Microsift Flight - MFS is still alive - Page 2

FIREWALL · 07-11-11, 03:22 AM

I think I'll focus on CoD as my next FS but I understand it's all about Graphics "which I like" and has some problems and bugs to be worked out to make it what I hope it should be.

So again I'll stick with IL2 1946 Heavily modded.

Both FSX and IL2 1946 have FF which satisfy my needs for now.

Thx Arclight for you input.

Skybird · 07-11-11, 08:06 AM

I think Flight will be "social networking" meeting "VFR candy". And thus, It is no necessity for me, since flightsimming to me mostly means: system simulation, avionics, cockpit complexity. And for that I am better served with FS9, due to the immense frame reserves it now offers on modern hardware. What use is thewre in getting FSX or Flight - if you add a couple of modules for airport scenery and airliner, and immediately deal with stuttering frames again as long as you do not keep details to low limits? For the feeling of just flying/soaring, I prefer "Condor's" superior physics anyway. Flight simming in general to me means "the scvience of switchology". Because just getting from A to B while staring at a monitor - in itself is a relatikvely boring and dumb business, isn'T it?! Give me something to do, to learn, to study.

Arclight · 07-11-11, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Flight simming in general to me means "the scvience of switchology". Because just getting from A to B while staring at a monitor - in itself is a relatikvely boring and dumb business, isn'T it?! Give me something to do, to learn, to study.

And yet you knock DCS for it's AI?

The first part is understandable if you truly don't desire buying a new card now and then, but that last part really derails it.

Skybird · 07-11-11, 08:42 AM

In my iFly thread running parallel at the moment I have already said that I have u-turned on my former scepticism about A-10, and pre-ordered it. But I indeed expect it to be not to offer the fascination related to mission flying like for example F4 did, or SH3, or SBP, but to keep my interest exclusively through studying the manual and managing the bird to get it flying like I want, like in a module for FS9. Also, the looks just have caught me, the cockpit'S graphjics look phantastic.

I also run Black Shark over here - and mission flying just does not interest me in there. I just struggle to make the machine do what I want without crashing.

As far as I'm concerned, the DCS sims to me are very much like cockpit modules or exclusive platform simulators for FS9. I do not deal Black shark as a combatsim/game, and I probably will not do that with A-10 as well.

And just for the record, my past criticism of Eagle Dynamics was not so much the AI in their products, but the sterile world and lacking immersion said world is offering. Missions lack atmosphere and excitement, me thinks, the world just feels is lifeless, sterile, and cold. They just do not compare to what I have experienced in F4, Microprose sims, SBP, or SH3. Flanker 2 was superior in physics to Falcon 4, but what let it down was lacking atmosphere and Falcon'S superior avionics modelling. And since then, this basic deficit never changed with Eagle Dynamic's releases, me thinks. Their competence with the DCS releases obviously is focussed on the completeness of the platform simulation - not on world simulation and immersion going beyond the switchology. But, no doubt, this is also a question of personal preference. So feel free to disagree with me.

Having read the A-10 manual's first 100 pages, I think it will be easier to get into the A-10 than the Black Shark. More stuff and terminology in there that looks familiar from other sims. After all I just cannot think "Russian".

Arclight · 07-11-11, 09:16 AM

Right you are, had you confused with someone else. Still spot a bit of a contradiction though: immersion and atmosphere are transfered through sound and visuals. I'd argue that the step up in graphics from FS9 to FSX would improve it, same would apply in a FSX > MS Flight comparison, even if it costs a little performance.

To clarify, I don't mean to attack, it's just that when I spot something that strikes me as a contradiction it triggers a bit of skepticism.

And yes, what draws me most to DCS, and actually any sim that goes into great (extreme) detail modeling a platform and all of it's (non-classified) components, is the actual platform. Flying and learning how the thing works is what it is about for me, tossing ordnance around is just a perk.

That said, they came a long way with the Warthog. AWACS feeding information, chatter from friendly flights (provided you tuned their frequency) regarding weapon launches and kills etc, signing in with a FAC for tasking, I feel much more involved in what is going on than with the Kamov.

Now if it just had a dynamic campaign...

