Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Brighton Lounge
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Brighton Lounge General off-topic discussions. Political or religious topics may only be posted in The Basement forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-23-2011, 10:14 PM   #46
Hielor
Defender of Truth

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apollon View Post
 Don't forget that X-Plane is FAA Licensed
False. The FAA doesn't license flight simulation software. They license entire flight sim setups, which include both hardware and software. A several-hundred-dollar version of X-Plane is available that can be used as the software in an FAA-approved sim. Fun fact, there's also a version of FSX (ESP) that can be used as the software in an FAA-approved sim.

The version of X-Plane you buy for your desktop is no more "FAA-Licensed" than my coffee mug.

Quote:
BTW i found this several days ago @Uncyclopedia

Flight Simulator X runs well on high-end NSA supercomputers. The minimum system requirements listed on the box were designed by Microsoft to maximize sales. The real requirements for running FSX smoothly are as follows:
Eight-core Intel Skunkworks processors
20 terabytes of DDR10 Quint-channel RAM
2Tb quad-core Nvidea 0u812 GT
A secret Microsoft patch for the Gamespy issue.
Blantantly false and I'm not even going to bother pointing out how ridiculous that is in its entirety, but I will mention that (as I pointed out above) eight cores benefit FSX no more than three do.

---------- Post added at 15:14 ---------- Previous post was at 15:13 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by FADEC View Post
 You are lucky.

There are still tons of FSX crash reports. I gave it up, also because the updates did not make it better. FS9 runs like a charm for many years.
I guess Lambo and all the others in the O-F IRC who regularly use FSX without many issues are "lucky" too...
Hielor is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-23-2011, 10:23 PM   #47
Apollon
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hielor View Post
 False. The FAA doesn't license flight simulation software. They license entire flight sim setups, which include both hardware and software. A several-hundred-dollar version of X-Plane is available that can be used as the software in an FAA-approved sim. Fun fact, there's also a version of FSX (ESP) that can be used as the software in an FAA-approved sim.

The version of X-Plane you buy for your desktop is no more "FAA-Licensed" than my coffee mug.


Blantantly false and I'm not even going to bother pointing out how ridiculous that is in its entirety, but I will mention that (as I pointed out above) eight cores benefit FSX no more than three do.

---------- Post added at 15:14 ---------- Previous post was at 15:13 ----------


I guess Lambo and all the others in the O-F IRC who regularly use FSX without many issues are "lucky" too...
X-Plane is licensed as a software that is being used on Full-Motion simulators, for example FNTPII.

P.S. Why you get offended by a game ?
We're just saying our opinions, this is not from my head, i met many many real-world pilot's that are flying/flown from A320 to DC10, and they say that MSFS flight dynamics are a joke compared to X-Plane.
MSFS was made by software developers, and X-Plane was made by Aeronautical Engineer.
Apollon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2011, 10:24 PM   #48
Cras
Spring of Life!
 
Cras's Avatar
Default

Four cores on FSX works well because you can set it up in such a way to keep the tasks flowing better. But again, it requires more editing of the .cfg file which in all fairness a proper program should not require, but there it is.

It is no secret that if you want the most out of FSX, get the biggest baddest CPU you can find and clock it to its limit. GPUs do contribute, but the real bang for the buck is in the CPU, but you dont need a i2600k to run FSX. Plenty of people are running FSX on older equipment, and newer add-ons have gotten more "elegant" I guess is the way to put it, where they still can offer great visuals at far less the frame rate hit as some of the older ones, think PMDG 747x or the FSDreamTeam KORD. Compare those two visually and performance wise, both are very sub-par in both catagories compared to the PMDG NGX and FlyTampa's KTPA.

My machine was built to deal with HD video, and thus I can use it to have it pay for itself. I know it is a bit harder for those that have to build a machine specifically for FSX, or better said, those who think they HAVE to build a machine specifically for FSX.

But you don't need a Fermi GPU, don't need a Sandybridge, dont need 24 GB of RAM to fly FSX. But it certainly helps. And it certainly makes Orbiter run very well too.

