New Machine Build

gsnde · Post by **gsnde** » 08 Jul 2008, 14:41

I think this is a decision to be made by everybody individually. There is no right way to do it, and therefore we should be easy about each others decision.

Professionally I see that each new application generation (that is business, not game/simulator) is taking more resources and adding more things. Often these new things are not immediately done the right way (think of the bloated Office XP version, or Vista). Then again some versions later they work perfectly (Office 2003). You can easily skip one or the other version. Maybe you dislike it specifically, and overall it is just too expensive and not necessary to always have the newest of everything.

Still sooner or later you will have to get recent, or you pay dearly in support fees or loose support (again business not game). I am sure that latest when the successor of FSX will hit the shelves, development for FS9 will stop. Then you have the choice to either stay with what you have or go on and update. Let's hope FS11 will be better suited with the hardware of tomorrow than FSX is today.

I see comparable trends in private life. Do I need all the circuits, buttons and engines in my new car? Probably not, still I will get them when I have to replace my current car.
I love my 15 year old Sony stereo with a real pair of good speakers, but when it breaks I most likely have to check out these new Dolby XX.YY monsters with dozens of little speakers scattered all over the room - what a cabling nightmare.

ChrisG · Post by **ChrisG** » 08 Jul 2008, 16:42

SMOC wrote:
ChrisG wrote:Yeah, people are too stuck in their old ways!
Because they don't want to move to a program that uses more resources, requires more RAM, more powerful CPU, etc... that equates to being stuck in their old ways?

Or did I read that wrong?

No, you read it correctly. FS2002 to FS2004, how much more power did that require........the same is with XP to Vista.......Mac OSX 10.3 to 10.4, etc.

Everything is getting bigger and better in the computer world, the hardware is currently lagging behind the software yes, but when it catches up, will everyone upgrade...I think the answer will still be no

BadPvtDan · Post by **BadPvtDan** » 08 Jul 2008, 16:57

As a consumer, FSX didn't deliver what I wanted. That being said, I am getting 25 to 30 fps at Atlanta with all sliders to the right, UT, GE Pro, airport scenery and hundreds of aircraft. Nice!

ChrisG · Post by **ChrisG** » 08 Jul 2008, 16:58

So, what exactly did you want if that's what you're getting....?!

BadPvtDan · Post by **BadPvtDan** » 08 Jul 2008, 17:18

A better AI engine.

ChrisG · Post by **ChrisG** » 08 Jul 2008, 17:27

BadPvtDan wrote:A better AI engine.

And did you request it in 2005 when Aces asked what people wanted?

BadPvtDan · Post by **BadPvtDan** » 08 Jul 2008, 17:32

I don't know what Aces is...then or now.

ChrisG · Post by **ChrisG** » 08 Jul 2008, 17:36

Aces is the Microsoft Games R&D department. They made a request on their forum early in the development of FSX asking design groups to put their requests for improvments forwards.

BadPvtDan · Post by **BadPvtDan** » 08 Jul 2008, 17:42

I don't know what people asked for but I reckon they didn't deliver given the relatively low number of adopters. To me, FSX is a prettier FS9 but the latter looks pretty good with mynew machine

ChrisG · Post by **ChrisG** » 08 Jul 2008, 17:45

It ended up people asking for stupid things.....Better textures on the default airlines for example (Honestly, who gives a damn!?)

I love FSX, there's no way I'd ever want to use FS9

Can I request a new Tonka model that works in FSX?

(Joke!)

BadPvtDan · Post by **BadPvtDan** » 08 Jul 2008, 18:00

Lol talk to a modeler. They tell us what they're making and we make packages around that.

SMOC · Post by **SMOC** » 08 Jul 2008, 18:25

ChrisG wrote:No, you read it correctly. FS2002 to FS2004, how much more power did that require........the same is with XP to Vista.......Mac OSX 10.3 to 10.4, etc.

Everything is getting bigger and better in the computer world, the hardware is currently lagging behind the software yes, but when it catches up, will everyone upgrade...I think the answer will still be no

I guess the point is dollar investment to enjoyment payout. FSX doesn't deliver anything above and beyond FS9 in a spectacular way. It's just the next version. Had they made the flight plans more flexible, actually cared about military aviation, made better use of available resources, etc... then people might be more likely to want to purchase and develop add-ons for it.

And using XP and Vista is a perfect example. Vista is a complete resource hog. Runs programs slower, takes longer to boot up, has shotty drivers, etc... why would I want to purchase that when what I have functions perfectly? People shouldn't have to purchase a new computer to run a new program every couple of years. But when I build my next computer(whenever that may be) I'll use XP as long as it supports the hardware and if not I'll probably go to Linux.

So until they start building the program to respond to user desires... people will stick with what they already own, already changed, and already know.

flyboy · Post by **flyboy** » 09 Jul 2008, 13:51

I use both, FSX to explore the new world and FS9 for the add-ons, traffic and payware aircraft that I have bought.

FSX shows what is possible when everyone can afford the upgrade in hardware to use it at its full potential.

I remember a lot of misgivings when FS9 came out. A lot of people were FS2002 die hearts and some were still bragging on older versions.

A lot of improvements need to be made to the AI engine if we want to run "real world" level traffic in ANY version of flight simulator. I am still amazed that we can duplicate what we do with what we have,

BadPvtDan · Post by **BadPvtDan** » 19 Jul 2008, 15:32

This machine is a beast! By far, the best thing I have done in awhile. If you have the means, I totally recommend these system specs. Hell, it wouldn't take much more to make the rig even better.