Somethings I would like to bring to discussion here:

- hope we don`t see, when FSXI is being closer to be released, the same frisson we all have seen about FSX, when all we could remember was people anxious for the new sim, “killing” FS9 and schedulling it`s funeral before the time, stop ordering brand new FS9 addons being just released due to “I will not invest on an older sim right now” thinking, and forcing developers to a halt, as everyone was believing on a smooth compatibility as anounced by ACES before FSX release. That was a nightmare time or all developers, don`t being supported to develop to FS9 anymore, watching their products not working at all at the new sim, and without the tools and knowledge to deal with the new platform.

- hope I don`t see anymore the hard time learning how to do all again, using a complicated SDK, full of tricks, and dealing with a strange round earth, service packs that destroyed almost everything already done to RTM version, and working. Things working well that just refused to work after SP-1, were fixed after a hard time discovering what had happened, and then again refused keep working after SP-2, just to be examined again, reworked again, fixed once more and re-released as an update, after a big price on work-time.

- hope I wouldn`t see anymore the nightmare that means a new FS version for a developer, as we`ve seen when FSX appeared. Can you remember how smooth was the FS2002/FS2004 transition?

- ACES had commented sometime ago that freeware Gmax would probably not been supported for FSXI, on it`s place the mandatory modeling software would be 3DSmax, extremely expensive, and more complex than Gmax. This will kill the freeware developer. Can you figure that?

- hope I have never again to deal with a split market, where we are forced to do things for the new sim, using its new techs and tools (hardened learnt), and re-do/re-compile all again with the “old” SDK to serve an enormous parcel of users still using the “old” sim. We just can`t afford to leave away this huge ammount of our users, we have to still serve all of them, so, it results in much more work, much more stress, much more strengh, doing the same scenery two times.

- hope to see again what happened to FS9, that could achieve such level of add-on development for the time it lasted alone and MS has taken to release FSX, allowing FS9 to reign absolute for almost 4 years instead of only 2 as usually happens on the history of FS. I hope FSXI still have a long, long, long way to go before being released, allowing us enough time to produce and enjoy nice addons for FSX.

- of course that, if FSXI comes with only major improvements over FSX issues, turning simulation better for all of us, instead of being another apocalyptic earthquake of changes for all developers, that it comes early and fast to us. But I doubt that will happens. Unhappily.

- for the user point of view I like both sims, and use both. For developer point of view, I confess FSX was (and still is) a huge suffering matter. This suffer may be minor by now, for sure as we finally got it`s secrets to the table, but it`s still hard to produce for both. The main problem is that we see very dark clouds on the horizon: the approaching date of FSXI release for next year, and the promise of seeing every thing up side down and messed up again.

Excuse me for the long text, my bad English and the outflow, but this has been in my throat for a long time.
I`m too old to keep being horrified at each FS release, to have bad time discovering it`s secrets and tricks, to keep things working nice after all the mess a new release brings, but at the same time I have a family to support, this is what I do for leaving and I have to keep my users happy, no matter if they use the “old” sim, the “new” one or both. So, the show must go on! But I had to talk I feel better now.

My best regards,
Carlos Pereira.
Tropicalsim

Scenery wise – even with low FPS on my rig, the detail that is now possible and available… FSX has it hands (and feet) down.

Low and slow flight is far more immersive in X. Sorry all you niners, you really are missing out.

Yes, there are ‘issues’ with FSX.

Yes, there are ‘issues’ for developers who want to build addons for FSX

And yes – I did spend a LOT of cash on my FS9 PC and software – several thousand Euros as it happens. My PC is still an optimum FS9 box too. But the eyes (and of course the ‘Ayes’) have it for me.

My very ‘umble suggestion: Don’t knock it if your system isn’t up to it. Accept the limitations until you can afford a new box or stay with good old FS9 – which is still very good despite what I say here.

