Flight Simulator X

AndyG · Post by **AndyG** » 17 Oct 2006, 10:26

Ian and AndyM,

I think people here are aware that I'm not exactly an FS X enthusiast, but I suspect that we may all be missing a point here. FS X is certainly not turning out to be a critical success but, I suspect, Microsoft will do pretty well out of this commercially.

The comments we are all reading are from hard-core enthusiasts like ourselves, but we are unlikely to be Mr Gates' major target market. This product will sell well to people dipping their toe into this arena for the first time; after all, when you bought your first flight simulator how knowledgable were you? Mine was FS2002, and I had no foreknowledge of how good, or otherwise, it was; like many I went with the packaging and the Microsoft name.

X-Plane has always been better (technically) than MSFS but has never really achieved the same market penetration; these days it sits next to FS9 on the PC World shelves, I bet I know which one sells better.

For that matter, Flightgear has a reputation for a realism, and the price is certainly right, but how many of us have a copy on our systems?

And CFS3 still sits in the full price section of the PC Games sections, when much better combat sims (SFP, Lomac, Il2/PF) have long since moved over to the reduced section; WE all know how bad CFS3 is supposed to be out of the box (mind you, it looks damn good on my new widescreen TFT

), but it still sells.

My honest opinion is that this has been a poor marketing decision on the part of Microsoft, but I don't think it's one over which they will lose much sleep. FS X is really designed to run on a PC using a 64 Bit OS and DX10; by releasing it earlier than Vista, largely as a result of pressure from the 'community' which is now criticizing them for exactly that, we are not seeing it at it's full potential. It's a bit like TVR releasing a new supercar, but fitting a VW 1.4 lump in it, because the proper engine isn't ready yet.

OK, diatribe over. I'll be quiet now.

AndyG

Reheat · Post by **Reheat** » 17 Oct 2006, 11:13

I really have no idea what the bitching is about!

I bought it on Sunday, sure out of the box it ran like a dog but after about 45 minutes fiddling I'm getting 25 - 40fps, never below 20.

It looks so much better than FS9, is perfectly stable and is obviously going to be a far more powerful platform.

I have a middle of the road average Joe machine and it outperforms FS9 on absolutely every single aspect.

Why all the moaning! especially from people who haven't bought it.

Chris Trott · Post by **Chris Trott** » 17 Oct 2006, 11:16

One more thing to add to what Andy said.

Most people who already bought the software and have the box probably didn't read what the label on the top said. There was a very telling pair of acronyms on it - "DX9 ENG". These two words were at the end of the product description ("FLIGHT SIMULATOR X - DX9 ENG" to be specific), and that is illuminating to me.

Why? It means that this *IS* an old graphics engine, it's designed for DX9. We've been told several times that FSX when it's released will have a DX9 engine, and all the visuals we're seeing are a result of trying to put as many of the DX10 features into an aging DX9 engine. So what do we get? Middle-of-the-road graphics when set to give good framerates. I think once DX10 and the DX10 patch for FSX are released (and we all go out and get DX10 capable graphics cards), we'll see what they've really done to FS. Until then, we're on a "gap filler".

tonymadge · Post by **tonymadge** » 17 Oct 2006, 11:25

like a dog but after about 45 minutes fiddling I'm getting 25 - 40fps, never below 20

What did you do to get this then...I think its a substandard sim at the moment with cartoon images and cartoon stories!
Chris you seem to be talking a little sense re "gap filler" especially after the support on other threads you have given to FSX, maybe your realising the goose does not always lay the golden egg? I think it is a disgrace that MS release a "gap filler" why not wait untill DX10 is ready if it runs so bad on DX9??
I have seen nothing anywhere that will make my hand dip into the pocket. I fear that those supporters of FSX are either MS shareholers or people who are not happy with FSX after buying it but won't admit to being ripped off in case they look stupid.. Emporers clothes syndrome I fear

AndyG · Post by **AndyG** » 17 Oct 2006, 11:32

tonymadge wrote:I think it is a disgrace that MS release a "gap filler" why not wait untill DX10 is ready if it runs so bad on DX9??

'Community' pressure, and the chance to make a few pennies in the run up to the 'festive' season?

AndyG

Chris Trott · Post by **Chris Trott** » 17 Oct 2006, 11:35

No, my expectations were never as high as yours. A gap filler is exactly what I expected the initial release of FSX to be because that's what the ACES team was telling us. It's just that most of the community chose to ignore it.

Post by **Garry Russell** » 17 Oct 2006, 11:42

A bit like buying a new car with superior suspension that doesn't give the ride that was promised...then being told it will when the roads are better.

Where is the gap that needed filling before something was fully ready?

Garry

tonymadge · Post by **tonymadge** » 17 Oct 2006, 11:42

Chris one thing to be sure of, Gap Filler was never in MS adverts for FSX anywhere at all, er sort of defeats the object of " "As real as it gets" if they put in As real as it gets for now untill we fix this heap of crap"

I sense your on the climb down over this one Chris, not to worry mate a few others have burned their fingers on this all singing dancing rubbish

Chris Trott · Post by **Chris Trott** » 17 Oct 2006, 11:50

Tony, I rarely listen to adverts without a shaker of salt nearby to season it. I listened to what the ACES developers, the guys who were making the program, were telling everyone both on forums like SimOuthouse and in their personal blogs. They warned us that the initial release of FSX was something that came about mainly because of Vista being delayed. Remember that a DX9 version of FSX wasn't in the cards originally. Only when Vista got delayed did a DX9 version come into being. As such, all of the initial hype and what was being shown at the conferences (we're talking before any playable software was shown) was based on them having DX10 available on release. Because it wasn't going to be there, they had to put together a DX9 version in a fairly short period of time becuase they'd never really intended for it to be released in DX9 and were only doing development in DX9 because they didn't have DX10 and needed to be ready to integrate to DX10 when they got the specs.

tonymadge · Post by **tonymadge** » 17 Oct 2006, 11:59

I see what your saying Chris, however what they have done then is cobbled together a product that will not be very good until DX10 is available? seems a bad move similar to CFS3 which never attained the glory they assumed it would.. in fact all it did was help IL2 in its sales! I assume that unless you have a DX10 capable card it is as good as it gets at the moment even when the #"patched" version does arrive??
Not much good to me or thousands of others who have decent cards at present and do not want to trash a very good DX9 type card!!