable. Even on a computer that can now be built (not just an upgrade)for under $1000, a simmer can see a vastly better sim-world. What he's willing to compromise in the performance/dollar/experience formula, is up to him, and his resources. There's no way they could have hit a sweet-spot that would make everyone happy... but I think what we've been given is amazing.

FS9 has not been rendered un-runable. FSX can be adjusted for hardware of different caliber... and those who can push the limit have something to grow into. It's pretty close to a win/win/win... and certainly much better than a piece of software that was already behind the newest hardware.

If I was running a computer that had no business running FSX... I'll admit that I probably would have found out the hard way.. and have been frustrated... but in no way would I start pointing fingers at ACES or MS. Regular releases and upgrades for perfectly bug-free flight sims.. that never render current hardware obsolete and always make us feel like the purchase was worth it, aint gonna happen.

[Fly2e]

Interesting post Roger and I say I agree with what you are saying.
I also understand MS's point and that they will always strive to the outer limits with what they are creating even though the general community can not keep up with them.

Sadly, I could go out and buy a top end system (again) but I am very reluctant right now.
I will wait until FS11 when all this techno-babble is worked out.

We all have different expectations when we fire up our sims. I quietly laugh when I hear FSX users put down PS9 and say how great FSX is and when you see their screenshots they are jaggy and the enviroment is bland. They obviously are having a different experience in their sim than others who want to FLY in a world that is truly surreal. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Like I said, I laugh quietly because hey, maybe that is all they want out of it.
There are also others who have the insight & technology to run FSX fluid and that is great for them.
To each his own as there are thousands of users of the sim who have thousands of personal reasons, needs & wants from their flying experience.

Believe me, I am not swaying one way or another on this. If you are getting everything out of your FSX that you want, great for you, seriously!! To each his own.

Like I said, some people really like it because of how real FSX aircraft handle. To them the visuals are not too important.
Rog, to people like you and me, people who like FS for the world, enviroment, & creative screenshot taking along with a very fluid flight, our wants & needs may be very different from Brett who is a real life pilot and who probably enjoys flying the real thing in his sim. All that eye candy may not be as important to him as a real cockpit enviroment with real flight dynamics. I can tell you that the FSX cockpit experience is far superior than the FS9!

I myself start to get all wound up about this because I want all that FSX has to offer, just as I attained after FS9 came out. I have accepted defeat with WHAT I WANT OUT OF FSX, therefore I fly FS9 and if I want to take some interesting screenshots, fire up FSX.
http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2 ... 1190425778
I can get an enjoyable experience from FSX but that is about it. My standards are very high as you know when it comes to the sim. I have, as others, thousands of dollars invested in my FS9 machine in reference to hardware, payware, tweaking, etc..
I still fully enjoy being able to come home, turn it on and immerse myself in my sim.
http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2 ... 1190981887

As many posts here state, everything will catch up in time and we will all be happy again.
Like Nick said, MS has given us a new race track and now our cars are not the fastest on the FSX track anymore.
But over on the FS9 track they are fast, consistent, always finish the race and never crash! That is a good track record!



At my house I have two racetracks!
I have the FSX racetrack where I go to practice when I am not really "racing". There I can experiment, play, tweak and get frustrated that I can't win!

Then I have my FS9 Talladega Superspeedway where I am the winner of every race! Women surround me, my chalice overflows with beer, crowds of adoring fans fall at knees and I am King!

One day I will be king of the FSX Super speedway as I was with FS9...
But for now I just hang out in the FSX pit area and take it all in so I will be well informed when race day comes..

[Brett_Henderson]

Great post, Dave...

[NickN]

I had an awesome lightfix package ready to go in May and I held it back because I was going on vacation and when I got back I was going to look at what was coming for the next SP so I was not forced to withdraw the add-on or have to issue an update right after release.

SP2 trashed it. Not 100% but enough where it no longer had the same impact and some of the textures would no longer work correctly so I started over back at the end of September.

I was quite miffed but you know what.. at least now it will work for RTM, SP1 and SP2/Accel

Sometimes you just have to suck it up and move forward


LOL

I am finally starting top hear from the AMD/Nv/Intel camps again. Looks like its going to be an interesting 2008

I would wait any hardware till after xmas. It looks like they are going to pull another fast one and try and dump the junk for the holidays, releasing the good stuff after

[alrot]

I'm agree with Krigl , even though I'm facinating with the textures and the Flight Dinamics of this game, its unfear that There is not PC capable to run FULL SLIDERS , although I have posted some of the positive things of FSX-Acceleration , I still have keep in a Mid low Display quality (in general) and not set the antiasilasing & asinotropic filtering from the inside of the Game ,otherwise Ill get 6 FPS only, as also deal by tweak in the CFG....

as he said its should be a matter of buying a software  ,not to waste all the money in a computer that is not c

[krigl]

Thanks for the contributions guys....

