• Which the release of FS2020 we see an explosition of activity on the forun and of course we are very happy to see this. But having all questions about FS2020 in one forum becomes a bit messy. So therefore we would like to ask you all to use the following guidelines when posting your questions:

    • Tag FS2020 specific questions with the MSFS2020 tag.
    • Questions about making 3D assets can be posted in the 3D asset design forum. Either post them in the subforum of the modelling tool you use or in the general forum if they are general.
    • Questions about aircraft design can be posted in the Aircraft design forum
    • Questions about airport design can be posted in the FS2020 airport design forum. Once airport development tools have been updated for FS2020 you can post tool speciifc questions in the subforums of those tools as well of course.
    • Questions about terrain design can be posted in the FS2020 terrain design forum.
    • Questions about SimConnect can be posted in the SimConnect forum.

    Any other question that is not specific to an aspect of development or tool can be posted in the General chat forum.

    By following these guidelines we make sure that the forums remain easy to read for everybody and also that the right people can find your post to answer it.

FSX is flying in heavy weather

B

bertvk

Messages
332
Country
netherlands
When you take time to read the different FSX forums these days, you will recognize that FSX is really flying in rather heavy weather ...After the launching of SP2 more problems exist then were solved....
What is the future of this version of our beloved Flightsimulator? Just FSXI or.....?
Will there be enough addon producers left to fullfill our needs?
Will the average hobbydesigner continue facing all these troubles....with no or bad solution!

I really don't know; i just hope the time (and the help at this forum) will fix all problems....in the meantime i use both FS9 and FSX on 2 different machines!
Yes it's a rather expensive hobby with all those downloads/boxes, but the only one who's complaining is...my wife:)

Happy Flying and Designing!
Bert
 
Not sure I would characterize SP2 as "more problems exist than were solved."

There are certainly some older add-on products that need to be updated, and the developers of those products had (and still have) plenty of notice should they decide to update their inventories.

Problems do certainly exist - but they aren't "FSX" problems, per se. They are "add-on" problems that could have been, and still can be, resolved by their respective developers. I was surprised how many respected developers chose to ignore repeated warnings from ACES Studios that SP2 backward-compatibility issues was going to stunt sales of their inventories if they did not "act now" as they say.

But SP2 in my view doesn't exhibit "more problems" than FSX RTM or FSX SP1.

FSX is far superior an engine to FS9 visually, and won't be as superior as vNext I would bet.
 
>FSX is far superior an engine to FS9 visually, and won't be as superior as vNext I would bet.<

I fully agree.
Bert
 
rightnumberone said:
.."add-on" problems that could have been, and still can be, resolved by their respective developers. I was surprised how many respected developers chose to ignore repeated warnings from ACES Studios that SP2 backward-compatibility issues was going to stunt sales of their inventories if they did not "act now" as they say.
Click to expand...

Are you under the impression that the fs9 era addons can be upgraded to the same functionality in fsx if the developers just try hard enough?

This site is dedicated to developers and you won't have to read far to realize this impression is inaccurate.

Bob
 
Bert I must say I generally disagree with your statement that "more problems exist than were solved"

I do feel that FSX will get a bad rap in the future (it will be labelled as a transition version, with that negative stereotype) but in my opin, despite its quirks it is still better than any previous version.

Too many people will not think about that though. Same with FS2000. Many label it as "bad", when that is far from the case when you consider what it brought to the table vs. FS98.

From a dev standpoint, yes it has been a little frustrating working with things like transparencies, which changed between SP1 and SP2. But now that the "moving target" has quit moving, and the hardware now exists to run the sim decently, things are stabilizing.
 
bob5568 said:
Are you under the impression that the fs9 era addons can be upgraded to the same functionality in fsx if the developers just try hard enough?

This site is dedicated to developers and you won't have to read far to realize this impression is inaccurate.

Bob
Click to expand...

Bob ... not sure that's exactly what I'm saying. I don't do airplane design, and so I've viewed the FS9 airplane issue somewhat from the sidelines.

My main point was that SP2 didn't introduce (many) new problems into FSX - which was the thesis of the OP. 3PDs were certainly presented with some challenges, but with significant advance notice of it. Many chose to hope their aircraft would work in FSX SP2s final bits without any additional development expense. I gather a lot of them got burned. Some have chosen to cease operations rather than commit the resources necessary to develop to the FSX SDK.

My impression is that a lot of FS9 aircraft were "ported" by their developers to FSX when FSX first came out. That is, these were not aircraft designed with the FSX SDK, but were aircraft that were designed with the FS9 SDK, yet represented to be "FSX" aircraft. They "worked" in the sense that you could fly them in FSX, but they weren't "FSX aircraft;" many of the things that make an aircraft "FSX" didn't work. But you could still fly them.

I also gather that some unsupported modelling methods have been used in a lot of FS9 aircraft and that this was fairly common practice. And that developers were warned against some of these practices by ACES Studios.

Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight, and I'm sure there are details that I haven't spoken to, but the OP seems to think there are problems in FSX, and that SP2 introduced more than it solved.

I don't find that to be the case at all.
 
<rant>

I guess I'm a glass-is-half-full kind of guy. When I sit back and take a look at the FSX franchise I look at the fact that FSX has probably sold near 2,000,000 copies, and the total registered population of this site is 257. FSX's most highly downloaded item on AVSIM has 28,576 copies in the hands of users as of this morning. Some payware designers consider around 3000 units sold to be flagship payware. Heck, when I released my first scenery I thought that having over 1000 folks download it was incredible! So as far as flying in heavy weather, the franchise is (I believe) doing just fine.

It is we the developers and serious users that sometimes act as the disgruntled and vocal minority. We are probably less than a few percentage points of total franchise users, yet ACES dedicates a significant portion of their personnel to third party developers, both free and payware in the form of dedicated personnel for developer relations and technical personnel who peruse the sites and act in a professional manner despite more than a few personal attacks and snide comments.

As far as what SP1A and SP2 to the SDK did to the overall developer: yes they changed a few rules. Has anyone ever been in a business where the rules remained the same? Why are rules of engagement tailored to fit specific situations? Do they not change?

I don't believe that developers and power users are the heart of the franchise as some have suggested, nor do I believe that the franchise would fall apart without our participation. I do believe that we give the franchise realism where it lacks it, variety where it needs it, innovation where functions did not exist, and respectability over and above just being a "game."

We are ACES' worst (and best) customers.

Jim

</rant>
 
Hi all,

Jim, very nice summary of the situation as I see it too; thanks for putting it so eloquently!

FSX is clearly a challenge to both developers and users. There are some definite minuses but also lots of definite pluses. As a developer I derive satisfaction from meeting challenges head-on, which is why I enjoy working with FSX.

Cheers, Holger
 
hi Mace,

Mace said:
..."more problems exist than were solved"
Click to expand...
At least at my place and i cann't fix them all;)

...it is still better than any previous version.
Click to expand...
I fully agree; that's why i invested in a second (better) machine to run FSX as good as possible!

From a dev standpoint, yes it has been a little frustrating working with things like transparencies, which changed between SP1 and SP2. But now that the "moving target" has quit moving, and the hardware now exists to run the sim decently, things are stabilizing.
Click to expand...
I really hope so!

Regards.
Bert
 
I personally have never had a single game where I did not need to do some tweaking to get it running the way I want it too.

I am running FSX on a single core machine with a 7900GS card. I can get about 18fps without any traffic, with 30% traffic I get around 8 or 9 on the ground with medium-high settings.

Even with those rates and settings I still can not drop the darn thing and go with FS9 again.

Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top