Back to the future??

MIKE JG · Post by **MIKE JG** » 20 Jan 2009, 04:54

I ran across this post on a FS developers forum today and think that the author has some very valid reasons that he's going back to FS9 for good.

Before anyone gets upset, this is only one man's comments and certainly do not represent anyone other than himself and his experience as a scenery designer with FSX.

Hi all,

Just wanted to let you know I decided after ample consideration to uninstall FSX. I know I am not the first one but I tried not to believe those 'losers' thinking I was smarter than they are. Well, I am not! And in spite of the negative comments on all those that dared speak out, I go back to the good old FS9.

And I am fully aware it is a step back in as far as new developments are concerned, but I feel I miss too many possibilities that have become inexistent or so hard to figure out in FSX so that my decision is justified in my own eyes.

I do not want to complain too much as I appreciate the effort the people of Aces have put into this version of FS and maybe they have been forced to come out with something new that was not ready yet, but in the end the result, as far as I am concerned, is not up to my expectations.
I'd rather have paid 3 times more for a decent product instead of what I have now.

I feel sorry for all the people involved still trying to make something worthwhile out of FSX and in particular for the team of 'Scruffyduck' with their fantastic ADE program with which a lot of scenery glitches can be remedied, but their program alone is not enough to turn FSX into an improved FS2004.

Now, I will have to give you examples of what made me do this as otherwise I would receive too many arguments in favor of FSX by people that are more eloquent and convincing than I am.

Here goes:
- low fps;
- few extra aircraft compared to the wealth of choice in FS9, (except perhaps for some payware of which often the VC does not even work in SP2);
- hardly any extra mesh and although the default is better than in FS9, the extra mesh available for FS9 makes more than up for the difference;
- autogen buildings and trees not adapted to the various regions and trees still too big; inability to change this unless you start using photoreal scenery involving Google (their biggest competitors!) and then still with mixed results;
- backward compatibility? I have my doubts because there is always something the matter with older add ons;
- Change from freeware GMax to payware 3DS and rendering almost all FS8 and FS9 design programs obsolete or incompatible;
- almost all airports are being enhanced through add ons not because of aesthetics but out of necessity (and only recently made possible for real by the aforementioned ADE program);
- The promised DX10 does not improve anything for the time being, only adds more problems and most midrange graphics cards do not support DX10 (why should they if it serves no purpose?)
- SP2? Too much to tell you. Only thing I will mention is that many SP1 version add ons, aircraft models, textures, etc. have to be adapted once more to work in SP2;
- AI traffic is different fron FS9 (although FS9 AI works in FSX)
- Unsolvable transparency/ rotate to viewer issues making it impossible to have real people in FSX;
- the whole world looks the same, everything is standardized in the Object Library. The feel of flying somewhere foreign is gone. Airports, autogen, buildings all look more or less the same.
And I probably forget some basic things as well as in-game irritating quirks.

Mind you, I am not saying that FSX has not tried to make FS8/9 adepts happier in fulfilling some of their wishes, but my experiences with FSX just lead me to the conclusion that by trying to improve on some things they have made such unacceptable compromises that the end product does not deserve the name of being a worthy successor of FS9.
I hope FS11 will learn from that and in the meantime, as said, I will be more than happy to live with the constraints of FS9.

VulcanDriver · Post by **VulcanDriver** » 20 Jan 2009, 06:31

I went from FS98 to FS9 on purpose as no one I spoke to was happy with the ones in between. Likewise I'm sticking with FS9 until FS11 is released to see if it will be worth installing! If not FS9 will do me nicely as I have tons of scenery and a/c.

Ford Friendly · Post by **Ford Friendly** » 20 Jan 2009, 07:04

Sigh. New post, same old thoughts on a much beat up subject. Nothing really new to contribute from my POV.

He has a limited understanding and knowledge of the product and/or design decisions MS actually publicized during development.

- low fps

Okay, it takes more computing power to run this than FS9 does. Granted. However, flyability as defined by the FPS displayed in the upper left corner is pointless considering other people and I can fly with numbers displaying as low as 6 FPS. Saying FSX installations results in low fps is just bonk.

