56 replies to this topic

[Independence76]

The_Grinch, on Dec 23 2010, 01:28 PM, said:

I'd like a mission/money feature.

Do this mission -> earn money -> spend money on new aircraft / aircraft upgrades.

no.


They started doing that with racing games in the early 2000's, which turned out to be a pain in the (and they still use it today). Instead of simply unlocking a car (much more fun), they make it so you have to unlock it, then buy it. Fun goes downhill.

Edited by Independence76, 04 January 2011 - 05:30 PM.

[jetblast787]

erugh, it'll probably take a good few years before the major aircraft developers *cough* PMDG */cough* get moving on making their aircraft compatible with flight so I think there should be a backward compatibility

[slik]

Mrs_Claus, on Jan 5 2011, 02:36 AM, said:

erugh, it'll probably take a good few years before the major aircraft developers *cough* PMDG */cough* get moving on making their aircraft compatible with flight so I think there should be a backward compatibility

Backward compatibility is the reason that FSX still uses an age-old engine and runs like cr*p on modern PCs. It will be a bit of a sacrifice, but we need to move on to a newer engine. It will take time for addons to migrate, but it'll be worth it.

[Romario_]

Rudolph-411, on Dec 23 2010, 08:25 PM, said:

That's what got us into our current performance mess with FSX. If we want better performance, it means leaving behind the old engine.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't mind at all if there was no backwards compatibility with past addons, as long as performance was greatly improved.

I understand about performance, but imagine something like the PMDG NGX, needing to be Re-Made to be compatible with MS Flight.  

About performance, I think you will still need a pretty fast computer (+3.5GHz) to fun MS Flight, but I think stability is the biggest thing MS is trying to tackle now.

Edited by Romario_, 05 January 2011 - 09:49 AM.

[-Dexter]

Independence76, on Jan 4 2011, 05:23 PM, said:

no.
They started doing that with racing games in the early 2000's, which turned out to be a pain in the (and they still use it today). Instead of simply unlocking a car (much more fun), they make it so you have to unlock it, then buy it. Fun goes downhill.

In FSX now, what is the outcome of doing a mission? A little badge? A tiny 'certificate'? What's the point?

It would give users a reason to do long flights or difficult missions.

But I see what you're saying. Most users will want to set up their own flightplan and fly their favorite jet rather than having to unlock it.

[-SE-]

why make the game/sim compatible with the old addons, why not just make the old addons compatible with the game/sim?

Edited by Ghost993, 05 January 2011 - 02:25 PM.

[-Dexter]

Ghost993, on Jan 5 2011, 02:24 PM, said:

why make the game/sim compatible with the old addons, why not just make the old addons compatible with the game/sim?

A lot of older addons are no longer being supported by developers, but are still used in FS.

[-SE-]

-Dexter, on Jan 5 2011, 09:31 PM, said:

A lot of older addons are no longer being supported by developers, but are still used in FS.

i ment that you can make it compatible, i have seen people making the FS2004 PMDG 737 compatible with FSX even though its not from the beginning.

[Independence76]

-Dexter, on Jan 5 2011, 11:02 AM, said:

In FSX now, what is the outcome of doing a mission? A little badge? A tiny 'certificate'? What's the point?

It would give users a reason to do long flights or difficult missions.

But I see what you're saying. Most users will want to set up their own flightplan and fly their favorite jet rather than having to unlock it.

The point? Fun!

That is the point and basis of all video games. And for us, flight simulators are fun, which is why we buy them.  

Edited by Independence76, 05 January 2011 - 05:37 PM.

[_NW_]

Ghost993, on Jan 5 2011, 04:31 PM, said:

i ment that you can make it compatible, i have seen people making the FS2004 PMDG 737 compatible with FSX even though its not from the beginning.

And what pwn (Dexter) is saying is you can not update models if you do not have the source files, and many design groups that have made products (like ifdg, posky, dreamwings) will never update their models to be compatible with future versions of FS because they aren't around anymore...   FSX uses a similar structure that recognizes older .mdl's which is why all FS9 aircraft can work in FSX...  but if MS Flight uses a new engine, then unless it supports older .mdl's then older airplanes made by defunct design groups won't work...   unless they released the source files.

