82 replies to this topic

[BrandonF]

 pieterjan456, on Sep 14 2010, 12:04 AM, said:

I don't think that I will buy it if it comes out. It depends on how much money I have to buy myself a new pc to use it. Right now I still stick to FS2004, which isn't bad. I just need my money for other things (studys) now.

Why say "if it comes out?" Should be "When it comes out."  

[franz]

Of course I'll buy it...regardless!!Let's hope it's more stable and without stutter. As far as the simulation is concerned, I couldn't care less. Actually I'd love for MS to concentrate on the planet scenery/effects/weather only because we (as a majority) always fly third party addons anyway!
So lets' have a beautiful looking planet with realistic weather, fotores clouds that casts shadow, real rain, lakes, rivers and mountain placed where they belong...and than we'll only have to buy:
1) Airport sceneries
2) Cities
2) Planes

...everything else should be pretty much spot-on out of the box, including platform support for online fliyng and so forth...

Regards

[AirFranceSST]

Hello FSW, well I pop in here once in a while now.

Anyway MSF is the last hope for a good simulator... and revival/continuation of the flight simulation genre.

FSX has always been a pain for me to run...
Luckily, technology is getting faster and cheaper so it should be possible to run it better.
If I have left over grant/federal money i'll use it to buy a new rig, not only for studies but for MSFS or MSF.

I have my new rig planned out already but I'd rather wait to see what the system requirements will be to MSF.
Deciding to buy MSF will be if it's based on "realism", forget "Arcade" games like everyone has said.
If I don't get MSF I'll just concentrate on upgrading to an FSX Hardcore rig.

If I want to play Arcade games Microsoft, I have my PS2 to play "Ace Combat" thank you.

I'm getting tired of FS9 to be honest and want to switch over to FSX, but I don't see much development like FS9 has received.
Much of my favorite addons are missing for FSX.

We'll have to wait and see.

Edited by AirFranceSST, 23 September 2010 - 01:40 AM.

[Mohammad]

^Don't worry, you'll get your simulator. MSF isn't going to be arcade, although I personally couldn't care less. To me it was all about open-world, sandbox gaming. Flying from country to country, which was a concept no other game had. It was never about flight dynamics or physics to me but anyway, don't worry cause you're getting your wish. I just hope it's not a performance nightmare to run like FSX.

[CanadianPenguin]

No.

I switched to Linux a while back and I refuse to get anything branded "Microsoft" anymore. Too many bad experiences with them. Since FSX was rushed out/unfinished and they canned the original development team, I wouldn't have gotten it anyway.

Edited by CanadianPenguin, 30 September 2010 - 09:32 PM.

[BrandonF]

 AirFranceSST, on Sep 22 2010, 11:38 PM, said:

I'm getting tired of FS9 to be honest and want to switch over to FSX, but I don't see much development like FS9 has received.
Much of my favorite addons are missing for FSX.

We'll have to wait and see.

It took time for developers to get used to FSX and discover the advantages. The numbers of add-ons are finally growing. Payware companies are releasing unbelievable add-ons. It just takes time.

[Peter797]

I'll get Xplane 10 first lol, since it'll be out first. if I fall in love I'll stick to it

[flightsimgame]

 Daube, on Aug 30 2010, 07:44 AM, said:

It's too early to decide of course. I'll decide when it's out.
If it's a sim, and if I like the features, I'll probably buy it.
If it's a stupid arcade game, I won't buy it, no matter the features.

Don't we all...LOL

[ALPHA_FOXTROT_10]

 franz, on Sep 19 2010, 05:34 AM, said:

Of course I'll buy it...regardless!!Let's hope it's more stable and without stutter. As far as the simulation is concerned, I couldn't care less. Actually I'd love for MS to concentrate on the planet scenery/effects/weather only because we (as a majority) always fly third party addons anyway!
So lets' have a beautiful looking planet with realistic weather, fotores clouds that casts shadow, real rain, lakes, rivers and mountain placed where they belong...and than we'll only have to buy:
1) Airport sceneries
2) Cities
2) Planes

...everything else should be pretty much spot-on out of the box, including platform support for online fliyng and so forth...

Regards

Yeah i totally agree, the whole world in the box. Detailed airports cities and weather, no more paying for addons that can cost more than the simulator itself.  