- few extra aircraft compared to the wealth of choice in FS9, (except perhaps for some payware of which often the VC does not even work in SP2);

It's called development time. 2 years after the official release and some of the best aircraft ever released now work only in FSX, ex., Aerosoft F-16. It takes time for developers to learn new tools, a new SDK and develop new tricks to take advantage of new possibilities.
Edited to add: Dino Cattaneo's freeware FSX F-14 will be available in about a month or so and his T-45 is out already. If you've seen his FS9 F-14, you know I am eagerly awaiting this release! I helped beta-test the T-45 and think that it is at least as good as the new FS9 freeware F-86 Sabre that everyone is oohing and aahing over.

- hardly any extra mesh and although the default is better than in FS9, the extra mesh available for FS9 makes more than up for the difference;

The FSX default mesh is 38m, much more accurate than that of FS9. 3rd party addon mesh can get down to what, 1m? What's the FS9 limit? 19m, I think and that is 3rd party and only available for limited areas.

- autogen buildings and trees not adapted to the various regions and trees still too big; inability to change this unless you start using photoreal scenery involving Google (their biggest competitors!) and then still with mixed results;

I beleive the gentleman hasn't seen any of the freeware addons modifying the things he complains about here. Aimee LeClerq and Holger Sandman, for instance, have both been involved in freeware releases addressing these and other areas.

- backward compatibility? I have my doubts because there is always something the matter with older add ons;

MS very publicly stated early on that backaward compatability would not be a consideration. They took, stand by, and defend the position that this policy ensures advancement into the future and saves development time when creating their new product(s).

- Change from freeware GMax to payware 3DS and rendering almost all FS8 and FS9 design programs obsolete or incompatible;

Lol. Sorry, you can still very much use Gmax to develop for FSX. I think modellers on this board will also attest to the ability to use FSDS. So, what is it one can conclude about the author's point? That it's one made from ignorance of the situation.

- almost all airports are being enhanced through add ons not because of aesthetics but out of necessity (and only recently made possible for real by the aforementioned ADE program);

I have no idea what his real point is here. I do know he apparently doesn't know that you can use afcad 2.21, AFX and FSX Planner to design airports "afcads" in addition to ADE. SbuilderX is more than a conversion from the FS9 version; it's a extension as well as a rewrite according to the author.

- The promised DX10 does not improve anything for the time being, only adds more problems and most midrange graphics cards do not support DX10 (why should they if it serves no purpose?)

Blaming FSX for DX10 issues shows the poster doesn't understand that DX10 is DX10 - it's not FSX.

- SP2? Too much to tell you. Only thing I will mention is that many SP1 version add ons, aircraft models, textures, etc. have to be adapted once more to work in SP2;

Finally, a semi-valid point. Unfortunately, he seems to be one of those for whom SP2 didn't make things better. For me, SP2 made as much difference in my flying experience as FSX has over FS9. 1 for the OP.

- AI traffic is different fron FS9 (although FS9 AI works in FSX)

Okay, it's different. So what?
Oh wait. I forgot to mention the "forward compatability" of the MAIW ai packages with minimal adjustments required. WOAI and PAI ai packages both work in FSX. This guy definitely has a knowledge or perspective hole in his brainpan.

- Unsolvable transparency/ rotate to viewer issues making it impossible to have real people in FSX;

Huh? I don't understand his point. "Real people"? You mean static scenery objects that look like people? Give me a break.

- the whole world looks the same, everything is standardized in the Object Library. The feel of flying somewhere foreign is gone. Airports, autogen, buildings all look more or less the same.

He definitely hasn't taken a look at some of the developer's forums, avsim downloads in detail, avsim.ru modifications, Thai "avsim" download sites, etc. Numerous authors have updated their libraries to extend what is possibile to see in the FSX world. I think the OZ/VOZ guys have shown that what can be done in FS9 can be done as well or better in FSX.

And I probably forget some basic things as well as in-game irritating quirks.

