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

[James.Denholm]

ar81, You know, it's not FSX that's the problem. FSX has great textures. It's just your computer that's not up to
scratch. Please, don't take that as an insult. I'm not trying to start blood feuds.

By minimum hardware specs, M$ means just that. Minimum hardware, with minimum settings. Although I did notice
that there was nothing showing reccomended settings.

[ar81]

My machine = 2 * Minimum specs
It is by no chance minimum hardware.

Another thing...
If you have top notch systems, it is likely that you have issues with older games.
So the concept of having top notch hardware is not a good one when it is about games.
For specific games you need specific hardware, and having top notch hardware is no guarantee that it will run your
game.

FSX is the problem.

[Pirx]

ar81 wrote:
My machine = 2 * Minimum specs
It is by no chance minimum hardware.

It depends on how you read the system requirements. My 4-year-old PC has:
* 2 GHz CPU (2x minimum requirements for FSX)
* 512Mb RAM on Windows XP (2x minimum requirements)
* 128Mb DX9 compatible video card (4x minimum requirements)

but I do not expect any recent game or simulator to run smoothly and with high details on it. For one thing, CPUs did
not gain much GHz in the recent years (even lost some), but there was a great leap in performance due to
architectural changes. And to describe a graphics card by DirectX version compatibility and amount of memory is
simply a joke.

[ar81]

Mine is

* 3.06 GHz
* 512Mb RAM
* 512Mb DX9 compatible video card

Except for RAM, this the best I can do with the current hardware (AGP motherboard).
If I had to improve something other than RAM, I'd need a new machine.
But since I saw a documentary where you can see how US recycling companies pollute a town near Hong Kong and
poison their poor inhabitants, using aqua regia and other toxic chemicals, for $1.5 a day, I decided not to "recycle" my
old hardware.

[computerex]

ar81 wrote:
Mine is

* 3.06 GHz
* 512Mb RAM
* 512Mb DX9 compatible video card

For most modern high graphics game, you need at least 1 gig of RAM to have a good experience. What is your graphics card?

[ar81]

My graphics card is a Geforce 6000 series.

To me one thing is interesting...
When you say "For most modern high graphics game" you claim field knowledge of many games after testing them...
But as a consumer and a customer, that's what government and commerce regulations are for.  Government and
commerce are in charge of regulating the information that customer needs to buy.  That information is usually stated
in the package.

For example, there is a toothpaste that uses toxic chemical substances that are used for braking liquids.
I bet you don't know which one is.  US government banned it after some people died in Panama.
As a non-expert product tester customer you need information, and it is the role of government to force the company
to inform you and to protect you.

So if the information on the box says "Net weight 1kg" and it has 500 gr, you may think there is a problem, unregard
of what other similar products contain.  So there is a relationship between info printed on the package and actual
content.

Let's say you buy a product that says "Net weight: at most 1 kg" but it contains 200 gr.  There is a relationship of 5 to
1, which is precisely the unbalance between FSX specs on the box and the actual specs.

If you buy a toy, and I say "you should have known that most of these toys contain toxic lead for kids", you may
say "no, it is not my responsibility as consumer to guess what's inside, it is not my responsibility as a customer to
know what's common in the market, it is government job to do that".

And that's why I already issued a complain to US government about these kind of problems.

In the end, anyone could release a game that says "Min specs: P233 64 Mb RAM" while it requires "P4 5Ghz 2Gb RAM"
to run properly.  And that harms commerce as it creates lack of trust among customers.  And that could hurt US fragile
economy even more...



Post Edited ( 01-24-08 14:44 )

[DanSteph]

mhhhh I bet you roughly believe advertising on TV also ?

512 RAM was not that much for games two years ago, now its very low memory for most modern game. Still and again FsX run on your computer period.... that's what promise the box not much not less.

Dan



Message modifié ( 24-01-2008 19:16 )

[ar81]

Yes. I do not believe in TV advertising, specially those aimed at those harsh and contradictory fat reduction
methods.   Fortunately I do not need them.

