Ok Dan, I got FSX. Now how do I purchase FS Passengers?

[ar81]

I installed Service Pack 1 (SP1).  
Performance improved a bit.
Now I do not play at minimum, but medium settings.
Textures were at its maximum since the beginning (before SP1, I knew that what was causing the problem was
mesh/vertex rendering so textures were no problem)
To me the evident thing is that SP1 optimized mesh rendering a bit.

And as I set everything to medium, what I see is more meshes, but poor texturing makes the experience to be about
the same.

What amazes me is that I made a city for Orbiter (Alysimia city, which is available at www.orbithangar.com) and it had
more than 3000 objects and it runs fine.  And I can tell you that medium settings did not reach even half of that.

I still feel cheated.  The specs in the box say that my computer double the minimum specs in every sense.
And now it seems that I need to double my RAM to get a better performance.

I have an Intel P4 3.06Ghz, 512 RAM, Geforce 6000 series.
If you have those specs, you better play Orbiter.
Even if I had to pay the price of FSX (which I didn't because Orbiter is free) I would have felt that Orbiter delivers
more value than FSX.

[DanSteph]

I installed SP2 now I play with medium/high setting and I have 40FPS on 2560x1024 screen (two monitors)

I must say with the photorealistic scenery from ItalVFR I really start to enjoy it.



Small part of real size screenshot to show details:



Dan



Message modifié ( 17-01-2008 18:46 )

[ar81]

Looks far better than my install.  I saw SP2 specs and the only thing that it said was that I needed 1Gb RAM, so I did
not install it.  Gonna try it.  The worst that could happen is that I get a slideshow and have to uninstall.

What option do I need to have to get best textures and less vertices?



Post Edited ( 01-17-08 20:17 )

[DanSteph]

I've read some sites about tuning config and sliders, I also installed some textures addons and others. As usual you
need to tweak Fs so it fit your taste. Some like best visual with poor FPS and some like me preffer medium visual and
better FPS. Search "tweak fsx" or "config fsx" on google you should find tutorials to get the most of it.

Dan

[ar81]

Found it...
http://www.aerodynamika.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1161187496
It needs this software
http://nuclearplayground.com/NuclearPlayground/

Gonna try and see...



Post Edited ( 01-17-08 21:28 )

[James.Denholm]

I installed it on my Dad's computer and it works briliantly, with almost max settings it only freezes occasionaly, and
then only for 3 secs max. Ar81, are you using a desktop or a laptop?

[ar81]

Desktop.

I tweaked the detail to the best equilibrium between performance and quality.  It get ocassional freezing I could
tolerate.  The resulting settings are medium low detail with this system

Pentium 4
3.06Ghz
512 RAM
Geforce 6000 series 512 RAM

On the box, required specs were
1.0 Ghz
256 RAM
32 Mb RAM video card

After passing memory usage test, FSX uses 166Mb of video card RAM without addons, after SP1 (SP2 is for updates
for Vista as far as I read).  And it uses hard disk, since 512 RAM are not enough.

SP1 fixes some performance problems, so it means that without patching it is even slower (and evidently those data
on system specs are way wrong).  Could anyone sue a company for that?  That would be an interesting thing to do.

I wanted to visit the chinese wall in FSX.
I got to get a very detailed map in english to find some airports in the proximity.

The following cities with airports would be good candidates...
Yulin
Yinchuan
Jiuquan
Xining

None of them are in FSX.

Everest is only a mesh covered with a generic white texture.  Not impressive at all.  Not even realistic, for in real world
it has rocky parts and snowy parts.



In FSX it looks like this



I took off from Flagstaff heading north. Grand canyon uses generic rock and sand textures and you get the feeling of
playing Drakan (an old game BTW) if you fly inside the canyon.  You do not see any layers.  It does not look
impressive, or big at all.  It is like playing Star Wars.  Orbiter (freeware) addons like Valles Marineris or Olympus Mons
look more impressive.