Agreed. He's forgotten something else. The texture resolution in FSX is better than what is possible in FS9 - oh wait, that's FOR FSX over FS9, better not mention that.

Mind you, I am not saying that FSX has not tried to make FS8/9 adepts happier in fulfilling some of their wishes, but my experiences with FSX just lead me to the conclusion that by trying to improve on some things they have made such unacceptable compromises that the end product does not deserve the name of being a worthy successor of FS9.

Edited out snarky remark upon rereading it.****
Methinks he needs to learn more about FSX and definitely take a course in logic.
***FSX is a different product than FS9. Period.
***It has different strengths and weaknesses than FS9.
***It requires learning and application of one's gray matter to make it work up to its potential (which is far from being reached) - just like FS9 did when it came out ----- but I guess the OP forgot (or never knew?) that.

Like I said above, "New post, same old thoughts on a much beat up subject. Nothing really new to contribute...."

One man's sleepless-night opinion.

Jumpshot724 · Post by **Jumpshot724** » 20 Jan 2009, 07:51

My only issue with FSX is that you need a supercomputer to run it (especially with all the addons <<coughcoughMAIWpackagescoughcough>> that I tend to download and install). I got FSX 2 Christmasses ago when it came out. I installed it on the best computer in the house (which was 2 months old at the time), got disgusted with flying in a slideshow, uninstalled it and now it sits on top of my bookcase collecting dust.

Meanwhile I'm typing this from my laptop, which holds my FS9 (among other large programs) including all of my addons. My aircraft folder is massive, my addon folder is huge, I have installed every MAIW package ever created (except the ones who I moved to my BoneYard project), and yet my FPS is great with all the sliders turned to maximum.

Ford Friendly · Post by **Ford Friendly** » 20 Jan 2009, 08:34

I'll add one little thing that I forgot but the above post reminded me of.

I don't consider multi-core cpu's "supercomputers" anymore than I considered TRS-80's supercomputers back in the day. They are a natural progression of technologic advancement.

FSX SP2, which you might not have tested with your system, does represent MS's first generation use of multi-threading in FSn. Multi-core cpu's hadn't come out (or were just starting to come out) when FSX was "design-specced" and it took until SP2 to implement their initial code taking advantage of that.

If someone doesn't have a multi-core cpu, shrug, no benefit for him. MS isn't "to blame". But code advancements can't be taken advantage of on rapidly-becoming-dated(if not obsolete) technology.

(FS11 will obviously take advantage of lessons learned re:multi-core/multi-threading in FSX SP2 code. There's little doubt about that. Single core users will be left behind if my guess is correct.)

sprocky · Post by **sprocky** » 20 Jan 2009, 09:38

I had the demo of FSX installed. I liked the better visuals.

BUT: my PC could not handle this - well, it cannot handle FS9 sliders all to the right either

. I am not sure when to buy a new one (maybe this year) but I may skip FSX. As long as nobody can tell me about the features that make the huge step forward in flying experience I am not gonna buy FSX. Why should I invest money into a product and invest additional time to make downloaded files compatible? Although FS is a hobby - it's not fun to waste time for nothing. I doubt FSX is accepted by the majority of the community.
Also I still run WIN XP on my PC's. It works fine with me. There is no need for Vista. "Never touch/change a running system"

It would have been different if I was a beginner in the scene right now. In that case I would have bought FSX probably.

Col7777 · Post by **Col7777** » 20 Jan 2009, 10:07

One thing about all this is, whatever FS version comes out next it costs a lot of money. What I mean is not the cost of the FS program but how many times do you read of people having to buy a new or upgrade their PC just to use the new version of FS, it can be an expensive hobby.
I too bought FSX and installed it on my old PC but it wouldn't run properly as the PC couldn't handle it, I did buy a new PC not because of this but the old one packed in, FSX runs OK on this one but will it be able to handle FS11, I've gone back to FS9 and still enjoying it?