[-Dexter]

DingoAteMyBaby, on Jan 5 2011, 05:38 PM, said:

And what pwn (Dexter) is saying is you can not update models if you do not have the source files, and many design groups that have made products (like ifdg, posky, dreamwings) will never update their models to be compatible with future versions of FS because they aren't around anymore...   FSX uses a similar structure that recognizes older .mdl's which is why all FS9 aircraft can work in FSX...  but if MS Flight uses a new engine, then unless it supports older .mdl's then older airplanes made by defunct design groups won't work...   unless they released the source files.

Also, most developers want to sell both an FS9 and FSX version of their product. A lot of the time, though, developers rebuild their addon from the ground up to be compatible with FSX. And you are right: The reason we're able to use FS8 aircraft in FS9, and FS9 aircraft in FSX is because the way the game engine uses the files hasn't changed.

Edited by -Dexter, 05 January 2011 - 05:53 PM.

[Peter797]

Mohammad, on Dec 26 2010, 03:07 AM, said:

We're that desperate, aren't we?

To be honest dude yes. Seeing how games are nowadays, I don't see why great environment and performance are so hard to achieve. And as everyone said, they never gave it a go for a new engine.


Also, the plane only does part of the work. The actual experience of flight, meaning environment, wind, the frosty feeling if it's winter. The warm yellowish look if it's hot etc. Atmosphere and environment + scenery, is what makes FLYING a hobby.

[-SE-]

DingoAteMyBaby, on Jan 5 2011, 11:38 PM, said:

And what pwn (Dexter) is saying is you can not update models if you do not have the source files, and many design groups that have made products (like ifdg, posky, dreamwings) will never update their models to be compatible with future versions of FS because they aren't around anymore...   FSX uses a similar structure that recognizes older .mdl's which is why all FS9 aircraft can work in FSX...  but if MS Flight uses a new engine, then unless it supports older .mdl's then older airplanes made by defunct design groups won't work...   unless they released the source files.

ah, thanks for clearing it up for me.

[anthonyrm1]

I have never used FSX because, despite having a pretty good computer, I am not prepared to drop to below 20fps and still have the quality of add-ons that I like. For me the scenery etc is very important, and I would rather have an older game (FS9) that runs nicely and looks ok with add-ons than have a newer game that I have to use the default stuff with limited settings to enable me to fly without stuttering. For that reason I think improved performance is crucial to this new game, and will definitely make me more interested in moving on from my FS9 days.

Other things that might sway it are: Better overcast conditions- I fly mostly from the UK using weather that I am used to seeing- and overcast conditions are never fully overcast, even with add-ons.

I would also like to see some sort of traffic separation- that would be perfect for me, where you are handled like the rest of the AI aircraft and separated appropriately to be able to land at an airport and not have to go around, or watch 3/4 aircraft all performing simultaneous go-arounds. Perhaps the game having that built-in would sell it for me, or even allowing scope for a developer to create an add-on that will do it. Thats my ideal!!

[dubuque]

if it could run on lower end systems so we won't have to upgrade to play it

[Fate01_VUSAFS]

dubuque, on Feb 13 2011, 09:23 PM, said:

if it could run on lower end systems so we won't have to upgrade to play it

Doubtful. Every time Microsoft releases a flight sim, it seems they want us to upgrade.

[_NW_]

Fate01_VUSAFS, on Feb 13 2011, 10:34 PM, said:

Doubtful. Every time Microsoft releases a flight sim, it seems they want us to upgrade.

Games generally precedes new hardware

[-Dexter]

nwilkinson, on Feb 14 2011, 12:42 AM, said:

Games generally precedes new hardware

I'd like to know what kind of hardware Microsoft is using then when they test their 'maximum' settings.

[_NW_]

-Dexter, on Apr 9 2011, 12:54 PM, said:

I'd like to know what kind of hardware Microsoft is using then when they test their 'maximum' settings.

Do they even test that?

[-Dexter]

nwilkinson, on Apr 9 2011, 01:59 PM, said:

Do they even test that?

Would a developer package high resolution textures and code high quality shadows and clouds and never see if they work?