This grand canyon in real life
http://parkerlab.bio.uci.edu/pictures/photography%20pictures/Grand%20Canyon%20blue%20river.jpg

This Grand Canyon in FSX



New York looks mostly flat with a few buildings here and there, unless you want horrible FPS.
I do not even see Statue of Liberty with those settings.  Was it abducted by aliens?

In Orbiter (freeware) more than 3000 objects would not drop the frame rate.
Why is that a few simple meshes in FSX do that?  Too many polygons?  Or lack of code optimization?

I hoped that the tweaking could improve the visuals.
But it did not happen.
The visual improvements of FSX puts you at risk of having a slideshow.
And on top of that, I bet memory chips to upgrade to 1Gb RAM are discontinued for my Intel motherboard.

I do not like FSX too much.

Probably I might try to buy FS2004 instead in the future, or try to contact Microsoft to see if they can downgrade my
copy of FSX and exchange for FS2004.

FS2004 must be (or should be) cheaper than a new computer and I might be able to look for reviews and have plenty
of addons.

And I would buy it thinking about the cool FSPassengers addon, to support Dan Steph who brings food to his table
with it , not because I love the idea of dealing with the corporation that made FSX.



Post Edited ( 01-18-08 13:49 )

[DanSteph]

512 RAM is really to low memory for most modern game.

I agree that FsX is not very optimized anyway you can't compare Orbiter and FsX,
with a ground displayed like that Orbiter would be ten or hundred time slower.

About mountains you can get such results:



But you need also a special addon in this case, today it's impossible to have
detailled area of all earth including china wall, mt blanc or grand canyon.
FsX install would be several terra octets and exceed the total size of the bigger
HD existing.

The scenery I posted above is about 2.20 GB size and it's only a small area north of italy.

In case of low spec Fs2004 may of course be a solution but you will not have better
visual without external addons. What may be nice is that you have a lot of photorealist scenery
available with Fs2004 and you can push a bit the slider. Still 512RAM is really, really to low,
it's the weak point of your computer and having only 512RAM with a proc of 3Ghz is not very
consistent.

I agree that Fsx could be much more optimized, but the lack of details in the whole world is not a problem of
optimization it's first a problem of data, to display those data you'll need really more memory because a flight
simulator can't display smoothly such big scenery without ram.

Dan



Message modifié ( 18-01-2008 15:24 )

[ar81]

I think the main point of feeling upset about all this is that I purchase games based on specs printed on the game
box.  When I buy software I compare specs against hardware.  The fact that it is or now too low spec for such a game
is not relevant.  The relevant thing is that Microsoft put wrong information.  So I feel cheated and a bit upset, so
these words may look strong, but it has nothing to do with you.  It is just what I feel now.

If they say you need 256Mb then 512Mb should be Ok.
And they say 32Mb RAM for video while it uses 166Mb (5.2X the min spec)

So if they say 1.0 processor, I might guess FSX needs a 5.2 Ghz processor to run properly.
I will multiply minimum requirements of Microsoft by 5.2 to see if their software fit my computer and deserves to be
purchased.

That way I would save myself the unpleasant experience of dealing with Microsoft again.

I have purchased tons of original games, while other people pirate them.
Many people in my country do that.  In my country people do not understand that piracy is stealing.
And that is a big issue for artists (like me) and musicians here, that makes it hard to make a living out of arts.

I recall that once I met a guy who had downloaded a pirated version of Final Fantasy The Spirits within in a very, very
low quality very long ago, and as I saw it, I decided that I loved it, so I purchased my first DVD... and it had extras...  
And it remains as one of the best purchases I have made, for I love photorealistic 3D.

I realized that for a buyer of original copyrighted material like me, seeing pirated stuff served me as demonstration or
evaluation to decide if I should buy.  Unfortunately I did not have the chance of seeing a pirated FSX to see if it
deserved a purchase.

From your comments I understand the technical aspects.  It is a shame that I did not know about it before purchasing FSX.  To me, Microsoft took a big legal risk when they added such a low specs.

If a package says "aspirine" you may not expect "fish" inside the box.
If it says "eat before this date" you may expect that it is not rotten before that date.
Fortunately I am not in the mood to sue them.