Why not FSX:

- to many Addons without 2D-Panels (I hate the 3D-hype and use my head for more than wearing a Track-IR-Hat)
- needing to many recources
- invested too much into FS9 and FSX is not compatible
- not handsome enough to tempt me

Ian Bush pilots in FSX and/or otherwise land on very short runways regularly. It’s sinceless to go into the subject of landing GA aircraft because we both know how it’s done in the real world. You fly and so do I although due to gas prices I haven’t went up in awhile. Unlike FS in the real world before touchdown you need to bleed off as much flying speed (alas Flare) as possible to keep the aircraft on the runway. You know this as well as I and to make like FSX is in any way depictive of the actual condition in the sim is ridicules… You can land well above stall speed in FS and the aircraft will stay on the ground no matter the wind speed. Like you stated Airliners can do this but never GA. I noticed you didn’t say anything about landing on a moving body of water in FS.

This discussion is getting a bit long in the tooth… If you feel we have a true simulation of icing conditions on an aircraft, proper landing characteristics for GA aircraft, and a host of other advances in key areas in FSX then there’s little I can do to convince you otherwise. To each his own. I’ve stated my case and leave it to others to figure out (which they have judging my the poll results). Like Francois has stated, do to a number of conditions the wind has been let out of the sails on the FS hobby as of late. I equate that in part to FSX and it’s more visible marketing position over FS9 these days. It’s high profile and cost for admission to get decent performance out of it with add-ons has hurt our hobby… The old saying ‘First impressions always last’ holds true here. Although some things may have been fixed with service paks it’s taken FSX too long to get up to speed and our developers to get a firm grasp on it. This split has divided the customer base and in turn drove some developers out the business. My good friend Lou Betti of DreamFleet (part interest in AirlinerXP)has stated this may hold true to his business as well. You can’t say these are positives to our hobby and some of the blame has to go to FSX and Aces business decisions… I believe with more user friendly tools in the future and a desire by Aces to embrace this community with their product brighter days can be ahead. Development has to some how stay accessible to those with a desire to create on a small scale. These people grow to be our major developers. You hurt that beginning aspect you kill the hobby and/or severely hinder it down the road… Harder more expensive tools and slow performing software will kill this hobby and/or keep people on FS9 for years to come. You see this happening today. I believe Aces will address these issues with the next version and a new pool of talent will arise that’ll rival what we’ve seen for FS9. It’s all up to Aces and the smart guys that create the tools. Praising FSX today is the wrong move but we can look to a better future with a robust more vibrant version of FS for tomorrow…

Ian the little hobbiest guys are key to our hobby continuing into the future. Aces needs to realize this and not get to high on the techi horse that hobby development is no longer accessible…

Correct and correct. Speaking as a real pilot, I have very rarely landed with the stall warner sounding. Airliner pilots never do. If you land in a stall, you are too slow. It’s great for very short field landings, but bad for the landing gear. You want to land just above stall, which is actually easy in FS(any recent version) with practice.

2. Turbo Prop modeling has not been improved since FS2002

As has already been mentioned in several posts, this is one area that seriously needs addressing.

4. Weather engine hasn’t changed since FS9

Incorrect.

5. Aircraft ground handling characteristics while taxing around taxiways to runways hasn’t changed since FSW95.

Incorrect. Actually, it has changed quite a bit on several occasions since then, as everyone complained about the changes for quite some time! First aircraft were too “sticky”, then they “ran away”. They may not be correct to the real world right now, but they have still changed a number of times.

6. Icing conditions have no effect on aircraft and until recently wasn’t even a visual reality. So that’s one major issue you Alaskan bush pilots never have to consider in the winter…

Incorrect. As I had the misfortune to discover very recently. Carb icing in particular is still done incorrectly (you lose all power immediately, rather than progressively as happens in the real world) but de-icing switches do actually function.

Francois: I like the idea, but would it not be better just to do that through the option to load and save detail settings (as FSX already can, for anyone who doesn’t know this) provided ACES gave suitable defaults? I remember a lot of people being exceptionally unimpressed when first firing up FS9 because the detail sliders were all set to “low” or “off”. A lot of people like switching between lots of different aircraft – would this idea not entail them having to get both versions for all functionality?