If things go like that, other companies may learn and under deliver in their products.
"Tuna fish. Net weight: at most 250 gr."
This is a big legal gap that could cause problems to US economy in a time of crisis.
Cost reduction may lead companies to underdelivery.

US can't compete by price, but by quality.
ISO (International Standard Organization) defines quality as "meeting customer specs".
ISO does NOT say "customer must meet company specs"

If companies do not meet customer specs, then there is no quality, and US could be beaten quickly in globalized
markets if they use or allow M$ strategy.

In my case FSX does not meet customer specs, therefore there is no quality.
And I did not invent that definition.

[James.Denholm]

Hang on... Dan, you know those screenshots you posted earlier (as in, way, WAY earlier), And yet ar81 has (by
lokking at what you two have posted) a better computer than you...

ar81, you have tried a higher graphics setting, haven't you?

[DanSteph]

ar81 a écrit:
If companies do not meet customer specs, then there is no quality, and US could be beaten quickly in globalized
markets if they use or allow M$ strategy.

Stricly speaking FsX meet customers spec, it run on your computer and it doesn't run so bad given the screenshot you
showed, sorry but only complete computer noobs would think that such game can run at max setting on their
outdated machine or think that it can have the complete world graphically exact without any addons.

Don't forget at the time of it's release Jane's USAF was critizised for exactly the same reasons. Try to run it on a
Pentium 200 Mhz as showed in box (yes I bought it also I still have the original box)

I do not say that FsX is an exceptional software (read my previous posts) but you are on the wrong spot with
your "minimal spec ranting" that will "beat M$". Also I hope we'll not spend 42 more post on this subject, maybe try
another modern simulator from other company to see if it run better with box spec ?

Cheers

Dan

[Urwumpe]

DanSteph a écrit:
Don't forget at the time of it's release Jane's USAF was critizised for exactly the same reasons. Try to run it on a
Pentium 200 Mhz as showed in box (yes I bought it also I still have the original box)

I had no problems running it on a Pentium 100...  OK, it was not possible to run it on 1024x768, but 800x600 worked well if I
remember correctly.

But I had to wait for Lock-On! until I finally had a military flight simulator of the same quality as Super EF2000... and
still I lack a game with such a good campaign engine...

You can't have it all, good graphics and low machine specs and release dates which get met once per decade.

[ar81]

I recalled the time when I played Fighter Squadron by Activision...
Fighter Squadron has realistic physics and aerodynamics and now Orbiter includes variables used by that sim, for
OpenplaneSim site is now open for devs.

Fighter Squadron made your plane to behave realistically, if a wing was missing, you had the real problems you
would have.  Also you could see smoke trails and bullet trails and with more recent addons you could see the smoke
clouds and particles coming from the wings upon impact...  Planes went on fire or they exploded in the air.  You could
zoom your aim and see those plane markings... it was awesome...

By that time Microsoft Combat simulator showed downed planes as a mesh that had all polygons going apart, as if
you detached all the triangles of the plane mesh, it looked like a plane turned into chaff... it was really depressing.

Fighter Squadron had a very cool AI.  It was harder to down a plane than in MS Combat sim.

I came to realize that performance, good graphics and realism is not something Microsoft likes too much.
Just like Microsoft Image Composer takes about the same resources of Photoshop, but less than half the features,
MS Combat sim as an inferior product when compared to Fighter Squadron.

---------------------------

I have tested the buggy tutorial mission in FSX that crashed my plane and it seems to be fixed.
If I do not really care about graphics and detail, and if I do not care about geographical realism, and if I do not care
about the problem of the fishy specs printed on the box (that could mislead customers), then the sim is enjoyable.

I tried to get rid of all those ideas to see how enjoyable it is.
If I think that it is just a game, not a simulation of reality it becomes enjoyable.

One thing that made me really upset also was the fact that I know that addons require some extra resources, so I felt unhappy because I could imagine that I could not play FSX with FSPassengers, which was the reason why I bought FSX.  Of course, the reason of displease is not FSPassengers, but FSX and how Microsoft handled the whole specs matter.

I came to start enjoying FSX after that.
I really enjoyed the flight lesson last night.



