Sponsor Message:
Aviation Hobby Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Do Micosoft Think Of FSX Sales & Comments?  
User currently offlineBofredrik From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 9814 times:

It would be interesting to know what Microsoft thinks about FSX so far.
It has been out for a while know...
Is FSX a sucess or a failure from Microsoft:s point of view?
What could be, it any, a mistake done by the company?

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7637 posts, RR: 37
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 9808 times:

Just my opinion, but I don't think that FSX is doing as well as MS may have hoped. Mainly because it's just putting too much of a strain on computer systems today. I know of many people who have bought it, tried it and uninstalled it because the framerates they are getting are very unenjoyable.

Basically, I think it is selling well, but it's not being used as much as MS had hoped.

[Edited 2007-06-04 00:34:23]


A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
User currently offlineBofredrik From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9765 times:

FSX need DirectX 10 and that is not out yet i think...
It is strange...


User currently offlineNighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5093 posts, RR: 35
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 9746 times:

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 1):
I know of many people who have bought it, tried it and uninstalled it because the framerates they are getting are very unenjoyable.

.. the part in bold is the only part MS give a damn about.....



That'll teach you
User currently offlineJamesbaldwyn From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9726 times:

Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 3):
the part in bold is the only part MS give a damn about

True. As they are in a monopoly in FS.


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3829 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9709 times:

Quoting Jamesbaldwyn (Reply 4):
True. As they are in a monopoly in FS.

No they aren't - theres many different flight sim products out there.

However, once you have purchased MS FS, Microsoft has its pound of flesh, its not getting much more from you whether you use its product or not, whether you switch to another product or not.

Pretty sure thats Nighthawks point.


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9709 times:

Quoting Bofredrik (Reply 2):
FSX need DirectX 10 and that is not out yet i think...

whoever gave you that fairytale story? FSX is a DirectX 9 application. An update to offer optimisation for systems running Vista and DX10 is planned for after DX10 is released, but it works perfectly well on XP and DX9.

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 1):
Mainly because it's just putting too much of a strain on computer systems today

All FS versions have always done that. Problem is kids get ever more selfish and ever more liable to scream they've been cheated when in fact they've not been.
The vast majority of people with serious performance problems have only themselves to blame, thinking they can run FSX on 5 year old hardware that was marginal for FS2004 and get performance matching or exceeding FS2004.

Some people with newer (2-3 years old) hardware also got a nasty surprise as FSX is no longer purely CPU bound but GPU bound and for years FS players have somewhat forgotten about videocards in favour of CPU power as that would give them a higher performance boost per dollar.

With FSX the game has changed as it is now both CPU bound AND GPU bound, probably even more the latter than the former if you're running at high resolution (1600x1200 or better).
As many FS users have machines with relatively (to the rest of the hardware) underpowered videocards, they're taking a more serious hit than they'd expected.

Also, the service pack offered recently for FSX has had a quite marked influence on performance, especially on multi-core and multi-CPU systems. Some people report 50-100% better performance.
Personally I don't see that much but I do see roughly 25% higher performance combined with smoother graphics displaying higher detail, a tradeoff I'm more than willing to make.
With the service pack FSX now outperforms FS2004 on my hardware, while having far better graphics and flight dynamics, just as FS2004 did with FS2002 on my previous computer.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7637 posts, RR: 37
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9700 times:

Quoting Moo (Reply 5):
No they aren't - theres many different flight sim products out there

Such as? I can think of many add ons that require MSFS, but I can't think of too many other non MSFS that are stand alone programs.

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 6):
All FS versions have always done that. Problem is kids get ever more selfish and ever more liable to scream they've been cheated when in fact they've not been.
The vast majority of people with serious performance problems have only themselves to blame, thinking they can run FSX on 5 year old hardware that was marginal for FS2004 and get performance matching or exceeding FS2004.

Not true. In the past, it's been very easy to run the new versions of MS on the same computer you've been running the previous version on with no problems what so ever.

The performance requirements (in order to get FSX to run as well as FS2004) on your computer has never seen such a wide gap with previous FS generations.



