no more flight simulator for accouple more years?
- swa5956 jay
- Posts: 84
ACES created "frankensim" .... and it killed ACES!
This is the face of surprise >>>>>> 
I first started using flight sims in the 1980s, and I've developed a feel for "good" sims vs bad ones. For the majority of hardcore simmers, FSX was/is not to their tastes. For whatever reason, FSX is less of a simulation, and more of a game. This helped with sales, but there are two consequences of that decision:
1) FSX has alienated a lot of hardcore simmers. Why are there so many FS9 files in the freeware libraries?! Nearly 30 months after release, a paltry 30% of files are for FSX! That's insane. Hardcore simmers still prefer FS2004's performance on modern hardware, and FS9 is less of a headache to work with. One of the greatest FS aircraft creators of all time, Hiroshi Igami (POSKY), hates FSX! How can devs work with FSX when there are several versions of FSX?!?
Francois Dumas (head of Simflight.com):
2) The performance and compatibility issues created tension between the game devs and third party devs. Vested interests tried to conceal arguments and disputes, but a few of them surfaced on discussion forums. I have archived them on my HD, and it's clear that rancour exists in the community. Top FS developers spoke about their disatisfaction with FSX, and the threads were quickly locked. One of the ACES members suggested that 3rd party developers were selling FS9 software as "FSX-optimized", when it clearly wasn't! You should have read the comments that followed ... the payware boys were fuming! You could argue that third party developers were damaging ACES' image, by selling incompatible addon software, making FSX look dreadful. You could also argue that ACES created a "moving target" by changing so many things between service packs ........
ACES tried their best with FSX. They were expected to cater for hardcore fans, gamers, Microsoft Vista, DX10 (which hadn't been released!), and the popularity of multi-core processors.
MSFS is dead ... enjoy what you have! The REAL tragedy is the loss of 100+ jobs in Redmond, and one little-known disaster: In late 2006, a payware developer (name withheld) was planning to remortgage his HOME to free up capital, GAMBLING that FSX would be a success ......
I first started using flight sims in the 1980s, and I've developed a feel for "good" sims vs bad ones. For the majority of hardcore simmers, FSX was/is not to their tastes. For whatever reason, FSX is less of a simulation, and more of a game. This helped with sales, but there are two consequences of that decision:
1) FSX has alienated a lot of hardcore simmers. Why are there so many FS9 files in the freeware libraries?! Nearly 30 months after release, a paltry 30% of files are for FSX! That's insane. Hardcore simmers still prefer FS2004's performance on modern hardware, and FS9 is less of a headache to work with. One of the greatest FS aircraft creators of all time, Hiroshi Igami (POSKY), hates FSX! How can devs work with FSX when there are several versions of FSX?!?
Compatibility issues exist between the different versions1. Which FS version you are using?
Example : FS-X, FS-X SP1, FS-X SP2, FS-X APack
Francois Dumas (head of Simflight.com):
IMHO, NOTHING has changed since he wrote that in late 2007 ...We cannot really sell FSX to our customers the way it is……
2) The performance and compatibility issues created tension between the game devs and third party devs. Vested interests tried to conceal arguments and disputes, but a few of them surfaced on discussion forums. I have archived them on my HD, and it's clear that rancour exists in the community. Top FS developers spoke about their disatisfaction with FSX, and the threads were quickly locked. One of the ACES members suggested that 3rd party developers were selling FS9 software as "FSX-optimized", when it clearly wasn't! You should have read the comments that followed ... the payware boys were fuming! You could argue that third party developers were damaging ACES' image, by selling incompatible addon software, making FSX look dreadful. You could also argue that ACES created a "moving target" by changing so many things between service packs ........
ACES tried their best with FSX. They were expected to cater for hardcore fans, gamers, Microsoft Vista, DX10 (which hadn't been released!), and the popularity of multi-core processors.
MSFS is dead ... enjoy what you have! The REAL tragedy is the loss of 100+ jobs in Redmond, and one little-known disaster: In late 2006, a payware developer (name withheld) was planning to remortgage his HOME to free up capital, GAMBLING that FSX would be a success ......
- mackintosh
- Posts: 38
Considering that FSX is still very much single-core centric, this won't happen for a very long time. I don't get where all this "when hardware will catch up to FSX" bullshit is coming from. It's not hardware that has to catch up to FSX, it's FSX that should've caught up to hardware, but was mistakenly coded for increasing CPU speeds rather than for CPUs going multicore. Someone somewhere hedged their bets on CPUs getting faster and missed the boat.Silverbud wrote:when we will have computers that can really run fsx at max with add ons and directx10 with 60 fps
- JamesChams
- Posts: 71
Mr. "newmanix",newmanix wrote:The downfall of FSX/ACES and Hitler...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrFLp6Om ... annel_page
I'm flattered that you included my name in your video ... which was rather - LOL
But, just FYI, my name really is spelled "CHAMS" and NOT "Chames"
Oh my bad bro!! It's just that you are the "model" FSX user in the community. You are the only FSX user besides Mathijs i've heard no complaints whatsoever regarding FSX performance so it seemed to fit..JamesChams wrote:Mr. "newmanix",newmanix wrote:The downfall of FSX/ACES and Hitler...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrFLp6Om ... annel_page
I'm flattered that you included my name in your video ... which was rather - LOL
But, just FYI, my name really is spelled "CHAMS" and NOT "Chames"
Cheers!!