Firebird · Post by **Firebird** » 20 Jan 2009, 10:48

When FSX came out I bought it, installed it, saw a slideshow and removed it. I haven't put it back on since. I also didn't like the alterations to the keys, particularly the views. So much easier in FS9. It's an initial impressions thing for me.

Now after time I can reflect that there are some nice features and advances in FSX but not enough for me to go back and retry it. This despite me now having a quad-core cpu and an nVidia 8800GTX card.

I have tuned and added so much to my FS9 that there is nothing yet that has tempted me to change to FSX.

One last thought, if FS9 was multi-core capable would there be enough of a reason for even thinking about changing? In my mind no, lets see if FS11 changes my mind.

Ford Friendly · Post by **Ford Friendly** » 20 Jan 2009, 11:04

I had the demo of FSX installed.

Definitely not FSX as it stands today. My experience, such as it is: SP2 made a huge difference for most of the FSX users I interact with. Only 1 finds SP1 better on his system and none find FSX as released "best".

I may skip FSX. As long as nobody can tell me about the features that make the huge step forward in flying experience I am not gonna buy FSX.

Tell you about features? Sorry. It's a "feel" thing. FSX feels more enjoyable because of better visuals, flight dynamics and things like weather. Maybe I've convinced myself that this s true. But that's my experience - telling someone about features won't convey the feel.

I doubt FSX is accepted by the majority of the community.

The majority doesn't fly my system. More and more developers are shifting to FSX, partially as consumers shift, partially to get a handle on the FSX SDK as a stepping stone to developing for FS11. My gut feeling is that FS9 development is on the downslope in terms of quantity. THAT is the key and bears repeating in other words. FS9 is a dead end product. It's days as a development target are numbered and that number is far smaller than for FSX.

One other thing. Numerous "big names", ex., Jim Vile, Reggie Fields, Holger Sandman, etc. have made the move. That alone suggests the future is not FS9, but FSX. I don't necessarily follow any crowd. However, I respect the opinions of people who have proven themselves more knowledgeable than myself about certain things when I make decisions. I may disagree with them, but at least I follow what they are thinking as much as possible. Their collective opinion seems to be that FSX is the way to go, both in freeware and in payware.

There is no need for Vista.

UNLESS DX10 gets fixed and implemented correctly, only then will FSX/FS11 allow one to take advantage of it. FS9 cannot and never will be able to, period.

If the XP/FS9 combo works best for someone, great.
For others, the Vista 64/FSX or XP/FSX combo is the way to go.
YMMV

One thing I "know" (metaphorically speaking):
Waiting for FS11 means waiting at least 2 more years before even an alpha version makes news. That's 2 more years of FSX development by 3rd party developers before the FS11 beta gets announced as far as I can tell, meaning 3 years from now at best before a stable, ready-to-switch-over-to-FS11 product is available. I definitely do see flying (or going back to) FS9 for 3 more years.
(((No, I do not know anything official, have any contacts within MS, with Aces or anywhere else. I did say "metaphorically", remember.)))

sprocky · Post by **sprocky** » 20 Jan 2009, 15:13

Ford Friendly wrote: Tell you about features? Sorry. It's a "feel" thing. FSX feels more enjoyable because of better visuals, flight dynamics and things like weather. Maybe I've convinced myself that this s true. But that's my experience - telling someone about features won't convey the feel.

Hm, on the current system it would be seeing a slideshow with all features switched on to "feel" it the way you described.

FS9 is a dead end product.

Sure it is. But there are still people using even older FS versions. I bought FS2000 as soon as it was available. I switched to FS9 about six months before FSX was out. I used FS2000 about six years and as long as I can update my AI stuff from time to time I'd be happy to use FS9 that long, too.

One other thing. Numerous "big names", ex., Jim Vile, Reggie Fields, Holger Sandman, etc. have made the move. That alone suggests the future is not FS9, but FSX.

Hm, since MS still uses parts of of the code from older FS versions in FS9 I guess it is that way in FSX. Things that may have been introduced in FSX may last in upcoming versions. I do not see that the moving developers prove FSX is the future but people prepare for the future. But I maybe wrong here as I did not talk to them about their thoughts.

