82 replies to this topic

[LynxZF7]

If Microsoft makes a simulator with only one aircraft; since we all just buy addon ones of the aircraft we like. If it has proper airports, and a quality flying environment (weather, land, water, mountains, hills and cities), which I won't need addons for because it will be good enough; all on a stable platform.

Yes I will buy it if: I can buy my self an addon aircraft and not have to spend anymore money - and not spend time fixing, but flying.

Even if it costs a lot but it is worth it.

But until it is released and some time passes - it is FS9.

Edited by LynxZF7, 09 November 2010 - 02:50 PM.

[ALPHA_FOXTROT_10]

No doubt, if i have to spend away my money for scenery such as ultimate terrain and REX type software for the sim to have great eye candy, definately not going to buy FLIGHT.

The only things i'm willing on purchasing for this sim is some good ai traffic and some hardware for my computer.

We're in the era where dx11 and dx10 are fully compatible so i will be disappointed if that function won't be enabled to perfection with this upcoming sim.

[BrandonF]

Daube, on Nov 8 2010, 03:18 PM, said:

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

What about us?!  

Maybe it's not very clear, but us freeware developers put hours into our add-ons and what do we get in return? Nothing but a thank you. We are willing to take our own time, make something, and release it without getting any money. We enjoy what we do. There are some amazing add-ons out there that are free. These models have features that could never have been included in an FS9 model. So, the FSX SDK does have some improvements that allow us to make some great add-ons.

[Mohammad]

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.

Well he sure has a good way of showing it, coughing up blood and all.

Quote

Finally, saying that FSX is badly coded is very easy for those who don't have any idea about what "coding a simulator" is.

Oh please.

Look, I appreciate that you're a programmer and you know more than some of us do. So while I'm humbled by what you know that I don't know, I think it's safe to say even a monkey would figure out that FSX wasn't made properly. It's basically next to junk. Call it bad coding, call it bad development, and it basically means the same thing: it's crap.

So many people lost their hard-earned money on a computer that beats up pretty much every obstacle you set forth in front of it but ends up vomiting blood when trying to run FSX. It's the most chaotic software to be ever devised.

If I was a mean old professor examining a group of university students in a software/computer engineering course, I'll probably use FSX as an open-book, one-question examination and ask them to come up with a solution for it.

[Gym_Class_Hero]

Mohammad, on Nov 10 2010, 01:10 PM, said:

Well he sure has a good way of showing it, coughing up blood and all.
Oh please.

Look, I appreciate that you're a programmer and you know more than some of us do. So while I'm humbled by what you know that I don't know, I think it's safe to say even a monkey would figure out that FSX wasn't made properly. It's basically next to junk. Call it bad coding, call it bad development, and it basically means the same thing: it's crap.

So many people lost their hard-earned money on a computer that beats up pretty much every obstacle you set forth in front of it but ends up vomiting blood when trying to run FSX. It's the most chaotic software to be ever devised.

If I was a mean old professor examining a group of university students in a software/computer engineering course, I'll probably use FSX as an open-book, one-question examination and ask them to come up with a solution for it.

Mean old professor?

I just spent the last 3 days with random texture disappearing problems, now I got it fixed (At least I think so)

[Daube]

Hughes-MDflyer4, on Nov 9 2010, 10:30 PM, said:

What about us?!  

Don't get me wrong, my remark was sarcasm! Like if Pnw297 knew more than the freeware developpers themselves, you know...

Mohammad, on Nov 10 2010, 02:40 AM, said:

Oh please.

Look, I appreciate that you're a programmer and you know more than some of us do. So while I'm humbled by what you know that I don't know, I think it's safe to say even a monkey would figure out that FSX wasn't made properly. It's basically next to junk. Call it bad coding, call it bad development, and it basically means the same thing: it's crap.

Quite a "binary" vision you have here.
Either it's good, or it's crap. Nothing in between.

[Gym_Class_Hero]

Daube, on Nov 10 2010, 05:44 PM, said:

Don't get me wrong, my remark was sarcasm! Like if Pnw297 knew more than the freeware developpers themselves, you know...

Well, he seems to know that FSX doesn't use all the core properly, which's something more than you developers who're "I know it alls" seem to know

[Daube]

What are you talking about ?

[-Dexter]

What is he talking about? The question is: What are you talking about?

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.

False. AMD's new six-core processor is not utilized to it's potential in FSX. This is proven.

Quote

Finally, saying that FSX is badly coded is very easy for those who don't have any idea about what "coding a simulator" is.

ARMA II is a military operations simulator. Seems to utilize my processor correctly and runs smoother than FSX has ever run. I am not a programmer by any means, but I can surely open up the task manager and see if an application is using my hardware. It doesn't take a programmer to do that.

Quote

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.

The history of FS has been good. FS2004 was a smash-hit. Developers flocked to FS2004 and it is still, today, almost seven years later the pinnacle of flight simulators. FSX is where the hit the fan.

[Gym_Class_Hero]

pwn247, on Nov 10 2010, 08:07 PM, said:

False. AMD's new six-core processor is not utilized to it's potential in FSX. This is proven.

Excluding everything, if it could just use ALL 6 cores properly and efficiently, I bet I would be getting over 60FPS at EDDF whereas I'm getting 30FPS now with it using Core 0 to the max, and the others are used seldom.

In HD Video rendering, my processor is even faster than the i7's at times IIRC (if not very close), yet it's not near as close for FS.  I can do A LOT with these 6 cores, FSX doesn't use it.

Yea, I can't believe it's been 7 years since FS9 was out


You could've had a baby when it was released and it would be able to play it
/random thought

Edited by ___, 10 November 2010 - 10:04 AM.