Post Edited ( 01-18-08 18:24 )

[sunshine135]

I couldn't agree more! That has been one of the worst complaints I have had about MSFS over the years. I find that when I
purchase my PCs, they typically are good enough to run the previous version of MSFS- not the current one. I have heard it
stated many times, even on these boards, that the games are made more feature packed each time, so it is my responsibility to
bring my PC up to the high standards to run the game.

To that I say

Why the hell should I have to purchase a $6000 PC to run one application when I can run the other 98% with a typical modern
computer? No wonder people are going to Apple in droves. Microsoft's bloated methodology reflects in their overpriced OS,
Office Applications, and Games. We give you an Operating System that sucks with bloated office applications that suck, and we
follow up on your leisure time with bloated games that suck. Then, we will hit you up with a price tag that is as bloated as
the software you just purchased, and cause you to purchase bloated hardware.

Sorry for the rant, but as a lifelong Microsoft user, I am ready for a lite version of everything. ar81 just summed it up too
beautifully not to respond.

[ar81]

I can olny say that I expected that being respectful of copyrights should make me to deserve a better outcome other
than "hey, we did not lie, we just did not tell you the whole truth, so buy a new computer".  Of course this complain
goes to Microsoft, not other developers who put lots of sweat into their work to afford a living of an average citizen
(and not the living of a CEO of a multibillion company).

I feel absolutely depressing now.

Hardware is 2X the price of USA, and average salary is half the average salary in USA.
So it means software and hardware is 4X more expensive here in real terms than in USA.
So you may understand how I feel with FSX...

With $6000 I would have a good amount to significantly lower a debt to buy a house.
Here a $1000 computer is as heavy for our pockets as a $4000 computer in USA.



Post Edited ( 01-18-08 19:19 )

[sunshine135]

ar81,

A better point being that I, like you, would prefer the existing program improved. I would have taken a refined Windows XP
over a Windows Vista any day- especially if I had to pay twice the price!!!!

Cheers,

[ar81]

I bought my computer in 2004, used all my savings.
I bought it because I needed it to work on arts.
Due to that culture of lack of respect of copyright (which causes people not to pay the real price for arts) I had to stop
being a freelancer artist (and teacher as secondary job in the well known workshop you have read about).
I had to get a job.  It may take a while to save the money to buy a new computer.  Imagine yourself saving $4000 to
buy a computer, that's the sacrifice in terms of buying power you'd need to save to have the equivalence of a $1000
(real cash)

[DanSteph]

I feel very surprised to be now a "defensor" of FsX as I hated it at first

First the box didn't lied: FsX work on your computer. Minimal spec say "you can go on formula one circuit with your all-
days car" that's all, it does not promise that you'll have also F1 speed and usually nobody should believe that.

Sorry but there is no actual or past "big" simulation game that you can run having all the graphic pushed to max with
minimal spec. FsX run exactly as expected on your machine, if you want the most you should get the "recommended"
hardware.

This was true for Fs9 fs8 fs7 cfs1 cfs2 il2 silent hunter and hundred commercial simulators or even FPS. I don't think
you will get much exceptionnal result on other sim or actuall FPS game with 512RAM only.

Maybe it's the first game you buy and I understand you may be disapointed but the first things to do is to read
customers comment and what machine is requested for what result before buying something. The game was done in
2006 and there is thousands site and forum that speak about it.

FsX is a failure but not for the same reasons than you mention, you would not get much more with Fs2004 or Il2 with
your hardware. FsX is a failure because appart some graphical stuff that require a high end machine to run nothing
evolved since almost Fs98, ATC and a lot of other features are still poorly done. So it was mainly a commercial release
with some graphicall lifting.

All site mention that FsX can only be a good purchase if you have a moderne machine ie: dual core 2Gb RAM and
GTS8800 as me. (wich is not "high end" btw, my machine is already outdated) I have much more and FsX please me
only because I have the good machine to run it.

About grand canyon an other detailled scenery no sim in world can offer to you such level of details "right out of the
box" for the whole world , maybe in 20 or 40 years it will be possible. Details require data and the amount requested
is simply to big yet for modern computer.