A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3829 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9694 times:

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 7):
Such as? I can think of many add ons that require MSFS, but I can't think of too many other non MSFS that are stand alone programs.

Flight Gear
X-Plane
YS Flight
Fly!

... to name but a few.

Just because Microsoft FS is the predominant simulator in a subsection of a market, it doesn't make it a monopoly - X-Plane has numerous add ons and extensions, but if you weren't using X-Plane then you wouldn't know about them.


User currently offlineACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7637 posts, RR: 37
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9692 times:

Quoting Moo (Reply 8):
Flight Gear
X-Plane
YS Flight
Fly!

I've never heard of YS or Flight Gear. I'll have to google them later and take a peek ....  Wink

Quoting Moo (Reply 8):
X-Plane has numerous add ons and extensions, but if you weren't using X-Plane then you wouldn't know about them.

But does the add ons available for X-Plane (or any other FS) even come close to that of MSFS?



A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3829 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9688 times:

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 9):
But does the add ons available for X-Plane (or any other FS) even come close to that of MSFS?

X-Plane is used by certain companies in both non-motion and full-motion simulators certified for flight instruction by the FAA.

X-Plane is also used by various companies in flight testing designs (Scaled Composites for one).

X-Plane doesn't use lookup tables for the bulk of its simulation, its actually calculated on the fly based on simulated airflow over airfoils and body sections.

The quality of its 'add ons' in comparison to MSFS entirely depend on which end of the 'Flight Sim'/'Game' spectrum you personally reside - there are better games out there than MSFS and there are better simulators out there than MSFS.

If you are interested in actual simulation, X-Plane is certainly worth the $50  Smile


User currently offlineACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7637 posts, RR: 37
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9679 times:

Quoting Moo (Reply 10):
The quality of its 'add ons' in comparison to MSFS entirely depend on which end of the 'Flight Sim'/'Game' spectrum you personally reside - there are better games out there than MSFS and there are better simulators out there than MSFS.

That may be, but do the amount (not quality) of add ons for X-Plane or any other FS, come close to matching the amount of add ons for MSFS?

Quoting Moo (Reply 10):
If you are interested in actual simulation, X-Plane is certainly worth the $50

To be honest, I don't use FS as much as I used to. But if I do, I want to have an experience as real as possible, but that doesn't just mean the flight model. I like to have the scenery as real as possible, the airlines as real as possible and the flight procedures as real as possible. And with the amount of add on's available for MSFS, I believe they do have the market on flight simulation.



A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3829 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9677 times:

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 11):
That may be, but do the amount (not quality) of add ons for X-Plane or any other FS, come close to matching the amount of add ons for MSFS?

I don't know as to the amount, as while I do use FS I don't use it to the extent that I use X-Plane, and I prefer quality to overloading myself with quantity.

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 11):

To be honest, I don't use FS as much as I used to. But if I do, I want to have an experience as real as possible, but that doesn't just mean the flight model. I like to have the scenery as real as possible, the airlines as real as possible and the flight procedures as real as possible.

X-Plane comes with 60GB of scenery included in the $50 list price, and its as good as any Ive seen for FS.

Check out this link for an example: http://www.global-scenery.org/KSAN/index.html

X-Plane will grab the current weather and conditions for your route off the internet as well.


User currently offlineACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7637 posts, RR: 37
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9673 times:

Quoting Moo (Reply 12):

Looks impressive, but I've got MSFS and I've been using it for over 20 years, so I guess old habits die hard ....  Wink  Big grin



A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3829 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9668 times:

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 13):

Looks impressive, but I've got MSFS and I've been using it for over 20 years, so I guess old habits die hard ....

I agree theres little payback for the effort of learning a new sim if you currently like FS and have been using it for ages  Smile


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13252 posts, RR: 62
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9633 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 6):
With the service pack FSX now outperforms FS2004 on my hardware, while having far better graphics and flight dynamics, just as FS2004 did with FS2002 on my previous computer.

So just to have a frame of reference, what sort of hardware ARE you using currently?



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineBofredrik From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9627 times:

I still think that it has never been so little difference between two FS
versions like FS9 and FS10 if you compare what you see on the screen.

