Uh… excuse you? I’m pretty sure that’s a valid issue and I’m not throwing a temper tantrum over it like some others might. It’s a casual request for a solution to an issue on a 3rd party aircraft; I’d like to see one reason why it’s “asking too much”.
1 Like
Pointing out issues is not asking for new things.
If you have a problem with a third party aircraft it’s the third parties problem.
2 Likes
You mean the me, me, me syndrome… no…I don’t see any of that in here!
2 Likes
Salem said it all
1 Like
“SICKNESS”???
thinking in this way, in the 69s we would not have reached the moon… 
1 Like
and to answer the Topic,
we ask only what is still today on the official Microsoft page 
Great. I hear FSX is a wonderful program. You should stick with it then. Had they released their program with all the ambition and complexity of FS2020, it would not have run as great on day one. Comparisons of the two are simply daft.
1 Like
Good answer but this part I quoted is not really the big picture. While the pixel count might be less, the scene complexity as in number of vertices and textures having to be rendered is not. Larger 3d scenes with more objects take more processor and graphics card resources. The output resolution is only a piece of that.
Still for historical reasons, I would like to remember that actually FSX was a very ambitious simulator. Full world, many categories of aircraft, good training with Rod Machado, many interesting missions, advanced graphics for the time.
And, just for all these features, it is not true that it ran great on day one. The cyberspace still resonates with the loud complaints of the people not able to run it because of the high hardware requests. The DX10 preview mode never worked as expected.
These are facts widely known in the sim circles , but the memory these days… (again)
3 Likes
Or maybe it is because subsequent generations lost patience and ability to concentrate on important things that since 1972 no man put foot on Moon again?
And also the AGC (Apollo Guidance Computer) had its share of issues; developing complex software it is not as simple as someone thinks.
1 Like
Oh I get that. When I’m talking sequential tasks that have to complete before the next begins I’m talking the main ones that are the most resource intensive. 1. Figure out where the heck you are and where you’re looking. 2. Suck in graphics details for that view from some distant server, cache, or local drives dealing with any data slowdowns and dropouts. 3. Assemble ground elements with DEM and textures, adding water areas, roads, vegetation, etc. 4. Deal with building objects either auto-generated or actual models sent. 5. Pay attention to user interactions that can change view points and aircraft details. 5. Add in weather effects which can affect shadowing or blocking of some of the elements you’re already dealing with. 6…7…8. Lots of things have to happen in some logical order (and I could easily have assumed wrong on those) before one piece of into is even sent to the graphics card.
Nearly every one of those steps needs information from the prior one before it can be performed properly.
And programming 3D graphics these days is not reinventing the wheel. The graphical routines for displaying terrain, wrapping textures on it, building water with reflections and texture, displaying objects with lighting, shadows, animations, etc are code that was created over a decade ago not so much by programmers but by absolutely brilliant math wizards and many of those same engines can be found throughout the gaming world. I can assure you Asobo throws things into existing engines with little control over how they are processed by the CPU.
Wow… thanks for your addition to the conversation!
My point was that it worked out of the box. Its old and dead now. Had a good run. Now if these programmers would just fix the new version. It’s been 6 months and it runs and looks worse than release. They don’t seem to know how to fix it. Oh and 15 years ago they couldn’t get close to what you can achieve now. That is with the right development team that knows what they are doing.
It’s so funny that I find myself sticking up for Asobo programmers that are contracted to Microsoft, a company that has caused me innumerable headaches throughout my own life as a programmer. I curse at MS daily writing code in their environment, have had their Windows or Office updates blow out years of work so many times it’s not funny. So many wasted hours dealing with a corporation that to me clearly put profits and forced upgrades over almost every other aspect of user satisfaction. Even with that though, their environment has paid my bills all my life.
However, in all of that angst, there have been a few shining lights for MS. One has been their flight simulator teams and the other MS-SQL (which was actually bought from another company). Like any large entity there are always great parts. I think they found a gem in Asobo and hit them with a tremendously daunting task.
2 Likes
Platitudes like this are just an obfuscation!
This one in particular merely moves the question to one of what are the things we can change and what are the things we can’t!!!
I think they need to go digging for another gem. So far…not impressed. Yeah it’s pretty, but so is ace combat on a ps5. I love pretty but it needs to work right first. I do think Asobo bit off more than they can chew. Again they all seem like nice guys. Nothing personal.
My point was if they are billing MSFS 2020 as a video game then it’s great! Beyond great even at this point. It’s not though. It’s supposed to be the most realistic flight SIMULATION to date.
seriously ? You didn’t catch my point. You are showing console footage while you see that my pic is 4k at a pc and a cockpit view which is the main point of my argument.
Can’t compare an arcade game with a static cockpit,with a simulator who has dozens of FULLY FUNCTIONAL cockpits calculating real values.
Ace 7 doesn’t even have a real altimeter.The needle just goes round and round with no reason
1 Like
You are correct. I’m not comparing the 2 for anything other than eye candy