Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Shaun Fletcher

New Sim-Wings Heathrow Airport Pictures. (Large Post)

Recommended Posts

Once again I am confused, DX10 will not be released for ages, quote from earlier post.

If this is right, what have I installed on my Vista machine with this file:-

directX_aug2007_redist?

This file found when Googling Direct x!0 on the net?

Also these screenshots look awesome, but what kind of framerate hit can we expexct in 2004 with a medion range set-up?

Or better still what set-up do the developers recommend?

Regards JohnT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again I am confused, DX10 will not be released for ages, quote from earlier post.

If this is right, what have I installed on my Vista machine with this file:-

directX_aug2007_redist?

This file found when Googling Direct x!0 on the net?

John,

The latest DirectX version is 9.20.1057 (9.0c). The file you have installed is DirectX End-User Runtimes, and it is the latest update for DirectX 9.0c.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one thing DirectX 10 is already available and running, just check Nvidia and Ati webpages with their Directx 10 demos, as well as a few games that uses it, like Lost Planet and Bioshock, which for the second works perfectly fine on my computer, and according to several hardware test, the performance gap is not huge between both version. So yeah DirectX IS available since the launch of Windows Vista, while of course there might be update to the API, but running the redistributable muse include these updates, and most of all the dxwebsetup.exe which check the lateste version through internet.

Microsoft is currently working on DirectX 10.1 which is the next step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again I am confused, DX10 will not be released for ages, quote from earlier post.

If this is right, what have I installed on my Vista machine with this file:-

directX_aug2007_redist?

This file found when Googling Direct x!0 on the net?

Also these screenshots look awesome, but what kind of framerate hit can we expexct in 2004 with a medion range set-up?

Or better still what set-up do the developers recommend?

Regards JohnT

For the FS2004 version we probably will give system requirements like:

o Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004

o Windows XP/Vista

o Processor 2,6 GHz

o 1 GB RAM

o 3D graphic card with at least 256 MB RAM

As FS2004 can only use a single core CPU there will be limits to the frames you will get, it's very hard to find a CPU with high end single core performance as development of those has basically stopped in the last 2 years. Sounds strange, but that's what is making FS2004 development hard these days. We could add a lot more details when we could, but you would not find a CPU that could handle it. FSX, with it's ability to use up to 8 cores scales up a lot easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just one thing DirectX 10 is already available and running, just check Nvidia and Ati webpages with their Directx 10 demos,...

Wedge,

I don't want to start a fray but as I stated before the current "Full" version of DirectX is 9.0c. Yes There is a "Demo and preveiw" of ver.10 that is out. There is also a SDK out that contains some of the 3D rendering code but the full version is still in the works.

All my info is coming stright from a Microsoft Manager and engineer who is involved with the project. I get to talk with him face to face one to two times a week as he boards the aircraft that Microsoft leases from our company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heathrow will be released for both sims, FS9 and FSX.

will it be sold as two different products or purchasing FS9 version also include the FSX version when it is released?

I am only interested in FSX versions. But if I get an FS9 version along with it, I wouldn't mind it or it makes my decision a little easier. Point is... I am at this stage not willing to purchase FS9 addons exclusively.

Manny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So beautiful but when Madrid Barajas will be release!???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said before, for some products we will do FS2004 version, for others not. That's for the biggest part a matter of sales, Aerosoft is a commercial firm, we provide what customers want. And the trend in the forum is not the trend in sales.

Just the same it only makes since you stand to make more money producing two versions. You can't tell me there's not a demand for an FS2k4 version of Aspen or Cloud9's Orlando Intl (for example). If your selling in stores it would only make since that an FSX compatible scenery would out sell an FS2k4 product with a brand new shinny FSX box sitting right next to your add-on. Most simmers prefer to download anyway. But just the same an argument could be made with any FS add-on sitting on a store shelf. Who would by new scenery for a sim sitting in the discount bin. Bottom line is when Johnny get's the product home and is treated to 5FPS over London what's he going to think. He searches the forums (if he even cares ) only to realize that recycle bin version was the better of the two performance wise (there you could make another sale if the said person wanted it bad enough)... You had to release Heathrow for FS2k4 if you hoped to sell it as London is not the best performance area in both versions (FS9 or FSX).