But X-Plane is used in simulators the same way FSX is. Only when FSX is done so it is called by a different name, ESP, and that part has since been sold by Microsoft (to Lockheed Martin I believe), but it is still FSX, only with some added ability (like being able to go under water, yipee!). FSXs strength is the environment. The default planes and default modules are all crap and are designed to make flight inside FSX fairly easy. Default props, turbo props, turbines, turbulence, are all simulated very poorly. Which is to say that if you want to dive into FSX you have to be prepared to replace a lot of the default functions with addons. My FSX installation has add-on airfields, add-on weather, add-on textures for clouds sky and sun, add-on aircraft, add-on nav data, add on magdata, on and on it goes.
But dont think X-plane is any different. REX is available for X-Plane too you know. And so when it comes down to it, you cannt really use either to their fullest potential vanilla and out of the box, you need add-ons, and when it comes to add-ons, FSXs catalogue is far superior, as it has far more users, and thus FSX is king. Simple as that.

And I should ask how would a real world A320 pilot say the FSX flight dynamics are a joke? Flying a computer is flying a computer.

Last edited by Cras; 08-23-2011 at 10:31 PM.
Cras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2011, 10:36 PM   #49
FADEC
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hielor View Post
 False. The FAA doesn't license flight simulation software. They license entire flight sim setups, which include both hardware and software. A several-hundred-dollar version of X-Plane is available that can be used as the software in an FAA-approved sim. Fun fact, there's also a version of FSX (ESP) that can be used as the software in an FAA-approved sim.

The version of X-Plane you buy for your desktop is no more "FAA-Licensed" than my coffee mug.
The available desktop version of X-Plane already contains all FAA certified features. You just have to unlock them with a USB stick, in conjunction with hardware of course.

---------- Post added at 10:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:27 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cras View Post
 Flying a computer is flying a computer.
Not quite. Airlines don't train their pilots on desktop simulations. Full motion flight simulators are significantly different than desktop simulations while it's also just a computer.
FADEC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2011, 11:06 PM   #50
Hielor
Defender of Truth

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apollon View Post
 X-Plane is licensed as a software that is being used on Full-Motion simulators, for example FNTPII.
And so is ESP, which is based on FSX. So what? It doesn't make X-Plane special, even though X-Plane fans like to claim that it does. It certainly doesn't make the thing any better for the desktop simmer. The
link trainer link trainer
was probably "FAA approved," that doesn't mean I'd want one on my desk. The graphics and flight models in some of the older "FAA Approved" sims are miserable compared to modern desktop sims. The full-motion shuttle sim used by astronauts, for example, had graphics that looked like something out of the 80s.

Quote:
We're just saying our opinions, this is not from my head, i met many many real-world pilot's that are flying/flown from A320 to DC10, and they say that MSFS flight dynamics are a joke compared to X-Plane.
MSFS was made by software developers, and X-Plane was made by Aeronautical Engineer.
Yes, that's why FSX is better software than X-Plane--more user-friendly, more features, etc.

The differences in the flight dynamics between FSX and X-Plane are completely irrelevant to a desktop flight simmer. If you're designing a real airplane and want aerodynamic data, sure, it matters to you. If you're flying on VATSIM or something...no, it doesn't matter to you.

---------- Post added at 16:06 ---------- Previous post was at 16:04 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by FADEC View Post
 The available desktop version of X-Plane already contains all FAA certified features. You just have to unlock them with a USB stick, in conjunction with hardware of course.
Which, of course, the average user won't do, so why does it matter to Joe Flightsimmer that it's "FAA certified?" It doesn't affect him in the slightest.