Post Edited ( 01-27-08 19:07 )

[ar81]

I should have been a beta tester...  I seem to have a special skill to trigger all bugs when using software.
I loaded one mission and the main window in VC mode appeared with a shiny white color, as if was a light, and in 2D
cockpit it happened with rear windows.
The next time I loaded it, it was ok.

I continued the lessons by Ron Machado in FSX, and when I was to print my certificate for solo flying, it got stuck and
I had to terminate FSX and reload.  So it does not appear in my record.  But still I start to find it enjoyable.  I started
the private pilot lessons and started to understand taxiing notation...
In that mission the landscape was enjoyable.

When I learned about slow flight I practiced a bit more and I got to find some good tricks to do it.
I realized I was flying over Washington state, I found a nuke reactor and did a fly over and then I looked for it in the
map and found no river.  It seems that rivers are not properly modelled in FSX.
Still it was nice and enjoyable.

I took off from Fairbanks heading north.
Texturing had some white squares that made texturing a bit unnatural (as a graphical artist I can say it looks like careless texturing), but in the distance FSX looks great.
However, it will be the closest I could ever be from such a distant places...

It is until now that I realize about how big this planet is...

And twilights look amazing.  In that aspect FSX is quite unique.



Post Edited ( 01-28-08 15:42 )

[ar81]

I took another lesson and I realized that flying a Cessna is like flying a kite with engine.
Probably I got used to pilot those high powered warbirds...
It is becoming increasingly fun to fly kites.

I came to see that to set the proper power level for a certain surface trimming with level flight, is to see what speed
brings you no vertical speed in VSI (when the VSI gauge crosses 0) and adjust power to let that speed be a fixed one.

Also, for slow flight you exchange altitude for speed and viceversa, so if you pull up, you need more power not to stall
and viceversa.  Since kites are fragile for landing, making a smooth landing in FSX is helping me to improve my DGIV
landings.

[DanSteph]

In the aircraft I flyed the DR400 you had precise engine setting for every phase of flight, say 1200 rpm in cruise, 1000
for approache (don't recall exactly) once done you trimed the aircraft and it flyed almost alone on his path... My
instructor always said "engine and path"   First adjust engine setting and path almost in same time then trim ... and
enjoy (I added that last one

Anyway one can see the good pilot at his landing. so congrat for improving them

An old one (I'm proud of) About to take off for my 2nd solo flight at LFLI:



Dan

[ar81]

I realized that piloting shuttles was my practice for landing.
Learning to land with flying bricks/lifting bodies...
I did the same with DGIII when I started piloting, or I went down, below ILS glide path and kept a slow rate of
descent, which is very hard.  So with FSX I used to enter a steep dive, and it was not the best move in my first
attempts in free flight...

In USAF I never was able to land very nicely.
Those planes are too maneuverable to be stable...
But fortunately missions ended before that.

So I never was a very good "lander" until now that I started to use FSX.
Not that I am a good one, but I improved.
Landing was challenging when I wanted to test Space Orbinomics with DGIII.

Something that the tutorial did not mention is something that is very important for fighters is that you trade altitude
for speed and viceversa, for a constant throttle level.  That's easier than all this explanation about climb and dive.

And a high AoA makes you brake, so if you pull up, throttle should go up to compensate.
Landing gear makes you to brake, so you need to compensate.
Air brakes and flaps make you brake, so you need to compensate.

What I miss a lot is the reticule to see where I am headed.
But kites people call Cessna have no reticules in real life.  Birds have no reticules either...

Regarding Space Orbinomics, I have been trying to figure out how to revamp it to seize the new features of DGIV.
Space Orbinomics was the first exercise I ever made where I had to use non DOS programming, so I think it was not
really too bad, even if code was messy.

I have been taking ideas or inspiration from other space freeware games.  Perhaps some day I will make my
inspiration to land, but in the meantime, I just have a concept, an idea...  I want it to be a cool game.  To bring my
skills one step beyond...

But unfortunately it takes time, energy, effort... so there is no perspective of having such a thing very soon.