1. Landing of GA aircraft don’t require a controlled stall upon runway touchdown
2. Turbo Prop modeling has not been improved since FS2002
3. Water landings still don’t remotely address factors of setting skids down on water at 115 knots, unrealistic is an understatement
4. Weather engine hasn’t changed since FS9
5. Aircraft ground handling characteristics while taxing around taxiways to runways hasn’t changed since FSW95.
6. Icing conditions have no effect on aircraft and until recently wasn’t even a visual reality. So that’s one major issue you Alaskan bush pilots never have to consider in the winter…

I could go on and on as these aren’t airliner sim issues I’m talking about here. You guys on the GA side (unless your new to simming) should have issue with some of these things yourselves. Landing a GA aircraft would be allot more fun and challenging for you guys if it was modeled correctly. As of today with FSX you may as well be landing an A36/Airliner on those small runways and water ways versus a light aircraft because you have none of the requirements of operating a light aircraft totally at the mercy of wind conditions because of it’s size and weight (I liken it to airliner speed brakes on the ground. There’s no difference in landing characteristics whether you deploy them on the ground or not in FS). These things can easily be addressed by a multi-million dollar development team especially this far into the franchise.

As far as we’ve come in the advancement of this hobby there’s so much that could be fixed outside of ‘Greater Polygons’ for both camps (GA and Airliner) to make us all happy and greatful. As of today Aces has heard these request many times over (I’m not saying anything new) and for whatever reason ignored them. Promises were made before FSX’s release some of this would get looked at which didn’t happen. Without sims like ‘Fly’ and ‘Fly2′ among other titles there’s nothing pushing Aces to do better. When we had competition on the market we got things like AI, ATC, and functional virtual cockpits. The few things mentioned in this thread would take FS that much farther ahead which has been the advancement path of the franchise for years. Why is it so reasonable for some of you to expect ‘games’ like NASCAR (PC version), Falcon 4, and countless roll playing games to give all the bells and whistles in their genera (especially NASCAR and Sports titles) and don’t require that same attention to detail from a franchise simulating Flight? Many pilot’s have attested to FS helping them get their pilots license (we don’t want to count the many that got into aviation period because of this software)… If ‘games’ can technically progress over the years outside of graphics why can’t Flight Simulator do the same for some of you???

“Maybe next time around Aces may want to market an ‘Airliners Version’ and a ‘GA Version’ of the sim, instead of a ‘Deluxe’ and a ‘Standard’ version”

Very interesting. But now it will be hard to choose, for me at least. I vote for a new poll: – Bush or Airliner for next FS

just got back from my Christmas Holiday in Prague, to find this thread and discussions. (And believe it or not, but I managed to blow up …. physically with a loud bang, smoke and stench ….. my office PC last night…. so no CD orders for a few days please !! ).

I think Doug makes a good point.

Maybe next time around Aces may want to market an ‘Airliners Version’ and a ‘GA Version’ of the sim, instead of a ‘Deluxe’ and a ‘Standard’ version

FS of whatever version is an entertainment title, not a professional simulator. It can be used in a professional way for entertainment purposes, but cannot be used for professional training. As far as the simulation and aviation worlds are concerned, it is a “game”. So yes, FSX is a “game”, but so is FS9, FS2002, FS98… Therefore when people say that people should stick to FS9 and shouldn’t use FSX because it’s been “turned into a game”, they’re talking utter rubbish. It hasn’t been “turned into” anything, it’s still what it was – a piece of software designed entirely for entertainment purposes. A pretty realistic game, but getting on your high-horse and saying “it’s not a GAME, it’s a SIMULATOR!” as some people tend to do is ignoring the very obviously point that the JAA, CAA, FAA, etc, will allow you to put simulator hours in your logbook. MSFS hours cannot be entered into your logbook and do not count as flight hours, however much fun you had clocking them up.

As I have said before, I agree entirely with what you say about Microsoft needing to learn from FSX – and for that matter Vista – although the major bugs with both were actually sorted with Service Pack 1 for both the O/S and FS. In FSX’s case, ACES openly admit that they assumed the world would go to higher and higher clockspeeds (if we were running on >4GHz single cores, right now, FSX would fly) where the hardware industry actually went multi-core to cool the chips down. ACES have accepted that mistake, put in what multi-core support they could with the SP and will have to rectify it properly in FSXI, which means that FSXI should perform better than FSX, in theory, although of course it isn’t due out until 2010 from what is being said.