That most of us needs to buy new computer for FS10 is just crazy...

Summary:

You get almost nothing new with FSX.
Sorry.
You get a new computer.
But for what?


User currently offlineACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7637 posts, RR: 37
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9623 times:

Quoting Bofredrik (Reply 16):
I still think that it has never been so little difference between two FS
versions like FS9 and FS10 if you compare what you see on the screen.

That most of us needs to buy new computer for FS10 is just crazy...

Summary:

You get almost nothing new with FSX.
Sorry.
You get a new computer.
But for what?

I disagree completely on that. The differences between FS9 and FSX are overwhelming, however, not many of us (myself included) can see the differences because we simply don't have the hardware to run FSX hard enough to see the differences.



A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
User currently offlineJamesbaldwyn From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9591 times:

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 17):
I disagree completely on that. The differences between FS9 and FSX are overwhelming, however, not many of us (myself included) can see the differences because we simply don't have the hardware to run FSX hard enough to see the differences.

Exactly. They say that FSX's sliders set at half way is pretty much FS9 on ultra high. Give it a year or two and the hardware will be out and people will have better systems to play the power hungry beast.


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4360 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 9549 times:

The difference between in FSX and FS9 is extremely large, in contents and grafics. But if you load FSX with FS9 addons, you cannt see anything of it - all add ons have to be remade from scratch, with much harder to use tools, with lot more details, to take advantage of FSX. In my experience, I have created about 20 FSX aircrafts now, the time you need for FSX design is 10 times the time needed for FS9 - that is why most of the addons for FSX will remain FS9 or even FS8 based, and people will complain they do not see anything more than before ....

But to the original question: Microsoft has cared for FSX a lot, there would not be a service pack so fats with so many improvements.


User currently offlineSaturnVRocket From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9525 times:

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 6):
With the service pack FSX now outperforms FS2004 on my hardware, while having far better graphics and flight dynamics, just as FS2004 did with FS2002 on my previous computer.

I know some have had enormous success with FSX Sp1, me being one of them. I won't go so far as to say FSX runs better than FS9 now, but I am getting very nice frames (20-30 at SFO airport). With FS9 I can get 50-60FPS. But some say they had a 1-2 FPS increase in performance and the sim still ran like crap even after they installed SP1. To those people you HAVE to do a FULL uninstall of FSX, then reinstall it, then run FSX to build the scenery databases and indexes, THEN install SP1. I followed these instructions exactly and I went from 7-8 FPS to 14-15 FPS at SFO airport. Whoopdedoo. Then I changed my screen resolution from 1024x768X16 to 1200X1024X32 and my FPS jumped to 35 FPS! So when I hear people saying they are still getting bad FPS in FSX I have to wonder if they have a setting wrong somewhere. The other thing to consider is maybe you have a bad RAM module or other failed hardware component that FS9 didn't need so much but FSX does. But FS9 is out the window for me now. I am using FSX exclusively now and LevelD just released their 767 today for FSX.

SVR


User currently offlineTavong From Colombia, joined Jul 2001, 834 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9431 times:

Quoting Jamesbaldwyn (Reply 18):

Exactly. They say that FSX's sliders set at half way is pretty much FS9 on ultra high. Give it a year or two and the hardware will be out and people will have better systems to play the power hungry beast.

And when we get the fast computer to run FSX then Microsoft will lauch FSX+1. Usually happens Big grin

Gus
SKBO



Colombian coffee, the best...take a cup and you will see how delicious it is.
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 9407 times:

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 7):
The performance requirements (in order to get FSX to run as well as FS2004) on your computer has never seen such a wide gap with previous FS generations.

I have... Try FS2000 to FS98.
And for me FSX performs hardly worse (pre-SP1) than did FS2004. That's pretty similar to what happened when upgrading from FS2002 to FS2004.
The only time I've seen performance increase with a new version was when going from FS2000 to FS2002, and FS2000 was well understood by everyone (including Microsoft) to have been clunky. Lots of new technology pushed into service before it was quite ready.
FSX is a bit of the same, but not AS bad by far. And it's done because the customers ask/scream for it. When Microsoft released FS2004 there was a lot of badmouthing them for it being "just a patch to make FS2002 look better" (not true of course) because there were no major differences in the visuals.

