FSXI - any news?

[George W 3]

Having been an avid FS sim pilot for many years - I have taken a break. No specific reason, actually that is not totally true, as there was a need to rebuild some bridges with the dear wife, and not spend so much time on the computer - guess some of you may know the feeling!!!

I purchased FSX whilst in New York in the week it was released - and sadly have not used it. Reports and reviews on FSX seem to be mixed and I thought I would skip FSX and wait until Microsoft sorted Vista, DX 10 established itself and FSXI arrived.

Is my thinking logical?............and if it is...............is there any new as to when FSXI is due to hit the market.

[Shaun Fletcher 571]

is there any new as to when FSXI is due to hit the market.

Hello SquadronLeader,

I wouldn't think it'll be in this years Christmas Stocking.

[Marc W. 0]

... wait until Microsoft sorted Vista, DX 10 established itself and FSXI arrived.

Is my thinking logical?

I don't believe so ... at least I don't see things that way ... one can always wait for the next generation ... the next flight-sim, the next OS, the next generation of gpus, the next type of cpus ... there'll always be something better ... those running FSX now might as well skip FS XI for the same reason. Of course it saves money. But you are missing probably 3-4 years of fun with the latest technology

[Heimi 0]

Quotes from Phil Taylor

FSXI will not appear for AT LEAST 18 months AFTER TS2, which makes that late 2010 or more likely summer 2011 at the earliest.

21.07.2008

From that link, for instance, it is now official; TS2 is due for "holiday 2009". Which makes sense if you think about it, 90% of entertainment titles go for the holiday rush. And this serves to confirm broad hints I have been making about TS2, and should provide similar hints to the savvy who can read between the lines about when FS11 is likely due.

10.08.2008

With FSX 2 years into its cycle, and 2 years or so remaining

FS11 comes 2010.

[Burkhard 23]

Earliest. Wait for Trainsim 3 release, and then add 18 months.

[WEA-JHD 1]

I honestly can't wait for FS11 to hit the shelves, hopefully it will be remarkably improved over the current offering.

[Burkhard 23]

I honestly can't wait for FS11 to hit the shelves, hopefully it will be remarkably improved over the current offering.

I honestly can wait for FS11. FSX prooves to be far ahead of time. To delvelop anything new will take a lot of time and resources, and I hope they take all the time they need. If it even is 2011, let it be.

[WEA-JHD 1]

FSX prooves to be far ahead of time.

Oh, i beg to differ. it's based on a 10 year old graphics engine, that's why most people struggle to run it in the first place.

I agree, however that they should take their time to get things right for the next FS version, cause they certainly failed to to so with FSX. I just hope they start from scratch with FS11

[Kiwikat 2]

Oh, i beg to differ. it's based on a 10 year old graphics engine, that's why most people struggle to run it in the first place.

I agree, however that they should take their time to get things right for the next FS version, cause they certainly failed to to so with FSX. I just hope they start from scratch with FS11

You just had to invade another thread with your trollish/fanboyish statements...

I hope that FS11 supports SLI and is natively multi-core. It's time to take advantage of the hardware out there. I also want to see better ATC, weather, and more flexible, detailed flight dynamics. I'm tired of being blown off of runways when there's a 10 knot crosswind that full rudder cannot even correct.

More precise, not detailed, correctly sized, scenery and autogen would be nice. MS has messed up autogen from the start in fs2002, it is way too small (or the aircraft are too large). A cessna should not be bigger than a 2 story house. Landclass should also be more precise and use smaller tiles (even though landclass is not limited to square 1km tiles like some developers suggest).

It would be cool to see MS contract some payware developers to make default aircraft for them, but I think it would cost too much for the end product.

As far as visuals go, FSX looks perfect so I couldn't ask for much more there.

Finally, GET RID OF GAMESPY!!! It is TERRIBLE. I only use FSHost servers these days.

[WEA-JHD 1]

You just had to invade another thread with your trollish/fanboyish statements...

So just because i'm stating my views and opinions on the matter i'm a foolish troll and a fanboy?

Just because you don't agree with me doesen't mean i'm a forum troll, but whatever floats your boat. We clearly have two very different views on the topic.

[Marc W. 0]

So just because i'm stating my views and opinions on the matter i'm a foolish troll and a fanboy?

No, because 2/3 of what you write as "views" is - to put it politely - very far from the truth. Which is why I'll refrain from further discussions with you.

And, as has been stated repeatedly : You have expressed more than a dozen time your despise of FSX, no one knows the real truth behind it (ancient machine, wrong setup, whatver ...) - if you don't like it, don't use it. No point preaching it here over and over and over again. Have fun with FS9.

Happy flying,

[OPabst 2091]

No, because 2/3 of what you write as "views" is - to put it politely - very far from the truth. Which is why I'll refrain from further discussions with you.

And, as has been stated repeatedly : You have expressed more than a dozen time your despise of FSX, no one knows the real truth behind it (ancient machine, wrong setup, whatver ...) - if you don't like it, don't use it. No point preaching it here over and over and over again. Have fun with FS9.

Happy flying,

Marc,

nice statement, but do the same please. There is no limitation to say that you like FSX more then FS9, but please don't put yourself over other, which say the opposit. The truth depents on so may things, that nobody has the real truth here, because they don't exist gernerally.

[Marc W. 0]

The truth depents on so may things, that nobody has the real truth here, because they don't exist gernerally.

