A plea to Aces/Microsoft

[NickN]

ahhhh The Hamptons


I have a place on the Hamptons I lease.

I loved the area 20-25 years ago

[NickN]

[quote]Just a little interesting note about computing power needed for a flight simulator -

I am in Aerodynamics right now, and as part of the class, we just finished modeling a 2-D section of a wing profile on the computer.

[krigl]

In response to your last post on the topic, Nick:
You say that Microsoft has to cooperate with the hardware companies - but all top creators of the newest software surely do that, not just Microsoft. Yet nearly everyone else to my knowledge puts out products that people can use to the full more or less immediately, not after 2 years. Even Crysis should, apparently, run 'okay' on my year-old set up. It won't look like Wolfenstein 3D for example.

People complain every time MS bring out a sim that's too far 'ahead of its time' (though as I argued before, much that's new in FSX could and was available partially with add-ons in FS9 - cars etc, better VCs, models, sound etc). FSX is just too heavy, too packed with detailed stuff to be crunched. By the time the product is running satisfactorily for most people and freeware/payware developers are really pumping out stuff that use all the features because, finally, people are able to run it and so buy it the new sim is out, again, light years ahead. It appears that the customers needs, but also developers needs are secondary. However, with FS9 being more than adequate for most people's needs, just like XP...people are not so willing to plunge their cash into the newest sim any more. Which is a big shame - if it were more accessible to the average guy, more people would buy it, more people would benefit, MS would have more money.

The argument that MS needs to give us something so far advanced which a lot of people won't buy due to its inaccessibility just doesn't seem to be valid. Putting out a 'watered down' version of the state of the art, which people can get the most out of now doesn't prevent MS from cooperating with the hardware companies and the military and pushing the boundaries forward - it will bring them more immediate sales from FS and more satisfied customers with which to fund that development.

You can talk about the economic realities, necessities in the industry etc as much as you want - the great big mutual interplay of business interests to keep on making us upgrade and give them profits, keep the giants alive - which in the end benefits us as we get still better and better sims/games - but for the consumer the fundamental fact remains: I and many others wanted to buy FSX when it came out, but couldn't because it was much too demanding. So I didn't. This is apparently my fault, not theirs, but the fact remains that they didn't get my money. Yes, Aces were left in the lurch by outside factors...the hardware not keeping up. Well, they could have delayed and optimised for the current market.

Now I have FSX and they have my money, but I can't afford to upgrade further, and the stuff I need to upgrade to max quality still doesn't exist and won't be affordable for at least a year - so I'm still using FS9 most of the time. And when I get what I need, finally, FSX1 will be out. For the average guy, the system is clearly not advantageous. And by not maximising immediate returns, I cannot see how it benefits MS either. They can develop 10 years ahead if they want, but that's their business - they don't have to release the fruits of their labours now. And maximising sales will help them do that development.

Basically, Nick as I said....you are never going to understand this version of 'reality' i.e. for ordinary people, as you have some kind of background in the industry, and can afford the new technology when it comes out, and enjoy working with it. You don't want to be held back by the majority who can't just run out and buy a quad core when it's released... The majority can just 'suck it up' and accept the 'reality' that things will never and can't be different - their wishes not only will be ignored, but absolutely SHOULD be ignored by MS. We are supposed to find this normal, in fact, desirable. It's good for us. We should want to buy stuff that we can't use fully till later. It's fun! And those with money for instant upgrades can enjoy it the soonest, and the most, naturally!

[Groundbound1]

[Brett_Henderson]

This thread seems to lend itself well to airing out our thoughts, and lord knows I like babble, analogize (is that a word?) and rationalize...

There's no way for me to follow this conversation without touching ecomonic hot-buttons, so I won't even try to be subtle.

Krigl points out that this is a hobby.. and it is. And part of computer-gaming as a hobby, is the constant upgrading of hardware. I think we're starting to make a mountain out of a mole-hill about the hardware requirements for FSX. Yes, it's the biggest leap yet, but every leap cannot be the same. I think simmers have gotten used to the lesser leaps from FS7-FS8-FS9.. Quite literally a single step could be made in that chain, with very minimal expenditure....

[Fly2e]

Great thread and thanks for keeping it on topic.

[NickN]

I have tried to explain it

Brett has tried to explain it

Mobius has tried to explain it


What we need here is Bill Leaming because he is in the MSFS programming business and if anyone here can put it to rest, he can.