Sidenote: just checked avsim for available FSX downloads. ok, some hundreds for aircraft and possibly the same amount for scenery (when subtracting the Chile scenery files). I remember reading about the 4-WEEK-flightplans introduced in FSX. People were celebrating this new feature. It seems there is nobody using this feature. When you compare the amount of files uploaded for each version you cannot ignore that most of them are intended to be used with FS9 (although they may work in FSX).

I definitely do see flying (or going back to) FS9 for 3 more years.

Yes, I will use it

BTW: i do not want to start a discussion with you about the taste. I respect your decision to move but I do not have to agree with you on everything

MIKE JG · Post by **MIKE JG** » 20 Jan 2009, 16:33

I think, from my point of view, the biggest issue I have with FSX is the idea that much of what I've spent the last couple of years collecting for FS9 in the form of payware and freeware, will not work in FSX or can not be used in FSX for various reasons. That and knowing ahead of time that my computer that runs FS9 pretty well, will most certainly not run FSX well at all.

That is very frustrating, knowing that in order to "join the future", I have to go out and spend a bunch of money to get a new system, just to enjoy FSX. I think that fact alone is the biggest rub on FSX for current FS9 users.

FS9 users wanted another, newer version of their favorite program which MS gave them. The masses were happy. Then the shock of realizing that here's this great new version of Flight Simulator, with all these neat new features that many people were asking for, yet the majority of FS9 users could not use FSX because it was such a leap forward.

I think that was such a huge slap in the face that many would be FSX users were instantly put off from what probably is a great version of the FS series.

As we all know, money doesn't grow on trees, at least not in my neighborhood. So now it becomes a money thing, sort of a have's versus the have not's. Microsoft has (unintentionally) alienated a HUGE percentage of the Flight Simulator fan base simply by placing the series out of reach for a good bit of the population.

That's where the angst towards FSX is coming from IMO. When the series becomes out of reach for the average Joe, then the series has probably seen it's high point and will never have the following that it once had.

MIKE JG · Post by **MIKE JG** » 20 Jan 2009, 16:41

@Ford, don't forget the original poster's opinion of FSX is from that of a scenery developers point of view and his frustration with the limitations and nuances of FSX are from trying to develop scenery addons for FSX.

There are things that you can do in FS9 scenery wise that you can no longer do in FSX. Is that really progress? That's where he's coming from.

That whole "rotate to viewer" thing is a scenery design element in FS9 that allows you to make any object rotate so that it always faces the point of view that it is being looked at. This is a great feature to use for trees so that you only have to make them as two sided polygons instead of 4 sided crosses that don't always look right.

The frustration with FSX is because this is a great feature that saves polygons and computing resources. Yet FSX does not allow this simple feature. That's only one of the reasons that he's switching back to FS9.

campbeme · Post by **campbeme** » 20 Jan 2009, 16:47

seconds out round 4 Ding

BadPvtDan · Post by **BadPvtDan** » 20 Jan 2009, 17:01

I love me a grease fire.

MIKE JG · Post by **MIKE JG** » 20 Jan 2009, 19:40

Fire! What fire??

Ford Friendly · Post by **Ford Friendly** » 20 Jan 2009, 20:06

I never said anyone needs to agree with me or with my point of view. I do respect the decision of users to stick with FS9 for whatever reason (technical difficulties, financial constraints,

the biggest issue I have with FSX is the idea that much of what I've spent the last couple of years collecting for FS9 in the form of payware and freeware, will not work in FSX or can not be used in FSX for various reasons.

, etc.).

I just get tired of the same old things (rants, arguments, etc.) being trotted out 2 years after FSX went gold.

FSX is here to stay. It is the path to the future, like it or not. That's not my belief, that's MS's very public position.

That a "scenery developer" is still unable to come to grips with that is simply depressing from a certain perspective. (On a personal note, I understand the guy's frustration to an extent. After a head injury last year, I simply can't grasp certain mental concepts I used to nor remember them as easily or even permanently. However, once I do get them sunk deeply into my hard-headed skull, most do stay.) I never did "get" calculus but I didn't go back to algebra because of it.