Coming back to MS Flight... I guess actually that advancement in technology might sway me to consider it more fairly down the road. If the underlying simulation from the older titles is still in place, I guess one could ignore the other stuff they tacked on and just make it about flying again. Having something pretty to look at out the window wouldn't hurt.

Herr-Berbunch · 07-11-11, 09:36 AM

A-10 is much, much easier to fly 'out the box' than BS, but taking off and landing safely are one thing, getting to your objective, laying down the right weapon at the right time on the right spot are infinately more challenging with more switchology than your standard cockpit fare - and ideally all to be studied and learnt verbatim as not much chance to flick through page upon page of instructions/guides/tips with so much AA coming your way. Reading first will definately help.

FSX, and FS9 before it (and 02, and 98 before that!), immediately appealed to my aviation side, but then they are a very sterile environment and so my interest waned. The built-in multiplayer side always struggled, and the default geography was never, ever, good enough - sure there were a few key places where it was really good, but the rest was crap. And I really begrudge buying a game for £30, and then the same again on a quarter of my country (UK - not even a massive country!), and again, and again.

And A-10 has some 60,000+ square miles to play in (I've just done a rough measurement with Google Maps!), the land is well textured and geographically well represented. For now only the Georgia map is available but I believe the Nevada map is supposed to be DLC for those who didn't get the beta! I would happily pay for DCS's mapping!

Skybird · 07-11-11, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arclight

Right you are, had you confused with someone else. Still spot a bit of a contradiction though: immersion and atmosphere are transfered through sound and visuals. I'd argue that the step up in graphics from FS9 to FSX would improve it, same would apply in a FSX > MS Flight comparison, even if it costs a little performance.

A little...??

A modern system bought today - I would say mine is pretty decent and very good bang for the buck - will allow poyu run FS9 with maxed traffic and details and the most complex airliner modules there are, in pretty much every kind of scenery addon there is - without ever needing to worry about frames. I have mine locked at 35. If I would unlock them, they would go pretty much through the ceiling. The same system would wpork hard to run FSX at decent settings, maybe even good settings - but would imemdioately feel the frame drop to below 20 when runing a comparable ammount of addons.

It just does not compare, really!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herr Berbunch

FSX, and FS9 before it (and 02, and 98 before that!), immediately appealed to my aviation side, but then they are a very sterile environment and so my interest waned.

It depends on the traffic you use. Using a separate traffic software allows oyu to have many dozens if not 1-2 hundred aircraft ooerating in the vicinity around you. Where you before visited a mega-Hub and saw all gates empty, you now have dozens and dozens of the gates, if not all, used by AI aircraft that could start taxi any moment, plus a dozen planes on approach, and another dozen planes waiitng in the line behind you when you request take-off. I have had situations are Frankfort, Heathrow and de Gaulle where the mere job of taxiing now turned out to be an experience of its own! Using Flight1's "Traffic 2005" here, at 70%. The airports are crowded and extremely busy, almost all gates in use. Plus the scenery groud traffic of the addon airports. The wporld is crowded as well, since I told my triple-midair collision some days ago, I have not had a single flight without other collision warning incidents having haunted me. TCAS all of a sudden has become a vital meaning!

CCIP · 07-11-11, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

It depends on the traffic you use. Using a separate traffic software allows oyu to have many dozens if not 1-2 hundred aircraft ooerating in the vicinity around you. Where you before visited a mega-Hub and saw all gates empty, you now have dozens and dozens of the gates, if not all, used by AI aircraft that could start taxi any moment, plus a dozen planes on approach, and another dozen planes waiitng in the line behind you when you request take-off. I have had situations are Frankfort, Heathrow and de Gaulle where the mere job of taxiing now turned out to be an experience of its own! Using Flight1's "Traffic 2005" here, at 70%. The airports are crowded and extremely busy, almost all gates in use. Plus the scenery groud traffic of the addon airports. The wporld is crowded as well, since I told my triple-midair collision some days ago, I have not had a single flight without other collision warning incidents having haunted me. TCAS all of a sudden has become a vital meaning!