And believe me I would have preffered that FsX never whent out, this release forced me to buy the last machine (I'm not rich at all as I'm freelancer as you) and to rework from A to Z my commercial software. All this just for some graphic lifting.

Dan



Message modifié ( 18-01-2008 22:35 )

[ar81]

It is the second M$ game I purchase.
The first one was Terminal Velocity long ago.
I have bought lots of games, and this is the first one that have those fishy specs.

It is like "hey, you should have had to investigate if the toys you bought for your kids had lead, before you purchase
and poison your kids".

This is the reason why packages contain information.
I went to a store and I saw the specs printed on the box.
It is the first time since 1991 that I find such a fishy specs.

I have bought them originals, all of them.
Instead, many people here have got pirate copies.
It is a culture here that understands theft as "removal of physical custody" and not as "duplication", because of the
physical nature of third world industries and manufacture.

A friend of mine who does not understand that piracy is theft, told me I am an idiot.
He told me I should have to buy a pirate copy...
I prefer not to do that.
But certainly such a ishy specs may encourage other gamers to buy pirate copies instead of originals.
This is why it is important that specs are as realistic as possible.

[DanSteph]

You are right about piracy ! If your friend choose to give his money to the mafia I doubt this would ameliorate
simulators.
At worse if they don't earn enough money Ms would simply discontinue Fs as they have done with space simulator.
Several years ago there was 3-5 simulators per years but fact is that now you can count flight simulators on the
finger of one hand only, (if not on two fingers only) the reason is that it's very costly and demanding to develop
compared to other popular games. I doubt any pirate would create one simulator once all discontinued.

You can check Xplane the only other worldwide flight simulator and you'll see you'll have about the same or worse
results with your hardware. (xplane scenery are far worse than Fs even with top hardware)

Fsx work on your computer this is what promised "minimal spec", since 1982 date at wich I bought my first computer
all the game industry was like that: you need a solid computer to make latest simulator work and spec always
promised only that the game will work, not that it will work at full capacity. (EDIT: In the french box there is a text
that warn users that the "required configuration" will not "ensure all performances from the game")

I'm all against FsX and the fact that Ms choose to give us this minimal "fast&bad" upgrade instead of the best they
could. They have enough money to do that and they have done very good product in the past. Still I think you cannot
expect from an advanced simulator to run as in postal card if you have the "minimal spec" computer.

Also expecting to have scenery "as real as it get" is totally impossible, "switzerland pro" for Fs2004 cost 129 euro twice the price of Fs2004, it's 1.2GB and cover only a very small fraction of earth (300kmx150km). The total world highly detailled would cost actually millions dollars and would require also thousand HD to hold it.

http://www.simflight.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5172



I'll probably buy the Fsx version due soon, this addon rock (and I'm from switzerland )

Dan



Message modifié ( 19-01-2008 04:18 )

[ar81]

I feel better now.
I installed Ship Simulator again, which I bought some time ago.
I think FSX upset me a lot, but Ship Simulator did what I intended to do with FSX: To have a good experience.
I needed some relax after some stress at work... and FSX did not help at all.

Ship simulator has higher specs on the box.
To me it was a nice surprise to see that I could run it with max detail at 1024x768 when I run it for the first time.
My computer had the minimum specs and it ran properly.
VSTEP did a great work with the specs printed on the box.
www.shipsim.com
www.vstep.nl

Instead, FSX put those fishy specs on the box...

I also installed USAF and started to play.
Tutorial is far better than FSX, and ground textures look more realistic than in FSX.
USAF is very old.

since 1982 date at wich I bought my first computer
all the game industry was like that: you need a solid computer to make latest simulator work and spec always
promised only that the game will work, not that it will work at full capacity

I can refute that.
Jane's IAF requires 200 Mhz.  It runs fine with 233Mhz and recommended system is 266Mhz.
ATF Gold requires Pentium 90 Mhz and runs fine with 100 Mhz
Jane's USAF was more modern than IAF and it runs fine with 233Mhz but not in full detail, which is more than reasonable.
Since I have memory doubling game minimum specs have always been enough.
And those games came in the period you mention.