Firebird · Post by **Firebird** » 20 Jan 2009, 21:24

Ford,
You are right about it being the path to the future, I just think that is a step I wish to jump over. I feel the same about Vista, yes its on the path to he future but I don't feel that it offers me enough to move from XP.

nickblack423 · Post by **nickblack423** » 20 Jan 2009, 21:36

Ford Friendly wrote: FSX is here to stay. It is the path to the future, like it or not. That's not my belief, that's MS's very public position.

That may be true, but I think the point being made here is along the lines of the fact that many people (myself included) are very very upset and disheartened by FSX after expecting so much, and feel that Microsoft have not done their research properly before they have released FSX, aiming it at the next generation of systems, which was still 2 years in the future for most simmers, instead of at those who could probably run it straight away.

I feel they have gone too far with FSX. I would love to have it running full tilt on my system but it won't and I would have to buy a bloody expensive new system in order to get it to work.

Nick

Ford Friendly · Post by **Ford Friendly** » 20 Jan 2009, 23:35

I would love to have my brain back the way it was. That ain't the situation. So I deal with what is rather than what should be, could have been or might have been.

FSX is here. It is now. It will continue to have more aircraft and scenery developed for it than FS9 will over the next 3 years minimum and that's hardly debatable as far as I can see. Limited resources will and have forced 3rd party developers to make choices about which paths they will support and develop for and FSX development is growing steadily while FS9 development is stalling from what I can tell. A few items here and there may give hope to sum but the numbers are dwindling if I read the forums and the store inventories correctly.

Did I have a large investment in FS9 - monetarily and hardware-wise? By some measures, yes; by others, not as much as some people. Did FSX have teething problems? Sure. So did FS9. Did that stop me from moving? Stop? No. Delay a bit, yes. But once I made the move, I haven't regretted a second of it.

think the point being made here is along the lines of the fact that many people (myself included) are very very upset and disheartened by FSX after expecting so much, and feel that Microsoft have not done their research properly before they have released FSX, aiming it at the next generation of systems, which was still 2 years in the future for most simmers, instead of at those who could probably run it straight away.

I feel they have gone too far with FSX. I would love to have it running full tilt on my system but it won't and I would have to buy a bloody expensive new system in order to get it to work.

So you're ticked the decision-making process at MS? That barely registers on my radar. If I were ticked at every corporation whose decisions I didn't agree with, I'd never buy anything. Why aren't you ticked that MS didn't incorporate better texture resolution capability into FS9? Better defauilt mesh? Better atc? Better flight modelling? I don't understand what is behind this type of "Blinders-on" argument. FS9 is not the be-all and end-all. It has numerous problems. FSX is markedly more technically advanced, will run capably on what is now considered a less-then-cutting edge system, and has much greater backwards-compabaility than lots of FS9-die-hards give it credit for.

There's nothing that would cause me to move backwards back to FS9. For those of you who are staying with it, enjoy. My most expensive and time-consuming hobbies are FSn and pc's, not golf or real world flight, or bowling or.... So, upgrading pc's is just to be expected and I plan for it. YMMV.

But posts like the thread starter are merely rants and poor-pitiful-me posts that equate to pi**ing in the wind. They garner attention but accomplish nothing --- if I hadn't become someone who has trouble sleeping, I'd probably just moved on after the first couple lines.

My opinion of the original post's argument remains the same. It's an ill-conceived argument, demonstrating a lack of understanding, an ignorance of facts and a determination to live in the past. Shrug. If that sounds derisive or upsetting, shrug. So be it. It's my opinion and I'm sure people have their own about MY opinion.

I feel they have gone too far with FSX

Taken at face value, that statement says that you will not move on from FS9 to FS11 when it comes out. To which I repeat, enjoy FS9.

BadPvtDan · Post by **BadPvtDan** » 21 Jan 2009, 01:18

Man you need to relax.

Back to the future??

Back to the future??

Re: Back to the future??