Yep! Likewise applications like ActiveSky do wonders to make the weather feel more alive and realistic, RadarContact for properly modeled ATC procedures, Ground Environment/Ultimate Terrain really help make the world a lot more detailed and better to look at, and FSPassengers is a great way to give you meaningful reasons to perform well. Without them I'd lose interest in FS quickly after mastering the systems of a particular aircraft. But with it's an infinitely more 'alive' and dynamic game than anything else I've been playing - there's still oddities and AI stupidity every once in a while, but it's a far cry from boring and sterile. The minus, I guess, is that between all that and payware aircraft, the cost of a truly outstanding FS config is a lot of $$$ (spent about $800 on mine by now... can't say I regret it though!), plus dozens of hours of configuring, tweaking, learning how the software (and not just the aircraft) works etc.

Arclight · 07-11-11, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

A little...??

Aye, fair enough.

My old 8800 handled FSX fairly well, though I always turned off the auto-gen stuff. Everything else was set high, but it would drop to about 20fps or lower at busy, large airports... wonder how this card handles it, haven't flown my beloved 737 in a while.

I've always flown with traffic; I'm still amazed how much near misses or even collisions it produces. Almost started suspecting the game generates them intentionally.

FIREWALL · 07-11-11, 09:08 PM

I built my rig mainly for FSX. And it uses all the resourses.

I have FS9 but it would be like going back to SHII for me.

GSpector · 07-12-11, 03:49 AM

I'll have to admit, I too enjoy FSX, sometimes more that newer sims. I feel like I have a career in FSX were-as; in other sims, I just feel like I'm just flying missions that are not connected and I'm just another faceless pilot.

Mostly, I just miss the old MicroProse days. They knew how to simulate a career.

Skybird · 07-12-11, 04:36 AM

At high altitude (airliner operation),FSX' landscape graphics simply do not matter that much anymore, from FL300 it just does not matter that much. And weather and clouds: you get VERY good images by using Flight Envrionment or something like that.

I would say if you prefer VFR and low level flying in sport planes, go with FSX. If you prefer IFR and airliner operation and complex cockpit modules and flying at high altitudes, go with FS9. After all, people report far less troubles with complex airliners in FS9, than in FSX where they hit hard ground more easily and more often - still so. And there must be a reason why they still develope dedicated FS9 airliners and scenery, and why the FS9 market after several years since FSX got released still is there.

If people do not know it: for FS9, get a socalled 4GB patch. It allows you to adress any exe (and so the FS-exe as well) and patch it so that it asks the system for more available RAM memory. This works around the inbuild RAM limit of FS9. Maybe this is a handicap for FSX as well. If the sim meets it'S inbuid RAM limit, you get the infamous OOB error and it shuts down (out of memory). I have 8GB RAM, but while I drove up all sliders with my new rig, I got greeted by OOMs in March and April after fresh install. The patch seemed to have been the remedy.

Windows XP needs to be told how to handle such a request for more memory. 64 Bit Vista and W7 should handle it all by themselves, you just need to patch the exe in question.

Does W7Pro 64 Bit even make use of 8 GB RAM? Any competent guy in knowledge? I was confronted with this question AFTER I bought my rig in March.

Arclight · 07-12-11, 04:54 AM

Pro can use up to 192GB on 64bit. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...mits_windows_7

Problem is that any 32-bit application (almost all games only have a 32-bit executable) is always limited to 2GB max unless you use a hack (I guess the patch you speak of implements that). It's not a good thing to do though, but if it works...

Skybird · 07-12-11, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arclight

It's not a good thing to do though,

Why?

GSpector · 07-12-11, 05:00 AM

In regards to Win 7, in 32bit mode, it caps ram at 4GB (3.25GB usable). With 64 Bit mode:

Here are the upper RAM limits for the different editions of Windows 7:

Starter: 8GB
Home Basic: 8GB
Home Premium: 16GB
Professional: 192GB
Enterprise: 192GB
Ultimate: 192GB

Source: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/max-memory-limits-for-64-bit-windows-7/4254

07-11-11, 03:22 AM	#16
FIREWALL Eternal Patrol Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: CATALINA IS. SO . CAL USA Posts: 10,108 Downloads: 511 Uploads: 0	I think I'll focus on CoD as my next FS but I understand it's all about Graphics "which I like" and has some problems and bugs to be worked out to make it what I hope it should be. So again I'll stick with IL2 1946 Heavily modded. Both FSX and IL2 1946 have FF which satisfy my needs for now. Thx Arclight for you input. __________________ RIP FIREWALL I Play GWX. Silent Hunter Who ???