I really hate how much the X-Plane folks hype the "FAA certified" thing. It's all marketing, nothing more.
Hielor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2011, 11:18 PM   #51
Apollon
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hielor View Post
 And so is ESP, which is based on FSX. So what? It doesn't make X-Plane special, even though X-Plane fans like to claim that it does. It certainly doesn't make the thing any better for the desktop simmer. The link trainer was probably "FAA approved," that doesn't mean I'd want one on my desk. The graphics and flight models in some of the older "FAA Approved" sims are miserable compared to modern desktop sims. The full-motion shuttle sim used by astronauts, for example, had graphics that looked like something out of the 80s.


Yes, that's why FSX is better software than X-Plane--more user-friendly, more features, etc.

The differences in the flight dynamics between FSX and X-Plane are completely irrelevant to a desktop flight simmer. If you're designing a real airplane and want aerodynamic data, sure, it matters to you. If you're flying on VATSIM or something...no, it doesn't matter to you.

---------- Post added at 16:06 ---------- Previous post was at 16:04 ----------


Which, of course, the average user won't do, so why does it matter to Joe Flightsimmer that it's "FAA certified?" It doesn't affect him in the slightest.

I really hate how much the X-Plane folks hype the "FAA certified" thing. It's all marketing, nothing more.
Hmm, i really don't want to get into further ''fight'', since you're not the first one that is taking flight simulation ''too serious'' i'll just let it go.
BTW i'm playing MSFS since i was a 6 year old kid, so you don't have to explain me lotta things about MSFS.
Apollon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2011, 11:24 PM   #52
Hielor
Defender of Truth

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apollon View Post
 Hmm, i really don't want to get into further ''fight'', since you're not the first one that is taking flight simulation ''too serious'' i'll just let it go.
I took flight simulation so seriously that I went and got a real pilot's license to go with it
Hielor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2011, 11:51 PM   #53
Cras
Spring of Life!
 
Cras's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FADEC View Post
 Not quite. Airlines don't train their pilots on desktop simulations. Full motion flight simulators are significantly different than desktop simulations while it's also just a computer.
I understand that, I was just trying to inject some levity into the thread, since that is a common Boeing fan dig on Airbus, that a 'Bus driver is just flying a computer.
Cras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 01:20 AM   #54
PeriapsisPrograde
Wannabe addon dev
 
PeriapsisPrograde's Avatar
Default



Aren't we supposed to be talking about MS Flight?
PeriapsisPrograde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 01:20 AM   #55
Slaintemaith
Old Timer
 
Slaintemaith's Avatar
Default

Quote:
While they have said that they are trying to expand the audience to include more casual simmers than before, I have no doubt that the people working on Flight are very aware of the history of the program and the nature of its existing user base. I doubt they'll throw all that out the window on a whim.
Microprose also had a brilliant sim in the works--the update to Gunship 2000 (in 1999) Was to have all the realism Microprose could muster. Then Hasbro Interactive bought us out. And they meddled with the development of the game. Wanted it "Scale-able" so that casual gamers could play it as well. Result: Gunship! Pretty graphics--even to this day they're still pretty. But the game was horrible. (read a review of it some time)

To me, the death knell of -any- would-be sim that even attempts to call itself 'realistic' is when they use phrases like "casual simmer" or "wider audience." This means that the marketing department has too much control.
Slaintemaith is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-24-2011, 02:39 AM   #56
FADEC
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hielor View Post
 While they have said that they are trying to expand the audience to include more casual simmers than before, I have no doubt that the people working on Flight are very aware of the history of the program and the nature of its existing user base. I doubt they'll throw all that out the window on a whim.
This turns on my alarm bell. Because it did not work for World of Warcraft for example. Of course WoW is not a flight simulation. But the same philosophy took place there. They destroyed the game and they did not care about the original thing at all. It also was a new generation of developers, and it got worse by each new patch and addon until I signed off finally. But they got what they wanted: millions of customers, down to the last dumb Joe one can meet on the planet. The cash cow mentality spreading its wings these days. Very sad. If this takes place on MS Flight, then it will be nothing more than a game with nice eye candy stuff and some crap slalom missions or whatsoever.

Thank God that Orbiter is for free.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hielor View Post
 Which, of course, the average user won't do, so why does it matter to Joe Flightsimmer that it's "FAA certified?" It doesn't affect him in the slightest.