The most amazing thing I found is that people jump on me elsewhere, instead of saying "yeah, Microsoft screwed it up, they had to have a better check of what they print on the box".  And that did not help.
And the comment of that friend of mine who does not understand that piracy is theft, is discouraging.
I do respect copyrights because I know piracy is theft of work.
But what discourages me even more is that user is to blame, never companies.

Under the logic of that friend there is no advantage in respecting companies if they do not respect you.
And in that specific point he is right, even if I disagree with his way to see copyright.
The industry does not reward those of us who respect copyrights.
No wonder why piracy is a big problem.

In Costa Rica, RIAA companies pay radio stations to have their music as "hits", so a musician is not paid royalties, he has to pay about $1200 to radio station to be played.  It would be like having yourself paying gamers to play, insted of being paid for your work.

Microsoft is doing this, and here the culture is a culture of pirates, so even Microsoft is attacking its own interests.
The advantage of payware is support.
The day when users seethat there is no advantage in having originals, what happens to music will happen to software.
I get no support, no solution, then there is no incentive to respect copyright.
I do respect copyright as an author, but many people think in terms of quality vs price.

I understand your point of view as a dev.
You are not going to say "hey those devs screwed it up".
But I can say that the company, and not necessarily the devs screwed it up.
What is certain that as soon as I discover WHO put those specs on the FSX box, I am going to ask to crucify that guy.

But as a customer I get a product, I get an expectation set by the box.
One thing that a company can do to really upset me, is not to fulfill a promise, or to lie or not to deliver according to market standards.

And I will go on until I get a solution to my problem from Microsoft.
The same pushy element I have to finish my addon is now servicing the purpose of getting a solution.
Even if I lose in the short term I always win in the long term.
So now addon production is stalled, until I get a solution from them.

I bought a product with fishy specs,  that does not fit my computer.
So I expect to either get an FSX that does it (which means pushing them to do what is impossible), or to get a copy of FS2004 in return.  I proved that impossible was possible, when I made Orbiter to be piloted by kids.  Now it is Microsoft time to make the impossible to come true, and show me that it is possible to recover a customer.

Normally this would be true:

Recommended spec = 2 * Minimum spec

But with Microsoft what works seems to be

Recommended spec = 5.2 * Minimum spec

So Microsoft does not meet market standards.

In USAF documentation is very professional.
Tutorials are very professional.
Even in Freespace the tutorial is very professional.
In FSX you have a guy with a rant, instead of being as professional as Volition or Jane's.

I really hope Microsoft hire people with experience in the gaming industry, for what they did goes below market standards by far.  How deep Microsoft has fallen...  

One thing my father taught me is that if you do things right you don't need to do them twice.
In corporate affairs, it means do it right, or costs of doing it again will hit you.
Mediocrity causes higher costs.  Being below market standards is mediocrity.

No one will pay the time I spent being upset and disappointed.
But I expect the company to find a solution for me.



Post Edited ( 01-19-08 21:20 )

[SomeOtherGuyNamedDan]

AR,

Regarding charts - I don't have any for Tobias Balanos, but I do have some PDF charts for Juan Santamaria (also in San Jose,
ID is MROC).  Drop me a line at "dannym354 at yahoo dot com" and I'll email them to you.

Dan

[DanSteph]

Well, I think you don't understand at all my point, maybe it's due to language don't know. Anyway after 3 post I think
it's no need to put a fourth to say exactly the same things

Dan

[James.Denholm]

All the same, you've got to cut Microsoft some slack, as Fs does cover the entire world. They can't get everything
right, in fact, I suppose most of the things in it are just randomly generated or some such.

Any way, it works fine over here, and I actualy like it a fair bit. I find it very realistic. Although i'm not very good at it
yet...

[ar81]

I started my research to find a solution to my problem.
This country is very small, so it is easy to find exemployees who can advise you on the best strategy to deal with
internal walls.