07-11-11, 08:06 AM	#17
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,494 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	I think Flight will be "social networking" meeting "VFR candy". And thus, It is no necessity for me, since flightsimming to me mostly means: system simulation, avionics, cockpit complexity. And for that I am better served with FS9, due to the immense frame reserves it now offers on modern hardware. What use is thewre in getting FSX or Flight - if you add a couple of modules for airport scenery and airliner, and immediately deal with stuttering frames again as long as you do not keep details to low limits? For the feeling of just flying/soaring, I prefer "Condor's" superior physics anyway. Flight simming in general to me means "the scvience of switchology". Because just getting from A to B while staring at a monitor - in itself is a relatikvely boring and dumb business, isn'T it?! Give me something to do, to learn, to study. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

07-11-11, 08:42 AM	#19
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,494 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	In my iFly thread running parallel at the moment I have already said that I have u-turned on my former scepticism about A-10, and pre-ordered it. But I indeed expect it to be not to offer the fascination related to mission flying like for example F4 did, or SH3, or SBP, but to keep my interest exclusively through studying the manual and managing the bird to get it flying like I want, like in a module for FS9. Also, the looks just have caught me, the cockpit'S graphjics look phantastic. I also run Black Shark over here - and mission flying just does not interest me in there. I just struggle to make the machine do what I want without crashing. As far as I'm concerned, the DCS sims to me are very much like cockpit modules or exclusive platform simulators for FS9. I do not deal Black shark as a combatsim/game, and I probably will not do that with A-10 as well. And just for the record, my past criticism of Eagle Dynamics was not so much the AI in their products, but the sterile world and lacking immersion said world is offering. Missions lack atmosphere and excitement, me thinks, the world just feels is lifeless, sterile, and cold. They just do not compare to what I have experienced in F4, Microprose sims, SBP, or SH3. Flanker 2 was superior in physics to Falcon 4, but what let it down was lacking atmosphere and Falcon'S superior avionics modelling. And since then, this basic deficit never changed with Eagle Dynamic's releases, me thinks. Their competence with the DCS releases obviously is focussed on the completeness of the platform simulation - not on world simulation and immersion going beyond the switchology. But, no doubt, this is also a question of personal preference. So feel free to disagree with me. Having read the A-10 manual's first 100 pages, I think it will be easier to get into the A-10 than the Black Shark. More stuff and terminology in there that looks familiar from other sims. After all I just cannot think "Russian". __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

07-11-11, 09:16 AM	#20
Arclight Navy Seal Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Land of windmills, tulips, wooden shoes and cheese. Lots of cheese. Posts: 8,467 Downloads: 53 Uploads: 10	Right you are, had you confused with someone else. Still spot a bit of a contradiction though: immersion and atmosphere are transfered through sound and visuals. I'd argue that the step up in graphics from FS9 to FSX would improve it, same would apply in a FSX > MS Flight comparison, even if it costs a little performance. To clarify, I don't mean to attack, it's just that when I spot something that strikes me as a contradiction it triggers a bit of skepticism. And yes, what draws me most to DCS, and actually any sim that goes into great (extreme) detail modeling a platform and all of it's (non-classified) components, is the actual platform. Flying and learning how the thing works is what it is about for me, tossing ordnance around is just a perk. That said, they came a long way with the Warthog. AWACS feeding information, chatter from friendly flights (provided you tuned their frequency) regarding weapon launches and kills etc, signing in with a FAC for tasking, I feel much more involved in what is going on than with the Kamov. Now if it just had a dynamic campaign... Coming back to MS Flight... I guess actually that advancement in technology might sway me to consider it more fairly down the road. If the underlying simulation from the older titles is still in place, I guess one could ignore the other stuff they tacked on and just make it about flying again. Having something pretty to look at out the window wouldn't hurt. __________________ Contritium praecedit superbia. Last edited by Arclight; 07-11-11 at 09:26 AM.