Fooling novice simmers into thinking their getting a great deal with a new purchase of FSX on top of some new scenery is not exactly what I call demand (remember you mentioned boxed sales here). FS2k4 can't compete in that arena until the said simmer get's the reality check I mentioned above. The demand is there for a FS2k4 Aspen or Orlando (seeing people are tired of the Simflyer's version) but it would take more work and that's the real issue here, it's not demand. I use those two sceneries as examples but this could be carried over to any perspective future FSX 'only' scenery (people are always in the market for new scenery no matter what version they use)... Currently you could make more money making dual versions like this Heathrow scenery but the developers would have to want to do this. Every FS9 simmer will attest, if you guys did any of your FSX only sceneries (exception being a previous FS2k4 version already available like 'FlorenceX') for FS2k4 you'd have no problem selling it. You've lost quite a many sales waiting on people to purchase FSX and then purchase your scenery (not to mention be bothered with the many patches Microsoft is releasing). The price of admission far exceeds running the installer and off you go. :?

Bottom line is no matter how you guys try to rationalize the FSX plateform as being the future, it's shaping up to be a version that many will skip (too many MS patches and headaches to be bothered with it plus the shots I'm seeing don't look that much different that FS9. In most cases they look worse). Actually FSX might be skipped more that any other version in FS history. Again FS9 add-ons will have a shelf life far longer than previously estimated and it would do good for anyone to capitalize on that if their in the business to do so... :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just the same it only makes since you stand to make more money producing two versions. You can't tell me there's not a demand for an FS2k4 version of Aspen or Cloud9's Orlando Intl (for example). If your selling in stores it would only make since that an FSX compatible scenery would out sell an FS2k4 product with a brand new shinny FSX box sitting right next to your add-on. Most simmers prefer to download anyway. But just the same an argument could be made with any FS add-on sitting on a store shelf. Who would by new scenery for a sim sitting in the discount bin. Bottom line is when Johnny get's the product home and is treated to 5FPS over London what's he going to think. He searches the forums (if he even cares ) only to realize that recycle bin version was the better of the two performance wise (there you could make another sale if the said person wanted it bad enough)... You had to release Heathrow for FS2k4 if you hoped to sell it as London is not the best performance area in both versions (FS9 or FSX).

Fooling novice simmers into thinking their getting a great deal with a new purchase of FSX on top of some new scenery is not exactly what I call demand (remember you mentioned boxed sales here). FS2k4 can't compete in that arena until the said simmer get's the reality check I mentioned above. The demand is there for a FS2k4 Aspen or Orlando (seeing people are tired of the Simflyer's version) but it would take more work and that's the real issue here, it's not demand. I use those two sceneries as examples but this could be carried over to any perspective future FSX 'only' scenery (people are always in the market for new scenery no matter what version they use)... Currently you could make more money making dual versions like this Heathrow scenery but the developers would have to want to do this. Every FS9 simmer will attest, if you guys did any of your FSX only sceneries (exception being a previous FS2k4 version already available like 'FlorenceX') for FS2k4 you'd have no problem selling it. You've lost quite a many sales waiting on people to purchase FSX and then purchase your scenery (not to mention be bothered with the many patches Microsoft is releasing). The price of admission far exceeds running the installer and off you go. :?

Bottom line is no matter how you guys try to rationalize the FSX plateform as being the future, it's shaping up to be a version that many will skip (too many MS patches and headaches to be bothered with it plus the shots I'm seeing don't look that much different that FS9. In most cases they look worse). Actually FSX might be skipped more that any other version in FS history. Again FS9 add-ons will have a shelf life far longer than previously estimated and it would do good for anyone to capitalize on that if their in the business to do so... :wink:

Dillon, in the end it comes down to me being able to see our sales figures and you not. Do you really think I would be willing to jeopardizes the future of Aerosoft to make a point? We need to turn over a few million a year, we got a few dozen staff, mortgages to pay....

To be clear, FS2004 add-ons lost already almost all their shelf life, the main stores JUST DO NOT ORDER it anymore. Believe me, we would be drinking champagne if they would. In the last weeks I checked out stores in Germany (world biggest boxed market), UK, Holland, France, Belgium Spain and NONE of these stores had any FS2004 product that was not outdated. In fact most of them had no FS2004 products. Only in the US things are a bit different as stores tend to have more space and sending unsold products back is harder. But the US market is at this time small compared to Europe.

Things online are a bit different as their is not store involved and keeping stuff online cost nothing. But I just done a first calculation of August sales and believe me FSX sales wipe out FS2004 sales, even though 85% of our products online are FS2004. Now if YOU promise to pay our mortgages, we'll do more FS2004 projects than we planned to do.