[-Dexter]

 Hughes-MDflyer4, on Sep 30 2010, 11:52 PM, said:

It took time for developers to get used to FSX and discover the advantages. The numbers of add-ons are finally growing. Payware companies are releasing unbelievable add-ons. It just takes time.

Oh please.

I am on a computer from 2006. It has four processor cores. Quad-cores were not uncommon in 2006.

FSX also came out in 2006. It barely uses two processor cores.

It is clear that FSX was badly coded. It uses an outdated and unreliable engine that needs to be replaced: hopefully with Microsoft Flight.

[BrandonF]

 pwn247, on Nov 5 2010, 04:37 AM, said:

Oh please.

I am on a computer from 2006. It has four processor cores. Quad-cores were not uncommon in 2006.

FSX also came out in 2006. It barely uses two processor cores.

It is clear that FSX was badly coded. It uses an outdated and unreliable engine that needs to be replaced: hopefully with Microsoft Flight.

How in the world do aircraft add-ons have to do with this?! I'm saying that there were some new features with the  FSX GMax/3Ds SDK which did not make modeling much easier. It has taken developers a while to get used to the new features. While there are some downsides to the FSX modeling SDK, there are also some advantages.

[-Dexter]

 Hughes-MDflyer4, on Nov 5 2010, 09:28 AM, said:

How in the world do aircraft add-ons have to do with this?! I'm saying that there were some new features with the  FSX GMax/3Ds SDK which did not make modeling much easier. It has taken developers a while to get used to the new features. While there are some downsides to the FSX modeling SDK, there are also some advantages.

Developers have been modeling in Gmax since FS2002, the FSX SDK isn't drastically different from the previous versions.

[MikeMann]

 pwn247, on Nov 5 2010, 08:19 AM, said:

Developers have been modeling in Gmax since FS2002, the FSX SDK isn't drastically different from the previous versions.

I take it you are not a developer. If you were you would not be making such a statement. I suggest you view some of the posts at FSDeveloper and the myriad of problems related to moving from FS2004 to FSX!

[BrandonF]

I myself am a developer, and I know that there are even quite a bit of changes from the FS2004 to FSX SDKs.

[Gym_Class_Hero]

Didn't MS leave the developers in the dust with FSX or something?  Left them to figure everything out on their own.

[Daube]

 pwn247, on Nov 5 2010, 06:37 AM, said:

Oh please.

I am on a computer from 2006. It has four processor cores. Quad-cores were not uncommon in 2006.

FSX also came out in 2006. It barely uses two processor cores.

It is clear that FSX was badly coded. It uses an outdated and unreliable engine that needs to be replaced: hopefully with Microsoft Flight.

Quad-cores were not uncommon in 2006 ? Really ? From what I remember, on the forums in 2006 80% of the user still had simple Pentium IV mono core CPUs, and the rest just had "upgraded" to Dual cores.

Also, FSX "barely" use two cores ? please... you know FSX uses all the cores he can.
Finally, saying that FSX is badly coded is very easy for those who don't have any idea about what "coding a simulator" is. Of course the coding of FSX is kind of outdated, but considering the history of FS and the constraints involved by its features, I would say it's that bad at all.

But of course, I'm just a programmer, I will never have the same "precise and objective" vision the Crysis users have...

 pwn247, on Nov 5 2010, 10:19 AM, said:

Developers have been modeling in Gmax since FS2002, the FSX SDK isn't drastically different from the previous versions.

You should inform the people who create addons for FSX, because it seems that they are unaware of this. They are such ignorants...

Edited by Daube, 08 November 2010 - 05:20 PM.

[-Dexter]

 Daube, on Nov 8 2010, 05:18 PM, said:

Also, FSX "barely" use two cores ? please... you know FSX uses all the cores he can.

I beg to differ.

[TopDollar]

 pwn247, on Nov 8 2010, 05:23 PM, said:

I beg to differ.

Unfortunately for you, facts are not up for debate.

[-Dexter]

 TopDollar, on Nov 8 2010, 05:29 PM, said:

Unfortunately for you, facts are not up for debate.

Thus the "I" part. I beg to differ.

I have never had FSX use my four cores. It always just sucks on the two cores and "herp derp" wonder why it's not performing so great.

[Fate01_VUSAFS]

[offtopic]
Love how the term "ignorant" has been flying around lately
[/offtopic]