Regarding the number of add-ons available, all you are proving yet again is that you are very much a demanding user and not a developer. Developing the same add-on for FS9 versus FSX – using technology and techniques appropriate to each (i.e. higher poly models, more detailed textures, more detailed and varied autogen, terrain, lighting, bump maps, etc.) – takes massively longer. Therefore unless the number of developers increases dramatically, which it isn’t and indeed is reducing, the number of add-ons available decreases. That’s a matter of fact, not conjecture.

As Doug says above, right now, there are two very capable sims available which cater for different kinds of user (X-Plane doesn’t cater at all for systems fans, regardless of whether they want complex GA or complex airliners – it doesn’t do complex systems, but it looks exceptionally pretty). You can use which one works best for you.

If, however, you still cannot tell the difference between an FS9 texture and an FSX texture, then that’s an issue with you not with the sim. It’s a simple statement of fact that FSX supports far higher resolutions, particularly in ground textures, than FS9 does and techniques such as bump mapping (which have been used a lot outside MSFS since well before FS9 was released, incidentally!) are only supported by FSX, not by FS9. Those are two examples of many. What is actually there and what you choose to see can, however, be very different indeed.

The other debates are amusing. Game? Sim? Well, it isn’t real, so it has to be a sim, but game seems somewhat politically incorrect for categorizing what people put so much effort into in order to simulate something from the real world as opposed to simulating something from a fantasy world. Perhaps adding that third level and calling one a real world game simulation and the other a fantasy world game simulation might assuage some bitter feelings, but I think it unlikely.

Arguing about the failures of the design of FSX or its dependence on extraordinarily powerful hardware is tediously old business. Use what you like and can afford to support. I honestly believe the complaints have not gone unheard at Aces. Whether they care enough and respond enough won’t be known until FS 11 is released.

At the risk of starting WW IV, let me hypothecate that there are really two vastly different major audiences (Markets) for Flight Sim. One is the hyper-professional commercial airline pilot simulator, and the other is the general aviation pilot (including, strangely enough, combat flight sim pilots). One group is excited about Artificial Intelligence Traffic; the other about Autogen. One likes terrain accuracy; the other gets excited about AFCAD perfection and Air Traffic Control precision. One is sensitive to winds aloft, wind shifting, and barometric pressure, while another group is more concerned with the graphical depiction of the clouds themselves, the visual depiction of rain, snow, whatever. There are many more ways to deliniate these stratifications among users, the point being made that they exist, however they may be described, and always allowing for the fact that these interest elements shift and migrate between the major groups; for example, AI matters a lot more to combat sim pilots than to GA pilots. It’s not so much a bipolar array as it is a spectrum, but with heavy tendencies toward the ends of the spectrum for each of the major camps. Proceduralism isn’t a fair distinction. It’s more a matter of where and with whom that proceduralism is expressed.

If I read correctly – a major supposition – the trend of comments among the camps, I would suggest that the majority of users of the sim who use it primarily as simulated professional commercial pilots prefer the benefits of FS9, while FSX doesn’t yet fully meet their standards. On the other hand, GA users find FS9 was mighty good, and see FSX showing a modest but discernible edge with a lot of future promise.

For your purposes of assessing my bias, I fall squarely in the GA camp. -Doug

In one post your say,

“Yet when ACES included something to give people goals, to give them challenges that will increase their piloting skill, it becomes a “game”?”
“People really do need to try a few of the more difficult missions before decrying it as a “game”.”

Then in a lower post you say,

“Microsoft Flight Simulator – an entertainment product – has been marketed as a “game” since Microsoft took over the branding. Yes, it is a game. It always has been.”

Make up your mind Ian, is it or is it not a ‘game’??? You started going at people for their view of FSX as a game yet you acknowledge yourself in the context of FS9 and FSX’s shortcomings it is a game. It’s like you take a side when the mood suites the situation or angle your addressing (you need to stay constant no matter what angle coming from). I still say either way there’s things that shouldn’t still be present in the sim especially with the various surveys, polls, and user research conducted by Aces. It’s not going to kill them to do better next time and if they don’t understand the results of community polls taken every now and then. I also don’t buy the argument that future FS versions won’t see the same level of add-ons currently offered for FS9. With new tools, a desire to work with this community, and product time on the market Aces could easily achieve the same success they currently have with their FS9 effort. If FSX was a better product FS9 would have been history 2 years ago. All developers would be focusing on one version and by now we would have double the output that we currently have.