Mind you, there will be a few killer FS2004 products we'll be doing in the next few months, I seen stuff that knocks your socks off, but in money FS2004 is just small fish. You obviously hate to hear that, but again, people vote with their wallet. Or to put it in other terms, quoting the words of a good friend; " People who like FSX buy and fly, people who don't spend time online complaining about FSX". And to be honest, until somebody shows me sales data that proves different I will accept that. In fact, it gets a bit boring defending FSX. If all the people who claim that FSX sucks would gather and either start buying FS2004 addons or developing them, I would have some patience.

You like FS2004, you do not like FSX. Fine, we got no problem with that, in fact we hope we will be able to sell you all the FS2004 we are about to release. It's just the fact that there are fewer and fewer of you that forces us to move as we do. Aerosoft does not dictate the market, we follow it. That's why we survive, unlike some of our rival companies that were not able to make the transition to FSX. Did you not notice some companies got sites that are not updated since 2006?

Bottom line is: I am paid by customers in the end, I sell what they want to buy, we start developments on what is sold most at this moment. If you tell me we are doing wrong I challenge you to proof me wrong. We could make you a reseller of our FS2004 products under the same conditions as we have resellers now that are only asking for FSX products. If you are right you will make good money and we will make good money. You say customer will buy FS2004 products? Okay, you find them for me, just keep in mind we need a few thousand for every product to keep the boxed guys happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to my message above... I just got this image from a reviewer who is doing a review on our Hawaii DillinghamX. I got the flights to test it with and I 100% confirm his findings. I get 20 fps on FSX and FS2004 with ALL sliders fully right, both in FSX and in FS2004. I got a solid machine here, but nothing uncommon, CPU, mobo, memory and graphics card together are under $1200 and I overclocked it mildly with the tools the mobo manufacturer installs (266 FSB to 310 FSB) .

Again this is with FS2004 and FSX at max settings. Twenty fps solid on both sims (on FSX both core of the CPU at full blast, on FS2004 one core doing nothing).The person who tells me he prefers the default FS2004 over the default FSX better come up with some good arguments. Of course in the sim the FSX version looked a lot better with the far better water effects and refections, screenshots only show half the picture.

Btw, if you are not logged on you will not see the attached image (do get a logon to this forum, it is free and safe, we will never use that account for any mailing. We just need the logon to prevent people with very tiny d*cks to post spam about how you can increase the size of your (obviously already very adequately) apparatus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the way people always like to take FS2k4 shots without adding haze when comparing them to FSX shots (I have to admit it does make FSX look considerably better next to the FS2k4 shot :lol: )... Either take the haze out of both or compare both with haze... :?

No one is doubting FS2k4 default looks worse than FSX default but that was left along time ago thanks to groups like Flight1 of Ulimate Terrain fame. If a person is making a choice at this point their not using a default version of FS9 (why even raise an argument like that?). Another thing is Hawaii is not one of the more demanding areas of any version of FS. Try a comparison of a tricked out FS9 setup in a place like London comparing the airport previewed here and see what sim performs better. Let's add LDS's 767 on top of that as a realistic option for flying into that scenery. Make sure your facing London proper when you take the comparison shots. Last but not least add 'HAZE' to all shots...

I don't own any boxed versions of add-ons (exception being early FDC/Radar Contact because there was no other way to receive those add-ons at the time), I wouldn't traffic in boxed versions either if given the choice (been there done that and the storage over the years get's used up quick). I'm not telling you to stop building FSX products all I'm saying is there's still a market for FS9 add-ons (SOLD ONLINE) and I'd bet you money it will stay that way until the next version of Flight Simulator comes out (this trend this time around is more apparent than any other version of FS). You said a year ago when you released Alcatraz that the FS9 market would be dead by now, you were wrong on some level (online sales that is). I work with quite a few developers and their still building FS9 add-ons. There's a great A320 coming out that proves this point and it will be released for FS9 first.

Mathjis it's your company and you guys do with it what you will. I just know I'm seeing threads all over the community stating FSX is not catching on like versions before. I already explained above why boxed FSX products would sell over newer FS9 add-ons. I would order FSX add-ons if I was a retailer. There's no difference in that then what's going on with Vista and the products designed for it. At this point XP begs the term, "if it ain't broke don't fix it"... I'm going to remember this thread and see in early spring of '08' if FS9 has fully bit the dust. I doubt it will but for the sake of argument we should make a small bet... :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dillon, I've been looking into converting Dillingham for FS9, and in doing so I've gotten more of a clue as to why devs aren't cranking out bi-sim versions of their work. It's a lot of trouble to convert from one version of the sim to another. Mathijs is exactly right when he says MS added a lot of features that make it easier for scenery designers in FSX. I'd gotten so used to X's development cycle that I forgot all the nifty new tools until I tried to make PHDH backward-compatible. Think about it from a developer's point of view: if we could be assured that a product would sell doubly well if it were in both versions, we'd crank both out. But right now the user base is split between versions, so we get roughly the same sales as we used to for a single-sim version, but for twice the work. Given that FS is a damned hard way to make any money in the first place, that would just be fiscally irresponsible. I'm not saying never on dual versions of my work, but it's a hard thing to justify. Probably the best thing for us to do as devs is magically suss out which sim version would attract the most buyers for a particular scenery, but since my crystal ball is on the fritz that's not going to happen. Just thought I'd throw in my perspective.