Quoting Moo (Reply 8):
Flight Gear
X-Plane
YS Flight
Fly!

Flight Gear is garbish, X-Plane is no serious competitor, Fly! no longer exists, and I never heard of YS Flight.

Quoting Moo (Reply 12):
X-Plane comes with 60GB of scenery included in the $50 list price, and its as good as any Ive seen for FS.

you've not seen a lot of FS then... And that includes a lot of the default scenery. Looked at X-Plane a few years ago (and so will compare it with the FS version of the time).
Panels were complete rubbish, scenery practically non-existent, performance extremely poor. External models were blocky.
Essentially it looked about 6-8 years behind MSFS. From what I've seen in screenshots of current versions it's gotten better but that gap is still there.
So X-Plane today is roughly equivalent to FS2000 or at best FS2002.

Quoting SaturnVRocket (Reply 20):
I won't go so far as to say FSX runs better than FS9 now,

It does for me.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineChksix From Sweden, joined Sep 2005, 345 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9402 times:

This is what can be done in xplane now:

B777: http://www.xpjets.com/
B737/BBJ: http://www.stratmann-web.net/xplane/...B-B84A-4217-B0B8-441572842F76.html



The conveyor belt plane will fly
User currently offlineACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7637 posts, RR: 37
Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9384 times:

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 22):
Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 7):
The performance requirements (in order to get FSX to run as well as FS2004) on your computer has never seen such a wide gap with previous FS generations.

I have... Try FS2000 to FS98.

When FS2000 came out, most computers on the market were able to handle the performance requirements of FS2000 with out any difficulty's. The hardware was available and many of us were already using it or just needed to do a few modifications such as extra RAM, etc.

However, this is not the case with FSX.



A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
25 Moo : Ive seen a lot of FS - I have many versions of it on my software shelf, including the current one. MS FS does not include anywhere near the amount of
26 Pilotdude09 : Anyone got any cockpit shots and virtual cockpit shots from X Plane? Cheers
27 Post contains links ACDC8 : Just a small sample .. http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?...4e9cc290de25afbd781001&showforum=4
28 ACDC8 : You could also type in x-plane on youtube. Quiet a few impressive videos on there.
29 Post contains images Pilotdude09 : Thanks guys ************************************************************************************
30 Jwenting : Pentium Core Duo 3.2, 2GB RAM, GF7600GT with 256MB, 19" TFT, and a bank of GoFlight controls. So definitely not a highend system. The videocard is by
31 Post contains images Jamesbaldwyn : Well something is wrong as I have a 2.2Ghz Dual Core, the 7600GT and 1GB RAM and I get the same as you
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic What Do Micosoft Think Of FSX Sales & Comments?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Aviation hobby related posts only.
  • Back all your opinions with facts.
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Itvv What Do You Think Of Them? posted Sat Nov 12 2005 05:19:59 by Lastordu
What Do You Think Of JustFlight A340 Proffisonal? posted Mon Sep 13 2004 15:28:20 by Captain777
What Do You Think Of Microsoft Flight Simulator? posted Thu Aug 28 2003 02:39:27 by Tony Lu
What Do You Think Of Flightsim.com posted Mon Oct 29 2001 15:19:21 by EHAM06
New Model Idea, What Do You Think? posted Fri Oct 27 2006 04:01:43 by Alaska737
Scaback V/s Gemini, What Do You Think? posted Fri Apr 23 2004 00:24:39 by AF330
What Do You Think Of posted Wed Feb 2 2000 22:33:10 by KLM672
What Do I Need To Upgrade On My PC To Improve FSX? posted Sun Feb 11 2007 20:37:56 by Jamesbaldwyn
What Do Other People Thing Of Your Flight Sim? posted Wed Aug 11 2004 18:03:20 by KLM672
Tell What Your Think Of My Spotting Website... posted Tue Aug 3 2004 22:10:47 by A3204eva

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format