If what I was told is correct, working for the corporation is like working for Saddam Hussein.
It is a ruthless regime.
So I decided to drop the case.
I am not for the making of miserable lives for those who have miserable lives at work.

That would explain how mediocre results were.

I came to analyze and compare Jane's USAF with FSX.
I realize that what upsets me is not the generic textures, but the poor texturing.
I myself love good arts and the textures used by FSX are not really good.
Texturing work was mediocre in FSX.

Jane's does this with 64Mb RAM.  With 512Mb RAM FSX does not achieve this level of realism.



To me it is evident that they attempted to achieve realism via meshes, not really texturing.
Probably I expected that if they used 10 times more RAM, they gave 10 times more realism.



Post Edited ( 01-21-08 13:59 )

[sunshine135]

You all have me thinking now (for me this is a very dangerous thing )

Why not try to integrate a flight simulator with Google earth or another program that is similar? Perhaps the answer
is not to place 100 hard drives worth of information into a single computer, rather use existing images from the web
servers to pull down the environment. What this would entail, I am unsure of, but Google Earth does allow the user
to see the ground from several profiles. The biggest requirement that I could see would be a very good internet
connection to update the rendition, and maybe Google to license this type of integration. It would be fascinating to at
least see a proof of concept.

Regards,

[DanSteph]

This would not solve the problem of amount of data. Zipped it took me 2 hours to get the "trentino" scenario in hi-res
(2.09 GB/2048 connection) and I can fly throught this complete area in 10mn with a Beechcraft at 120 kts.

That would be the new way of flying.... 1FPH (one Frame per hour

Also you cannot roughly map google data on one scenario appart if you want uggly result, you can already try that In
fsx using SbuilderX but the result need a lot of work and time if you want it to be good.
At last google map limit the amount of data one can load per hour, otherwise they would require am obsoneous
amount of servers.

Maybe in 20 or 40 years ?

Dan

SBuilderX for Flight Simulator X:
http://www.ptsim.com/forum/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=22



Message modifié ( 21-01-2008 20:13 )

[computerex]

Why not just use the simulator inside Google Earth?

[ar81]

The idea of generic textures is somehow good.
But if you want it to work, you need to make good textures, and this is where FSX fails.
I can tell you as a graphical artist.

For example, let's say you make 512x512 textures: 8 tiles for ice, 8 tiles for desert, 8 tiles for rock, 8 tiles for forest.
If we think that you use 32 bit colors, you need 256 Mb RAM.  That leaves you the rest of 512Mb memory for other
needs.  You also could create a buffer, so you unload and upload data from HD as player moves, so there is no
freezing.

Loading data for a few squares should be no problem, for user does not travel al Mach 28 in FSX.

If you make those tiles not to be repeated in a repetitive pattern, you could render lots of square km with a sense of
variety.

You do not render them randomly, but you have a fixed terrain tile preset for a certain location.
So you know that the next time you pass you will have the same terrain texture.

It can be done but it requires some design and some optimization.  And a 512x512 texture could provide a reasonably
good (big) resolution for a surface.  Then you add generic buildings.  If you choose smaller textures, data would
require less memory.

Notice that generic buildings do not need to be too high res...
And terrain mesh detail could be stored in binary format in RAM, to save space.
Also, mesh data could be loaded or unloaded, if you divide earth in quadrants and unload and load data as you pass from one quadrant to another.

If you need some special details like chinese wall textures, or rocky details for Everest you could add layers to it

So basically you can make a very optimized sim with 512Mb RAM.
But it requires design and optimization.
But if designers are lazy or unexperienced, or if project manager is careless or unexperienced, it may end up sucking
lots of memory.

If the constrain is memory, then the area that if under lots of detail would be reduced to save memory.
So basically a good setting would be to have an autodetect feature to set up the best options for good FPS.
Also, an auto load procedure to deal with very dense areas could be fine.  It would involve dynamic memory allocation.

It sounds complex, but I it would be made only once, and if the code is good enough, as technology goes up, you might reuse this engine for future sims.



Post Edited ( 01-21-08 22:36 )