GAME OVER for detailed airport ground ? UPDATE 5

[Awol]

True: I understand and sympathize with you, db, and this is what will extend the life of FS9. Nevertheless it still holds true that as "new and better" comes along the "old or obsolescent" will slowly disappear - just like your favorite car. These memories slowly fade. People talk about :"the good old days" all the time: in reality they weren't the good old days; they were days just like today. We "couldn't afford to upgrade" for FS2000, for FS98, for XP. Upgrading is change - like a new car, house, town, school, job. It's an in-built resistance to change which we have, and moving to FSX is one such similar case: if you become so motivated - you will find a way to upgrade.

In my experience, db - flyers are the greatest dreamers; their heads are always in the clouds; we don't give up flying easily; we may back off for a while but the dreams always bring us back.

Hang in there. Sooner or later you will get what you're now missing, and if Martin and George build it - we will all come.

I'm glad you're happy with FSX now, but what you say is not true for all. I won't be going there for a long time, if ever. True, there are some things that I really like, such as the multiple visiblity layers, flight models, boat and car traffic, camera views. But those are overshadowed by the extreme amount of horsepower needed to run it. And I refuse to run it without autogen, when FS9 works superbly well with at max.

I'm also greatly disappointed in the ground textures. I hate the spotted transitions, it just kills it for me. And also the "cookie dough" desert stuff. The latter can probably be fixed (read more money), the former probably can't.

And I am not planning on buying just out of principle. I think MS made this very much more of a hog than was necessary. The autogen is working beautifully in FS9, but absolutely nukes the sim in X. People seem so willing to accept the status quo and never question why. I don't think it too unreasonable to be able to run with the same level of detail as FS9, but you can't. I think MS pushed the thing through and didn't really take enough time to optimize the code. Therefore what we are stuck with is a bloated monster.

So I am more than content to stay with FS9. It gives me the quality of visuals that rival FSX in many ways, without having to spend a fortune to "upgrade" for one game.

[paavo]

True: I understand and sympathize with you, db, and this is what will extend the life of FS9. Nevertheless it still holds true that as "new and better" comes along the "old or obsolescent" will slowly disappear - just like your favorite car. These memories slowly fade. People talk about :"the good old days" all the time: in reality they weren't the good old days; they were days just like today. We "couldn't afford to upgrade" for FS2000, for FS98, for XP. Upgrading is change - like a new car, house, town, school, job. It's an in-built resistance to change which we have, and moving to FSX is one such similar case: if you become so motivated - you will find a way to upgrade.

In my experience, db - flyers are the greatest dreamers; their heads are always in the clouds; we don't give up flying easily; we may back off for a while but the dreams always bring us back.

Hang in there. Sooner or later you will get what you're now missing, and if Martin and George build it - we will all come.

I'm glad you're happy with FSX now, but what you say is not true for all. I won't be going there for a long time, if ever. True, there are some things that I really like, such as the multiple visiblity layers, flight models, boat and car traffic, camera views. But those are overshadowed by the extreme amount of horsepower needed to run it. And I refuse to run it without autogen, when FS9 works superbly well with at max.

I'm also greatly disappointed in the ground textures. I hate the spotted transitions, it just kills it for me. And also the "cookie dough" desert stuff. The latter can probably be fixed (read more money), the former probably can't.

And I am not planning on buying just out of principle. I think MS made this very much more of a hog than was necessary. The autogen is working beautifully in FS9, but absolutely nukes the sim in X. People seem so willing to accept the status quo and never question why. I don't think it too unreasonable to be able to run with the same level of detail as FS9, but you can't. I think MS pushed the thing through and didn't really take enough time to optimize the code. Therefore what we are stuck with is a bloated monster.

So I am more than content to stay with FS9. It gives me the quality of visuals that rival FSX in many ways, without having to spend a fortune to "upgrade" for one game.

Well said, people seem to forgot or just re write history because fS2000 was the same pile of crap that fsx is. I understand some people can run fsx just fine, and the 1m photoscenery is nice, but they really screwed the devs with this version and that stupid round earth. I still can't figure out the big advantage to the round earth, this is flight sim not space sim.

[deltaboeing84]

Well said. Oh, and sometimes new isnt better. I understand where your coming from and stuff. I prefer a 1969 mustang over a 2007 mustang anyday.

[Paul J]

agreed: the styling of the older Mustang is much more to my liking, too - but the numbers of people - world-wide that would buy the '69 right now - instead of the '08 is likely less than 3000 in todays marketplace. Similarly every pc sold since a few weeks ago is coming out with Vista, but as long as there is support for XP - there are not enough valid reasons for me to switch to it. XP is pretty darned solid - and moderately secure: remove the "enhanced security" from Vista - which you almost have to do because of the aggravation - and you're back to XP!.

