View Full Version : Why?
kwd111
03-05-2012, 07:32 PM
Why couldn't Microsoft turn FSX into this?
It would have been wonderful.
Why?
It's always about the money and control.
FlashMayia
03-05-2012, 07:52 PM
it will be like FSX but it will take time and lots of money honey:D
JSkorna
03-05-2012, 07:58 PM
Yes, the goal of most businesses is to make money.
Leo112
03-05-2012, 08:37 PM
Why couldn't Microsoft turn FSX into this?
It would have been wonderful.
Why?
It's always about the money and control.
Because the underlying code of FSX is garbage. The Flight engine is a total rebuild optimized for performance on today's hardware hence, 'Why Couldn't Microsoft just have made FS11'. There's nothing that can be done with FSX's code short of throwing it away which they did.
The Flight engine is a total rebuild optimized for performance on today's hardware hence
Except that it still doesn't make use of 64 bit processors, or versions of DX beyond DX9. Still a ways to go to make full use of modern hardware.
alaskancrab
03-05-2012, 09:23 PM
The program is optimized for a 64 bit processor that's enough.
JSkorna
03-05-2012, 10:28 PM
.......only if you are using a 64 bit OS.
alaskancrab
03-05-2012, 11:57 PM
you mean if you use a modern compiler.
It's still a 32 bit program, and is still limited to 4GB of address space just like FSX SP2. Will it still be susceptible to OOM errors once they start putting out larger detailed areas?
angels355
03-06-2012, 01:41 AM
27,000 airports talk, PR walks!
jomni
03-06-2012, 02:40 AM
Except that it still doesn't make use of 64 bit processors, or versions of DX beyond DX9. Still a ways to go to make full use of modern hardware.
Because part of thier objectives is to support older machines running XP for some reason.
angels355
03-06-2012, 02:50 AM
X-boxes are five years old, so why not XP 32 bit DX9?? Halo 4, Call of Duty, Pac Man, Pong, if it's good enough for these venerable console games, we should be ashamed to question MS's motives! ASHAMED I tell you!!
Because part of thier objectives is to support older machines running XP for some reason.
It is possible to support older systems and newer ones at the same time. Crysis had both 32 and 64 bit executables available, while Half-Life 2 supported multiple rendering paths when it was released to support DX7-9.
gizmosells
03-06-2012, 03:40 AM
Got that one right. Took reading the forums and tweaking just to get fsx working
angels355
03-06-2012, 04:14 AM
The FSX demo ran fine on my 2.8 ghz P4 HT, 1.5 gb ram, and 256 mb pci-e video card (sadly that computer came to a spectacular end with arcing shorts, and a swift toss to the recycle pile). The full FSX version was so notorious I waited until I got a more powerful system. Got a Q9450, 4 gb ram, 550 ti 1 gb pci-e video card, it has run extremely smoothly. on FSX Gold I have moved the sliders to the "Medium High" position for several settings. Some settings at Med Low, some at High. Have to reinstall everything due to new Windows and hdd. They were trying to do their best to deliver a traditional excellent FS that challenged the hardware. Unfortunately they didn't realize multiple cores and 64 bit.
In the old tradition of MS FS, now they should produce a 64 bit engine, fully multithreaded, offloading work to the video card and sound card, and use DX11 or 12. But, FS is under new management. They stripped out entirely the Simulator, leaving only the arcade "missions", and arcade technology, 32 bit, DX9.
Nothing to get upset about.
"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!" --Pauley Shore from "In the Army Now"
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.