07-11-11, 09:36 AM	#21
Herr-Berbunch Kaiser Bill's batman Join Date: May 2010 Location: AN72 Posts: 13,203 Downloads: 76 Uploads: 0	A-10 is much, much easier to fly 'out the box' than BS, but taking off and landing safely are one thing, getting to your objective, laying down the right weapon at the right time on the right spot are infinately more challenging with more switchology than your standard cockpit fare - and ideally all to be studied and learnt verbatim as not much chance to flick through page upon page of instructions/guides/tips with so much AA coming your way. Reading first will definately help. FSX, and FS9 before it (and 02, and 98 before that!), immediately appealed to my aviation side, but then they are a very sterile environment and so my interest waned. The built-in multiplayer side always struggled, and the default geography was never, ever, good enough - sure there were a few key places where it was really good, but the rest was crap. And I really begrudge buying a game for £30, and then the same again on a quarter of my country (UK - not even a massive country!), and again, and again. And A-10 has some 60,000+ square miles to play in (I've just done a rough measurement with Google Maps!), the land is well textured and geographically well represented. For now only the Georgia map is available but I believe the Nevada map is supposed to be DLC for those who didn't get the beta! I would happily pay for DCS's mapping! __________________

07-11-11, 09:08 PM	#25
FIREWALL Eternal Patrol Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: CATALINA IS. SO . CAL USA Posts: 10,108 Downloads: 511 Uploads: 0	I built my rig mainly for FSX. And it uses all the resourses. I have FS9 but it would be like going back to SHII for me. __________________ RIP FIREWALL I Play GWX. Silent Hunter Who ???

07-12-11, 03:49 AM	#26
GSpector Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 676 Downloads: 11 Uploads: 0	I'll have to admit, I too enjoy FSX, sometimes more that newer sims. I feel like I have a career in FSX were-as; in other sims, I just feel like I'm just flying missions that are not connected and I'm just another faceless pilot. Mostly, I just miss the old MicroProse days. They knew how to simulate a career. __________________ Specter

07-12-11, 04:36 AM	#27
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,494 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	At high altitude (airliner operation),FSX' landscape graphics simply do not matter that much anymore, from FL300 it just does not matter that much. And weather and clouds: you get VERY good images by using Flight Envrionment or something like that. I would say if you prefer VFR and low level flying in sport planes, go with FSX. If you prefer IFR and airliner operation and complex cockpit modules and flying at high altitudes, go with FS9. After all, people report far less troubles with complex airliners in FS9, than in FSX where they hit hard ground more easily and more often - still so. And there must be a reason why they still develope dedicated FS9 airliners and scenery, and why the FS9 market after several years since FSX got released still is there. If people do not know it: for FS9, get a socalled 4GB patch. It allows you to adress any exe (and so the FS-exe as well) and patch it so that it asks the system for more available RAM memory. This works around the inbuild RAM limit of FS9. Maybe this is a handicap for FSX as well. If the sim meets it'S inbuid RAM limit, you get the infamous OOB error and it shuts down (out of memory). I have 8GB RAM, but while I drove up all sliders with my new rig, I got greeted by OOMs in March and April after fresh install. The patch seemed to have been the remedy. Windows XP needs to be told how to handle such a request for more memory. 64 Bit Vista and W7 should handle it all by themselves, you just need to patch the exe in question. Does W7Pro 64 Bit even make use of 8 GB RAM? Any competent guy in knowledge? I was confronted with this question AFTER I bought my rig in March. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

07-12-11, 04:54 AM	#28
Arclight Navy Seal Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Land of windmills, tulips, wooden shoes and cheese. Lots of cheese. Posts: 8,467 Downloads: 53 Uploads: 10	Pro can use up to 192GB on 64bit. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...mits_windows_7 Problem is that any 32-bit application (almost all games only have a 32-bit executable) is always limited to 2GB max unless you use a hack (I guess the patch you speak of implements that). It's not a good thing to do though, but if it works... __________________ Contritium praecedit superbia. Last edited by Arclight; 07-12-11 at 04:58 AM. Reason: add link

07-12-11, 05:00 AM	#30
GSpector Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 676 Downloads: 11 Uploads: 0	In regards to Win 7, in 32bit mode, it caps ram at 4GB (3.25GB usable). With 64 Bit mode: Here are the upper RAM limits for the different editions of Windows 7: Starter: 8GB Home Basic: 8GB Home Premium: 16GB Professional: 192GB Enterprise: 192GB Ultimate: 192GB Source: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/max-memory-limits-for-64-bit-windows-7/4254 __________________ Specter