Right now for everyone - it IS a case of prioritizing the cost of upgrading vs the cost of other things in one's life and how much disposable income you have. For me the value upgrading has given me in FSX is just superb - I have FULL autogen, and with UT X providing the additional objects, proper coastlines - FABULOUS roads, and ASX for the skyscape - I have no blurries with the ATI card and the whole thing runs between 20 and 50 fps - i.e. it is smooth. This system set me back around $1500 Canadian - so maybe $1300 US, and it has been well worth it, and I would do it again, because I get that much enjoyment out of this hobby. Some folks play golf and spend the same dollars. DUH!

The parameters that are turned off or down are water - 1H, no water traffic about 30% airline, and no GA traffic, no bloom, no ground shadows and that's it. All the rest is max or at the level of detail supported by FSX. But the upshot is - even with a TON of addons FS9 now appears cartoonish. At 18,000 over the Arizona desert I don't care whether it's "all gloppy" and I don't fly low level vfr in those areas anyway - BUT FS9 San Diego/LAX/Chino - the SOCAL area - is a different thing altogether. In FSX EVERY darned building is there - and all the right color and texture, with highways - with cars and trucks - stretching for miles - and that's vfr high or low level. FS9 has none of this. None.

There simply isn't a similar level of detail available anywhere in FS9 and the only area addons that come close are made by one guy - Vauchez and Flight Scenery, and that's only two areas, and the best FS9 airports are made right here by Martin, George and Co!

We had these same arguments with the same comments around each FS version since '86. I guess MS and the hobby lost some folks/customers each time, but when we're talking, nowadays - a global market - one or two lost, a thousand or two thousand lost - it's no big deal to MS and it's already taken into account, because any good sales organization knows you can't please all the people all the time! There are going to be guys who will stick with FS9 until they become bored, and they will then take up golf. There will be developers who don't keep on the cutting edge for whatever reason - and the hobby will lose them too - but someone else will take their place and they will reap the benefit. Life goes on.

I only know that I've been an aviation nut since I was five (in 1950) and will be until the day I die - and it will probably be in my home-built cockpit flying an LIC Christen Eagle over the FlyTampa version 8.4 of KSEA, and in FSXIV on a quad-proc, with 8 cores per proc and 32 gig ram. . . and that rig'll probably set me back $1600 Canadian at that time. . .

[Awol]

Whew, that was a long one But like I said, I'm glad your happy with it. And I'm sure anyone who wants to plunk down a grand or two to run the thing MIGHT be as well. I don't think I would based on the screen shots I've seen and the demo. And I suspect there are many more who feel the same way. Otherwise there still wouldn't be the number of FS9 uploads that there are.

I still feel that MS screwed the pooch on this one, and I really don't feel like running out and buying just because it's there. And it's already on discount.

[skydvdan]

There will be developers who don't keep on the cutting edge for whatever reason - and the hobby will lose them too - but someone else will take their place and they will reap the benefit. Life goes on.

Cutting edge, FSX? I don't think so. When FS has graphics like Crisis then we'll talk.

[paavo]

There will be developers who don't keep on the cutting edge for whatever reason - and the hobby will lose them too - but someone else will take their place and they will reap the benefit. Life goes on.

I suggest you read this thread from start to finish, and learn just how the great airports for FS9 are made. There is nothing cutting edge about the flight sim sdk's, in fact you have to "hack" the sdk's to even make those great fs9 airports. This isn't about dev's not wanting to adopt the new "cutting edge" ( as you call it ), it's about a bloated over patched piece of software with horrible dev tools.
There is nothing cutting edge about fsx, I suggest you check out the Bioshock demo for the best water effect seen to date, and what good bump mapping really looks like.
One last thing, can you please explain to me the big advatage of this round earth stuff.

[Paul J]

Doesn't matter what I (or you) think or say here, Paavo: FSX is here, bloated or not; the existing FSX SDK maybe good or bad: doesn't matter - it will eventually get patched, maybe not to your liking, but "the issue will be managed" by "the FS Team" - I suppose the ACES team. Nonetheless - FS9 is the past, just as 2002, fs98, Windows 3.1, and W95 are in the past. It's entirely about marketing and "the future". Marketing for Vista: marketing for FSX: marketing for the latest technology; for the next generation of procs, the next greatest video card, memory size, mobo bus. We are consumers in a global economy that is growing like wildfire. Yes - I LOVE'd FT KSEA, KSAN and the rest.. but. . I, along with a gazillion others are waiting for - hopefully - FT KSAN, KSFO, along with FS Passengers, Philladelpia, KORD, London, Brussels, the Grand Canyon, you name it - built for FSX - along with all the new and updated aircraft. We're WAITING for it.
It doesn't matter if YOU or I don't like MS's methods or the technology or timelines that they use: It just doesn't matter. They will do what they will do. It's that simple. That's what marketing and sales growth is all about.