I agree with Dave on the best of both worlds things, running both sims like that... it's what I do. And yes, the atmosphere, the in-cockpit feeling of flying, is much improved. But I don't think much of this aspect was not already possible in FS9. It just takes sound files, flight dynamics, decent cockpit modelling, better lighting. No?

Flying the FS9 Digital Aviation Dornier Do-27 from maybe Emma Field is a much different experience from flying the FS9 default C172 from a nameless airfield, for example. These beneficial results should not be slowing a system any more than a high-detail FS9 aircraft...right? And if add-on developers can give the option of lower resolution clouds or whatever which have a lower frame-rate hit, why couldn't ACES do that with the default when they know people are always fighting for fluidity with these sims. Again, the default AI uses default flyable planes - why didn't they make lower poly optimised planes for AI instead? If freeware people can do it why not this company? Yes we can substitute everything via sites like this or buying packages, but the sim is supposed to be for the masses, with missions and stuff right? That was the impression I got from the adverts. People expecting a fun game might not be pleased to find things work this way. Or is it just for hard core simmers who know their way around? In which case why were main gripes specific to them, like the ai, weather etc not really addressed?

With Nick, Brett and the whole MS/Aces philosophy I can only disagree (yes, I know they're not the same). For people who have the income to buy the best hardware and the high level of technical skill needed to get the best from the latest sim, it is difficult to empathise with the majority of people not in that situation, or understand that they might want something different. It is hard to imagine that our views will ever be compatible, however much they are repeated, though I greatly respect all the help these gentlemen freely offer...

Basically, MS/Aces could make more money and more people happy by approaching the sim in the same way as normal games are approached. Small jumps in technology, let people keep up, release datadisks which beat any payware offering hands down (like Accelleration...at least the positive side of it)....a happy majority of the customer base, and money rolling in. It seems logical to me. Not to aim it at the elite, and at a far off future point. Of course, some people would complain that not enough has changed, but more people would buy it and be able to use it and be satisfied with the experience. "It's never gonna happen?" Well...why on earth not? Don't they want to maximise profits and customer satisfaction? Am I being naieve? Is their current approach really more profitable for them?

Perhaps MS make so much money that they don't actually care if FS is well-received or not. Quite likely. Perhaps it's just a training ground for developers which we are subsidising?

It would perhaps help if the producer was a company dedicated just to making FS, staffed by flight and flight-sim enthusiasts who are also programmers, who want to give the most people the best experience possible. Not a company that has now said 'we're done with fixing this', shrugged, and moved on to produce a train sim with the possibility that they might come back to focussing on FS in a year or so. It makes me think that they are obviously not a dedicated flight-sim company.... not good news, perhaps, for a game aimed at dedicated flight-simmers.

It might be instructive to do a poll and see (very roughly of course) exactly how many people are happy with the current strategy
:-?

The wording would have to be careful - we've all had enough of flame wars in this forum...

Maybe I'll give it some thought. How many people really want to buy a sim that doesn't run at maximum capacity until after several years, upgrades and thousands of dollars/pounds from purchase?

Compared with how many would like to not spend or wait too much for their new sim and get new features, more realism, a bit better graphics than the last one, regular patches and add-ons.... right now?

I wonder..... :-?

Krigl

[NickN]

I want a SSC Ultimate Aero but unfortunately they dont make one in my price range

[Brett_Henderson]

I think maybe, what MS/Aces are trying to accomplish, is affected by seeing the whole gaming world. FS9, and even FSX annimations and graphics are primitive and crude by cutting-edge first-person shooter standards. We of course know that that's because rendering a whole dynamic world (at least what you can see of it), a sky full of clouds and several aircraft models, all at once, in three dimensions, is a lot more for a computer to do, than what's in front of your "gun".

[krigl]

Okay, I've put up the poll. Let's see what people think.

[alrot]

I just hope we keep this as a diferent point of view ,I praid to this thread not to add to  another from a hundred of the Confrontation list in FSX forum ,please my friends, every head is an entire an unique universe, we can't think in the same way...

Cheers & Peace

Alex