P.S. - A little haze isn't going to change that coarse coastline data, or up the res on the terrain mesh. I'd forgotten how far FS had come until I saw these shots. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mathijs is exactly right when he says MS added a lot of features that make it easier for scenery designers in FSX.

Hey Bill, first of all love your work....

Now explain to me why Fly Tampa, FLight Zone, Imaginesim to name a few don't feel the same... :?

Probably the best thing for us to do as devs is magically suss out which sim version would attract the most buyers

This actually makes since. Just like Heathrow I wouldn't recommend doing KEWR for FSX (at least not yet anyway). You don't need a crystal ball to figure that out... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect that the devs shouting loudest about the problems of developing in FSX already had specific and settled development pipelines that they're not keen on upending for a new version. Let's face it, there's a lot of learning to be done in order to develop effectively in X. I think many of the complaints we heard from the likes of Vauchez and FlyTampa early on had to do with the lack of support for FS8-style ground polys, which most high-end scenery developers had come to depend on. I've found that, at least for smaller projects like mine, many of those objections have been answered by MS with FSX SP1. We bitched to high heaven about how our layered ground didn't follow the new round Earth, and they added a function to bend the polys to fit the planet, provided we tessellated our groundwork in 100m increments or smaller. I don't know about the rest of the devs, but that's enough for me. I used some old-style groundwork like that in Dillingham, and it worked like a charm. I can't see what's not to like about building for FSX, personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A little haze isn't going to change that coarse coastline data, or up the res on the terrain mesh.

So true but FS2k4 looks allot better with haze especially for comparison shots. Who ever flies without it in either sim (that wouldn't look realistic at all as there's no visible atmosphere)??? Like I said above for prospective buyers of scenery these days, no one flies with the default textures/mesh,etc...

Below is more like what people are seeing in their FS9 installation these days. This in my book can give FSX a run for it's money any day (this is not to say the improvements in FSX aren't credible but the visuals below can be had with a lesser system than what's required for FSX)...

The new Heathrow's pics above look just as good in FS9 as these shots (don't you agree)... That's why I see little improvement in FSX over a built up FS9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a low and slow flier in the main, I just can't agree Dillon. The mere fact of 1m/px or higher ground texture res as compared to a max of 5m/px means FS9 simply looks fuzzy when you get down low by comparison. Yes, adding haze makes FS9 look more realistic. But flying up high and using wide-angle views also masks the fact that when you're down low, the ground in the old sim just can't stack up. And we haven't even considered bump mapping, environment mapping, specular mapping, fresnel ramps, smoothly gradated alpha blends at the edges of custom ground polys, the round Earth, flying over the poles, dramatically improved water... I could go on. Sorry to sound like a Microsoft evangelist, but as you can probably tell I'm rather bullish on the new sim. That doesn't mean I don't swear at it when I'm trying to fly for fun (my rig is pretty old and crappy), but I can see the potential, and FSX is poised to be a real knockout once the addon community gets a good head of steam worked up. We're just getting started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love the way people always like to take FS2k4 shots without adding haze when comparing them to FSX shots (I have to admit it does make FSX look considerably better next to the FS2k4 shot :lol: )... Either take the haze out of both or compare both with haze... :?

No one is doubting FS2k4 default looks worse than FSX default but that was left along time ago thanks to groups like Flight1 of Ulimate Terrain fame. If a person is making a choice at this point their not using a default version of FS9 (why even raise an argument like that?). Another thing is Hawaii is not one of the more demanding areas of any version of FS. Try a comparison of a tricked out FS9 setup in a place like London comparing the airport previewed here and see what sim performs better. Let's add LDS's 767 on top of that as a realistic option for flying into that scenery. Make sure your facing London proper when you take the comparison shots. Last but not least add 'HAZE' to all shots...