FSX? There will always be detractors "bloated code", "can't run FSX on my machine", "only get 10 fps", "I'm going back to FS9" . . . and, my friend - there will always be people who will fully embrace the future - and that's a totally indisputable fact. I've been in IT for over thirty years. Trust me. This FS is a grain of sand for MS: we're lucky GodFather Billy lets us have our toy, year after year despite all the vehemence heaped on it and his head from some of those detractors.

and finally (I hope!) - to quote the Emperor Napoleon:

"The graveyards are full of indispensable men".

pj

[deltaboeing84]

Yep. Put simply, its all about the money, and the fact that people are never satisfied with what they have. When will it stop? Whenever people start to be satisfied with what they have and not worry about when "a better product" will come out. Hell, FS2000 was fun. Think of all the stuff we could have for that if FS9 or FSX hadnt come out. I even bet we would have an Atlanta by now (Besides the Freeware one). My 2 cents.

[paavo]

It doesn't matter if YOU or I don't like MS's methods or the technology or timelines that they use: It just doesn't matter. They will do what they will do. It's that simple. That's what marketing and sales growth is all about.

Trust me. This FS is a grain of sand for MS: we're lucky GodFather Billy lets us have our toy, year after year despite all the vehemence heaped on it and his head from some of those detractors.



pj

That's the sad truth, flight sim is such a niche product it will never attract the talent or the money to make it what it could and should be. You should know with all your IT experience that there is nothing cutting edge about FSX. It's pretty obvious that they are trying to attract new people to flight sim, hence the missions, use of xbox controller, and those fancy tv commercials.
It's not all bad, without FSX we would never have funny stuff like this
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SCBuCzPGPa4



.

[paavo]

Yes - I LOVE'd FT KSEA, KSAN and the rest.. but. . I, along with a gazillion others are waiting for - hopefully - FT KSAN, KSFO, along with FS Passengers, Philladelpia, KORD, London, Brussels, the Grand Canyon, you name it - built for FSX - along with all the new and updated aircraft. We're WAITING for it.
It doesn't matter if YOU or I don't like MS's methods or the technology or timelines that they use:


pj

You may be waiting a long, long time. Since you're an IT guy you should be able to understand that the FS9 SDK didn't provide the tools to make those great Flytampa airports. The problem is now with the stupid round earth those methods (sdk hacks, workarounds, using part of the FS2002 sdk ) don't work anymore, and the FSX sdk doesn't provide the means or tools to do what used to be done by people like Flytampa.
It's not about G & M not wanting to adopt to a new sim and new sdk, again, please read this whole thread from page one to fully understand it.
George has said he won't be doing anything for FSX or FS9, sure M$ will do what they want, but it's costing us very taleted people like George.

[Paul J]

Yup: I 100% agree with your sentiments, Paavo, and I'm so sorry this is happening. My FS "homes" are KSEA, KSAN and KSFO, and - whereas they're (FSX) quite a bit better than those default airports in FS9 - they don't come anywhere near the FlyTampa quality, and I sure miss that in 10.

I haven't been on this site for a while, merely popping in to see if anything's happening , but I was following Martin's thread right from the launch of "X", and have been becoming almost daily more disappointed to see the number of our "family" of devs and simmers alike - who are in the process of quitting entirely or just "going back to FS9". This means, essentially - they've given up, and will likely quit the hobby altogether at some point down the road.

The YouTube vid was great!. By return- although I suspect you may have seen it - here's one from just after the release:-

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tcW3hbnR2EI

Anyway, those are more than 2 cents worth of comments from me: thanks for the responses; it was a good chinwag. Good luck for the future. You guys are number one in my book.

Best Wishes,

pj

[Awol]

Yep. Put simply, its all about the money, and the fact that people are never satisfied with what they have.

Hmmm, I was greatly satisfied with FS8 and 9, and was very much looking forward to X.

[deltaboeing84]

So why did you upgrade? Because you werent satisfied with the product anymore and wanted something better. Dont worry, I did it too with FS9. But I am stopping there. I am sure FSX is a good product. But ill be damned if I am gonna buy another friggen computer for something that I can buy addons for and make just as good, if not better. (AES, etc...)