Your logic is completely off base Krigl because you do not understand the ins and outs of what the title is required to do in code in order to provide you with a upgraded SIMULATION from FS9

Crysis and ANY other game can NOT BE compared to FSX. Those -games- use maps which are very limited in size whereby the CPU/GPU is NOT CALCULATING a SIMULATION in 150NM radius AND modeling the entire world. It is localized to the player. NO game example can be used to compare FSX... which is where too many people go way off base thinking its MS forcing you to upgrade because of their methods. I dont care WHO writes the title, if you want a SIM that does what FSX does, you are buying the hardware to do it.


It is NOT POSSIBLE to do what FSX does and not be required to upgrade to top shelf hardware, several times over a period of years.


on top of that, you are making statements like "Crysis should apparently run OK on my 3D setup...." and using that to make a point. Have you run the title? Have you run it on full settings? If not, using that as an example in this discussion is mute and has absolutely no truth factor in it. When you get the title and crank up the settings like you wish FSX to run, and, it works perfect at 30-40FPS, let me know.

The last I heard on the latest betas they were getting 25-30 with resticted settings on GTX cards

[Groundbound1]

It's my feeling, that the term "state-of-the-art" is key here. When it was released, FS9 COULD run on a current-to-the-time, state-of-the-art pc, with all the settings topped out, and the select few that could afford the upper crust technology of the day, were able to see ALL the visual splendor that version of the sim had to offer.

Now keeping in mind that I'm still in the stone age (technologically speaking), so I really DON'T know, but is this even possible with FSX? I'm not talking about running FSX with a happy compromise between performance and quality, I mean running it TRUELY maxxed out.

I'd also be curious to see the system specs of the machines used to create FSX.

[NickN]

It's my feeling, that the term "state-of-the-art" is key here. When it was released, FS9 COULD run on a current-to-the-time, state-of-the-art pc, with all the settings topped out, and the select few that could afford the upper crust technology of the day, were able to see ALL the visual splendor that version of the sim had to offer.

not true

unless you are talking about a lab system with hardware which was experimental and not available to the GP

It took 1.5-2 years to bring top-shelf expensive hardware to market that would run FS9, major add-ons and all the settings/config file tweaks cranked wide open and run it smooth

[Brett_Henderson]

[quote]FS9 COULD run on a current-to-the-time, state-of-the-art pc, with all the settings topped out, and the select few that could afford the upper crust technology of the day, were able to see ALL the visual splendor that version of the sim had to offer.

[NickN]

I want to launch myself in a rocket into orbit but I don

[Solid]

krigl, you are so right because your argument is realistic with the majority of "normal" simmers....How would you like to see a car manufacturer advertise a car that will be great, the day that gasoline has 75,000 octane!!!! costs
.39 cents and will be on the pumps in about 3 years!!!!!!!...... ----- ------Now if you own your own refinary and have discovered how to make that octane-----have so much money that you don

[Brett_Henderson]

All I can say  (that last post was too bizarre to sort through), is that I'm getting the best sim experience for money out of FSX, than any of the previous sims.. The expenditures, over all these year, aren't all that different, but the simming IS that much better  

[Groundbound1]

It's my feeling, that the term "state-of-the-art" is key here. When it was released, FS9 COULD run on a current-to-the-time, state-of-the-art pc, with all the settings topped out, and the select few that could afford the upper crust technology of the day, were able to see ALL the visual splendor that version of the sim had to offer.

not true

unless you are talking about a lab system with hardware which was experimental and not available to the GP

It took 1.5-2 years to bring top-shelf expensive hardware to market that would run FS9, major add-ons and all the settings/config file tweaks cranked wide open and run it smooth

System specs of a then high-end pc (2002-2003)
(an Anandtech testbed in 2003)

AMD Athlon XP 2800+ (2.25GHz)
Motherboard ASUS A7N8X - NVIDIA nForce2 Chipset
Intel D875PBZ - Intel 875P Chipset
RAM 2 x 256MB DDR400 CAS2 Corsair XMS3200 DIMM

[NickN]

It's my feeling, that the term "state-of-the-art" is key here. When it was released, FS9 COULD run on a current-to-the-time, state-of-the-art pc, with all the settings topped out, and the select few that could afford the upper crust technology of the day, were able to see ALL the visual splendor that version of the sim had to offer.

not true

unless you are talking about a lab system with hardware which was experimental and not available to the GP

It took 1.5-2 years to bring top-shelf expensive hardware to market that would run FS9, major add-ons and all the settings/config file tweaks cranked wide open and run it smooth

System specs of a then high-end pc (2002-2003)
(an Anandtech testbed in 2003)

AMD Athlon XP 2800+ (2.25GHz)
Motherboard ASUS A7N8X - NVIDIA nForce2 Chipset
Intel D875PBZ - Intel 875P Chipset
RAM 2 x 256MB DDR400 CAS2 Corsair XMS3200 DIMM