[Daube]

pwn247, on Nov 10 2010, 09:37 AM, said:

What is he talking about? The question is: What are you talking about?

Quote

False. AMD's new six-core processor is not utilized to it's potential in FSX. This is proven.

Proven ? Where ? Show me some pictures were we can clearly see a 6 cores AMD CPU with only two active cores with FSX SP2.
I have an i7, there are only 4 cores, but all of them are active when I'm flying.

Quote

ARMA II is a military operations simulator. Seems to utilize my processor correctly and runs smoother than FSX has ever run. I am not a programmer by any means, but I can surely open up the task manager and see if an application is using my hardware. It doesn't take a programmer to do that.

Are you really trying to compare FSX and ArmaII ?
ArmaII planes have no physics, no avionics, almost no gauges, they are almost more simplified than Ace Combat planes. The terrain looks good for sure, but the map size is more than limited, and pushing the view distance to more than 5 kms will simply KILL any computer.
Please try to make serious comparisons. FSX should be compared to XPlane 9, which has the same complexity and problematics.

Quote

The history of FS has been good. FS2004 was a smash-hit. Developers flocked to FS2004 and it is still, today, almost seven years later the pinnacle of flight simulators. FSX is where the hit the fan.

In YOUR opinion only.
FS9 is not able to offer the same experience than flying an Accusim plane over a FTX scenery for example.
FS9 is not able either to provide the experience that VRS TacPac will provide.
(EDIT: Hmm I'll have to check that one...)
FS9 will never offer any scenery comparable to addons like Switzerland Pro and that's only one of the examples.
Sure, FS9 offers more FPS for flying a big liner into a big crowed airport. That's pretty much all.
So please, if you want to compare, please use REAL facts and serious examples.

___, on Nov 10 2010, 09:57 AM, said:

Excluding everything, if it could just use ALL 6 cores properly and efficiently, I bet I would be getting over 60FPS at EDDF whereas I'm getting 30FPS now with it using Core 0 to the max, and the others are used seldom.

Not in the way FSX uses the cores.
The game/graphic engine itself runs only on the first core.
The other cores (ALL of them) are used only for building the terrain.
So in the end, you will get more or less the same FPS with a Dual core at 3GHz than on a multi-core at 3GHz. The number of cores will only make the loading times faster, the terrain crisper at higher speed, and the flight smoother.

Edited by Daube, 10 November 2010 - 11:08 AM.

[Gym_Class_Hero]

Daube, on Nov 10 2010, 09:33 PM, said:

Proven ? Where ? Show me some pictures were we can clearly see a 6 cores AMD CPU with only two active cores with FSX SP2.

[Daube]

This picture shows that the 6 cores are ALL working during the flight.
I've already explained that the first core will be more used than the others because this is where the game engine is running.
FSX doesn't use all the cores to their max potential ? TRUE.
FSX doesn't use all the cores at all ? FALSE.
"FSX barely uses 2 cores" ? RIDICULOUS.
Do you need more details or is it finally clear enough for you ?

Edited by Daube, 10 November 2010 - 11:13 AM.

[Gym_Class_Hero]

Daube, on Nov 10 2010, 09:41 PM, said:

This picture shows that the 6 cores are ALL working during the flight.
I've already explained that the first core will be more used than the others because this is where the game engine is running.
FSX doesn't use all the cores to their max potential ? TRUE.
FSX doesn't use all the cores at all ? FALSE.
"FSX barely uses 2 cores" ? RIDICULOUS.
Do you need more details or is it finally clear enough for you ?

Well that's the whole point, Core 0 to 100% and the rest at idle-25%, not as useful as it could be .

Edited by ___, 10 November 2010 - 11:25 AM.

[Daube]

I absolutely agree with you.
However:
- my initial remark was about Pnw247 stating that FSX barely use 2 cores, which is wrong.
- fly over a more complex scenery like Swiss Pro or a FTX region, and you'll see the core activities will be much higher. On the above shot we only have default scenery (with a lot of autogen, of course, but sill less complex than nowadays sceneries).

Edited by Daube, 10 November 2010 - 11:44 AM.

[-Dexter]

Daube, on Nov 10 2010, 11:43 AM, said:

- fly over a more complex scenery like Swiss Pro or a FTX region, and you'll see the core activities will be much higher. On the above shot we only have default scenery (with a lot of autogen, of course, but sill less complex than nowadays sceneries).

Show me. Addon scenery won't magically change the FSX engine.

[Gym_Class_Hero]

Daube, on Nov 10 2010, 10:13 PM, said:

- fly over a more complex scenery like Swiss Pro or a FTX region, and you'll see the core activities will be much higher. On the above shot we only have default scenery (with a lot of autogen, of course, but sill less complex than nowadays sceneries).

The same, FSX will use all the processors when loading the flight and in short bursts over what seem to be quite regular intervals.

[-Dexter]

^ As noted, only 25% of the CPU is being utilized.

[Mohammad]

___, on Nov 10 2010, 11:24 AM, said:

Well that's the whole point

Exactly, lol. I didn't think I was talking to a lawyer.

[MikeMann]

pwn247, on Nov 10 2010, 09:15 AM, said:

^ As noted, only 25% of the CPU is being utilized.

Actually that is pretty clever of Microsoft to humanize their simulator. It seems like many people are not using the full potential of their brains which is simulated (we are talking about a simulator here) in FSX.

So how does the above observation relate to the original post of "Are you planning on buying?"

It is about as relative as most of the other posts I have read here lately!