Well I don't think haze will change the far more detailed coastline, mesh, landclasses and textured. And I took honest screenshots, using the same weather theme, without any additional setting. It's FS2004 that does it as I show it. Yet another example that default FSX is simply better. It knows the world is not as clear as in FS2004 so it adds haze where needed.

And yes, with addons FS2004 gets a lot better, we sold a several hundred of thousands products that helped there. But we were not discussing addons, we were discussing the simulator..

But let's not fight, you like FS2004 and don't feel FSX adds a lot. I beg to differ. Let's agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a low and slow flier in the main, I just can't agree Dillon. The mere fact of 1m/px or higher ground texture res as compared to a max of 5m/px means FS9 simply looks fuzzy when you get down low by comparison. Yes, adding haze makes FS9 look more realistic. But flying up high and using wide-angle views also masks the fact that when you're down low, the ground in the old sim just can't stack up. And we haven't even considered bump mapping, environment mapping, specular mapping, fresnel ramps, smoothly gradated alpha blends at the edges of custom ground polys, the round Earth, flying over the poles, dramatically improved water... I could go on. Sorry to sound like a Microsoft evangelist, but as you can probably tell I'm rather bullish on the new sim. That doesn't mean I don't swear at it when I'm trying to fly for fun (my rig is pretty old and crappy), but I can see the potential, and FSX is poised to be a real knockout once the addon community gets a good head of steam worked up. We're just getting started.

Bill concerning low and slow I have agree, FSX does appear in many cases to be the better of the two as long as your not flying in the US Southwest. I just hope you guys don't totally forget FS9 until FSX is officially up to speed with comparable performance on most machines. Aerosoft's Aspen would have been great in FS9. I suggested to Mathjis to do Jackson Hole to go along with Aspen. Hopefully if Jackson Hole (KJAC) is concidered it would be a dual plateform product.

Once again a thank you to SimWings for doing yet another awesome scenery to be enjoyed by all. Mathjis has been a great guy since the Lago days and if something makes since I know you'll concider it (I haven't forgot that last Huphrey Bogart suggestion you included in Casablanca)... Bill your stuff is always top notch. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill concerning low and slow I have agree, FSX does appear in many cases to be the better of the two as long as you not flying in the US Southwest. I just hope you guys don't totally forget FS9 until FSX is officially up to speed with comparable performance on most machines. Aerosoft's Aspen would have been great in FS9. I suggested to Mathjis to do Jackson Hole to go along with Aspen. Hopefully if Jackson Hole (KJAC) is concidered it will be a dual plateform product.

Once again a thank you to SimWings for doing yet another awesome scenery to be enjoyed by all. Mathjis has been a great guy since the Lago days and if something makes since I know you'll concider it (I haven't forgot that last Huphrey Bogart suggestion you included in Casablanca)... Bill your stuff is always top notch. :wink:

Thanks for the kind words... let me make one more case for FSX.

Next week we'll release VFR Germany 1. This is a large pack that covers a quarter of Germany. It has 1 meter textures and it has 8.000.000 buildings (!) that are placed use geo referenced databases. That means that all these buildings are not random autogen, but can be related to an actual address (street + number). Over the whole area the accuracy of the areal images is about 50 cm, only possible because FSX use a round world model. I think that that is the future of scenery. And it just is not possible with FS2004. It is actually ONLY file size (this alone will be 15 Gig) that is holding us back.

The things your images show are great, I never disagreed that a fully setup FS2004 is at this moment a match for a default FSX. But FS2004 is dead, there will be stuff released for sure, but everything that can be done is done in some form. Personally I thing AES was the most exiting thing for FS2004 in the last 2 years as it really added something new, not just more scenery/aircraft etc. By rejecting FSX you are rejecting real progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW :shock:

Amazing :shock: :D

Makes me happy :D:) 8) :lol::P :wink: :mrgreen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it wud be nice to see some screenshots for heathrow in fsx :D is it possible?

I do not think it has been compiled into that version but we'll ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And we haven't even considered bump mapping, environment mapping, specular mapping, fresnel ramps, smoothly gradated alpha blends at the edges of custom ground polys, the round Earth, flying over the poles, dramatically improved water.

I won't even dream of the performance consequences for that. sure the graphics and visuals will be vastly improved, but at what cost? The tradeoff for graphics vs performance will simply not be worth it, at least not in the early stages of FSX, who allready have a troubled history the only year it have been out.

I believe FS11 will fix most of the problems FSX have to this date and that will be the real enjoyable new simulator, at least that's what i personally believe :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...