Should I really quote some of those "untruths" I mentioned? Many people here favor FS9, but I see only one person posting nonsense ... sorry ...

Also, I disagree about truth ... not everything is relative, even Einstein never said that. You can argue about some things, but some things are absolute.

It's a joke that out-of-the box FS9 with full sliders looks as good (or better) than out-of-the box FSX with half sliders.

It's completely untrue that a machine that can run FSX with very good frames is unaffordable (everyone check Mathijs' guide).

If you look at any software stores selling boxed products, people seem to prefer FSX.

Of course I understand that you want to sell your FS9 AES stuff, which - I hope - will get a FSX version, eventually

But I agree with your suggestion ... like WEA, I have stated my point perhaps one time to many and will stay out of this. Actually everyone should have done that, Mathijs has repeatedly stated the facts as they are.

Cheers,

[Snave 466]

Getting back on track, I very much agree with the idea that the autogen - or the scale of the aircraft - really needs looking at for the next version. One of the real problems I have with the high-detailed FSX is that the greater the detail, the greater the scale inaccuracies appear.

Perhaps it is the aircraft, perhaps the scenery itself, but something doesn't look right, but I suspect that is because the distance perspective is something that they have simulated on the desktop. There's not a doubt that this is really exacerbated by multiple-monitor use, where the scale of the stuff outside the window really does suffer.

As FSXI looks to be a derivative engine, rather than a ground-up rebuild, I suspect that the autogen overlay is something that is going to be looked at, as it is the single biggest performance crippler in the sim as it stands. Perhaps with the new detail capabilities the FS engine has simply outgrown the `single object, dotted many times` concept and it might be time to look to alternatives, more suited to the rendering capabilities of modern graphic cards?

I for one would appreciate much greater and finesse over what appears, and when. Just playing with the manual settings possible in the FSX.cfg file gives a clue as to just how much more complex the menu options for display of overlaid scenery needs to be in the next incarnation of the sim, perhaps with more distant objects derived from very high detail `painted` mesh, rather than objects.

[OPabst 2091]

Of course I understand that you want to sell your FS9 AES stuff, which - I hope - will get a FSX version, eventually

No, I want to sell product the customer is buying. Thats why now 50% of my development time is FSX related to bring AES as fast as possible into FSX.

But, >200 new FS9 customer for AES every month (those who never buy AES before), let me see, that FS9 has still a market and as long as this done change, I will try to keep all future features of AES available for both Sims.

I don't want to push anybody anywhere, but I don't think that this discussion will help and only ends in personal fights. Everybody should be happy as he like it, and over the time, we will be all back together, latested when FSXI will bring all the benefits we expected for FSX allready.

So it make sence to discuss the needs of the next Sim here, that will help to all of us. Keep this discussion and forget the fights about FS9/FSX, nobody will win it.

[Marc W. 0]

Getting back on track, I very much agree with the idea that the autogen - or the scale of the aircraft - really needs looking at for the next version. One of the real problems I have with the high-detailed FSX is that the greater the detail, the greater the scale inaccuracies appear.

Yep, good to get back on topic ... scaling, ye - oh the trees - three times as big as they're supposed to be ... really hope they fix those!

[horst18519 231]

Is that back to topic?

Still, I always wonder why people moarn about tree size in FS. All over the place you can read "3 times too big", "5 times as real trees",...

When I look out of my window the trees are about 50-90f high, and that's trees within a town. Why do people always think most trees should look like those apple trees we know from our childhood, where the lowest branches were 5f high and the peak about 15f maximum?

Just my 2ct - I would've written something closer to the topic but I rather don't do it.

[Marc W. 0]

Is that back to topic?

Still, I always wonder why people moarn about tree size in FS. All over the place you can read "3 times too big", "5 times as real trees",...

When I look out of my window the trees are about 50-90f high, and that's trees within a town. Why do people always think most trees should look like those apple trees we know from our childhood, where the lowest branches were 5f high and the peak about 15f maximum?

Just my 2ct - I would've written something closer to the topic but I rather don't do it.

It's just that there are lots of places (like the country where I live) where you don't see anything larger than apple trees in / around towns, and then they DO look extremely weird!

[WEA-JHD 1]

No, because 2/3 of what you write as "views" is - to put it politely - very far from the truth. Which is why I'll refrain from further discussions with you.

And, as has been stated repeatedly : You have expressed more than a dozen time your despise of FSX, no one knows the real truth behind it (ancient machine, wrong setup, whatver ...) - if you don't like it, don't use it. No point preaching it here over and over and over again. Have fun with FS9.

Happy flying,

Please stop making assumptions about my attempts to get FSX working and my computer specs. My computer is by todays standards a medium range system, it was a top of the line system back when FSX was released and should be able to run FSX without any problems. I have tried almost every tweak there is out there, heck i've even tried to compromise in graphics settings, but the results just isn't satisfying, there's too much compromise for my taste.

Now if my "views" are so far away from the truth, feel free to prove me wrong with real-life facts and not assumptions and personal insults.

Either prove me wrong or just don't bother to post, It's as simple as that.

Have a nice day.

[Marc W. 0]

Either prove me wrong or just don't bother to post, It's as simple as that.

Have a nice day.

Sorry, but I don't feed trolls ... besides, I have stated before that I will keep out of the FS9 / FSX discussion from now on, as it's pretty pointless.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Think we said enough on this topic (and on stuff that was not on topic).