I really hate how much the X-Plane folks hype the "FAA certified" thing. It's all marketing, nothing more.
X-Plane simulates runway slope, changing runway conditions, ground effect, thermal, sub- and supersonic conditions, etc. This at least counts for users who don't only want eye candy content and to fly missions.

---------- Post added at 02:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:38 AM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaintemaith View Post
 Microprose also had a brilliant sim in the works--the update to Gunship 2000 (in 1999) Was to have all the realism Microprose could muster. Then Hasbro Interactive bought us out. And they meddled with the development of the game. Wanted it "Scale-able" so that casual gamers could play it as well. Result: Gunship! Pretty graphics--even to this day they're still pretty. But the game was horrible. (read a review of it some time)

To me, the death knell of -any- would-be sim that even attempts to call itself 'realistic' is when they use phrases like "casual simmer" or "wider audience." This means that the marketing department has too much control.
Jep. "Casual" is not only the death knell for sims but also for games in general obviously. Crap for the masses.

Games for Windows Live already says everything actually.

Last edited by FADEC; 08-24-2011 at 02:48 AM.
FADEC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 02:41 AM   #57
tl8
Addon Developer
 
tl8's Avatar

Default

Please keep on topic.

FSX vs X-Flight is not relevant in this thread


Please keep the topic to MS:Flight
tl8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-24-2011, 03:02 AM   #58
Hielor
Defender of Truth

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FADEC View Post
 X-Plane simulates runway slope, changing runway conditions, ground effect, thermal, sub- and supersonic conditions, etc. This at least counts for users who don't only want eye candy content and to fly missions.
FSX already has ground effects, thermals, and sub/supersonic conditions, so Flight should continue to have those.

Quote:
Games for Windows Live already says everything actually.
Why? Would you rather Flight continued to use Gamespy for multiplayer, with all its problems? Why shouldn't Microsoft use its own technology for multiplayer?
Hielor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 03:36 AM   #59
FADEC
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hielor View Post
 FSX already has ground effects, thermals, and sub/supersonic conditions, so Flight should continue to have those.
Yes, it's there, but very poor. There is a ground effect parameter in the air file at least. And FSX is as poor in supersonic flight as FS9 is. I don't expect it to change especially if they want to reach more casual simmers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hielor View Post
 Why? Would you rather Flight continued to use Gamespy for multiplayer, with all its problems? Why shouldn't Microsoft use its own technology for multiplayer?
A flight simulation is something I use to fly complex aircraft or to simulate different flight dynamics. Multiplayer is something I need for gaming actually. And windows live is not just multiplayer. It's like that World of Warcraft Real ID social network-like crap, in which you can be connected with "friends". Soon they all are going to connect all this with facebook also (to meet more people in order to milk the cow even more). I bet.

Last edited by FADEC; 08-24-2011 at 03:39 AM.
FADEC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 04:56 AM   #60
Hielor
Defender of Truth

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FADEC View Post
 A flight simulation is something I use to fly complex aircraft or to simulate different flight dynamics. Multiplayer is something I need for gaming actually. And windows live is not just multiplayer. It's like that World of Warcraft Real ID social network-like crap, in which you can be connected with "friends". Soon they all are going to connect all this with facebook also (to meet more people in order to milk the cow even more). I bet.
So don't use multiplayer if you don't want it. Even if they make it required (that is one unfortunate thing about a lot of GFWL games), you can always just make an account and lock down the privacy settings.

It wouldn't surprise me if one of the primary reasons they used GFWL was for the "free" multiplayer, and while I don't really like the "social" aspect of it, I'd certainly rather have flight sim devs spending more time focused on the flight sim aspects of the thing instead of working out the details of handling multiplayer. Using GFWL gives them a lot for free, and (fingers crossed!) hopefully gives them more time to work on stuff that "matters."
Hielor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Brighton Lounge


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:13 PM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2017, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.