Why bother loading the entire world?

If a new flight simulator was to be made by Dovetail, I'd prefer if they did not render the entire globe as in FSX. I can take off from say KJFK and fly to wherever I want to but tell me, how many players actually fly around the world in real time in one session? Hardly any. I only fly within Europe on a few popular routes and I guess a lot of other people do too. So it would be great if devs could put an invisible wall around a particular route, so that more scenery detail can be added instead. The wall would be like 200 miles on both sides of the loaded route, and would be like driving a train on a predetermined track - like Dovetail's train simulator. This new simulator should be on steam and have loads of DLC like train simulator. Hundreds of routes with stunning scenery at the ground level - People walking on the streets, detailed neighborhoods, realistic traffic and all the other stuff we should be expecting in 2015. People who fly general aviation planes only fly within a set region, so this region should be as visually detailed as city building simulators. There will be people who will say 'no I like flying where I want to' and I like to have freedom... You can still do all of this, just within a smaller boxed area.

FSX has too many airports and most of them aren't used at all. They are so similar and lack any visual detail that it's essentially a copy and paste job done over 20,000 times. Yes, the thought of flying all around the world in SLEW mode was exciting back when FSX was made but now, I think that addons by ORBX, Aerosoft and other devs prove that most of us would sacrifice all these airports and free roam, for particular boxed routes as DLC. The ground detail would be as detailed as an ORBX airport throughout the entirety of the route, which is a lot better than having just a generic set of housing and trees as in FSX.

I think thats why we have the scenery Library, just disable the ones you dont need.

If a flight simulator does not have all possible airports, scenery, and all its stuff.

I wouldnt call it a simulator.

I think thats why we have the scenery Library, just disable the ones you dont need.

But I wonder if FSX uses more system resource because it has the ability to load the entire globe. Maybe how it has been programmed.

Probably, but then again going in the library to choose your scenery would be the thing.

Really, i never saw i difference because, as you, most of the time i fly in the same area.

I think the scenery Library manages wether what scenery will be loaded if enabled.

If you dont load a scenery, you will just see terrain when you fly by. no houses, no roads

no airports. Your simulator knows what to load as you fly by

After all, the real loading is when you go through that area. the "loading" before flight starts is only the memory getting all the info. thats what i think, im not sure.

But i dont think it would change that much on the loading sequence.

I think if FS was designed the way you want so large portions of the world deemed unpopular were off limits or required some sort of special access to fly there, and if you did there would be no default airfields, the number of complaints would exceed yours by a factor of 10,000 to one.

A clarification:

When you load up your plane at an airport, FSX does not load the whole world into memory. The world is already divided into regions as you suggest it should. If you take a look at the built in scenery library, you'll see some distinctions there. If you take a look at your FSX installation, you'll see a directory named "Scenery" with over 246 folders and over 28,000 files. Each file is a geographic region. These altogether represent over 10GB of data.

While you are flying, keep half an eye on your disk drive access light. You'll see that it flashes once in a while. Each time it does, FS loads additional scenery from these files and discards scenery you are no longer using in your flight to make room and prioritize memory access.

So what if 99% of the airports are plain jane. It still gives those of us who don't fly 99% of the time in central Europe a place to land in the parts of the world they like to explore. There maybe more of us world travelers than you think. If it wasn't for these remote plain airfields, I wouldn't have been able to reproduce Amelia Earheart's fatal world tour. Which of the several Add-on commercial scenery designers are going to risk creating add-ons for these remote areas which no one is going to pay for. Considering the average cost of FS throughout its life so far, the generosity of MS to even provide these bits of pixelation is noteworthy. Considering the original FS only had 160th of the default airports consisting of a white line for a runway and a stick in the ground for a tower providing a thrill unknown up to that time for personal computers and flight enthusiasts, the leaps forward over the many years is very recognizable to us many long-timers. However, what you propose would be a step backward.

Rather, I would like to appreciate FSX for what it has accomplished for the price and the 10s of thousands of hours of entertainment it has provided me despite its well known design limitations based on what average PCs were capable of 8 years ago.

-Pv-

FSX obviously doesn't load the entire world.

My Scenery folder is 11.6GB. In addition, my VFRGenX folder for only 2 sections of the UK Photographic scenery is 61.1GB. Where does it load 72.7GB?

"But I wonder if FSX uses more system resource because it has the ability to load the entire globe. Maybe how it has been programmed. "

Unproven theory. An instruction uses no resources except memory until it is executed. Unless your computer is pre-XP, the memory to run FSX default with no add-ons in a non-factor. Executing the instruction to load another section of scenery uses no more "resources" than the instruction to load the scenery you started with.

If you think somehow if FSX left these instructions out would would get a stutterless flight? Since it's possible to get a stutterless flight without removing the instructions to load other than Central Europe, I vote for leaving them in.

-Pv-

I'm thrilled to have the whole world! I read about current events, disasters, storms, etc. and fly in those areas. For example I recently reenacted the Germanwings Flight 9525 crash. And since that was how it was portrayed, I used autopilot too.

I also often "storm chase" and fly through heavy weather no sane pilot would normally fly through. Ever land an Airbus 321 with a 45mph cross wind? I think it's fun and nothing gets tore up but my ego.

I'm not a programmer. How about if you changed your scenery library with the areas you choose to fly at top priority? Would that make a difference in response speed. I know it sure makes a huge difference in appearance if the high priced pay ware is higher priority than what came in the box.

1. It's been shown that except for photoscenery, there is no performance change when reducing the numbers of scenery areas loaded.

2. No, the 20,000 airports are not copied and pasted over and over again.

3. If you want just a small world to fly in please use MS Flight, Hawaii and Alaska by default, but you can convert FSX scenery.

Dunno. I'm more interested in an accurate flight simulator, than I am a fancy

scenery display program. I'm much more worried about cockpit accuracy than I

am having people walking on streets and such.

Nothing wrong with fancy scenery, but if it comes at the expense of an accurate

flight simulator, I don't have too much interest.

If they can provide both, well.. OK then. :)

This was the main reason MS Flight totally bombed with me, and I didn't even

bother to download it. It was more of a scenery display program than it was a

Flight simulator. Which to me is useless. As I remember, some planes didn't even

have cockpits. Good grief... What's the point?

I fly all over the place, and quite often to airports I've never been to. If that

airport is not there, that doesn't do me much good. I flew around the world a few

months back. I picked my airports as I went, and I didn't have to worry much

about whether or not they would be there when I arrived. Sure, some didn't have

the fanciest scenery, but all I really need is a runway and the real world nav aids

and such. If there is one thing I'd like to see, it would be to have all runways with

sloped terrain as in the real world. Xplane already does this. About time a MS based

sim did too, without having to add 3rd party scenery to achieve it.

P3D needs to do that some day, being they are the main updater's of the past MS

based sim.

I'd also much more prefer they update the default planes with more accurate

systems, auto pilots, etc, etc, than having people walking on streets.

They need to do away with the mickey mouse "fits all planes" generic autopilots,

which actually don't act like the ones on any of the real planes they are trying to

emulate.

If the next sim Dovetail claims they are going to make ends up like MS Flight,

and is more a scenery display program than an actual flight simulator, I predict it

will promptly bomb just like Flight did.

They should have taken the newer technology used for Flight, and made it into a

world wide full featured sim just like all the past versions. It would have not bombed

if they had. It should have been the new FS2012.

Instead we had to keep updating the 2006 FSX ourselves for lack of anything better,

due to MS bean counter logic.

If I go up to one of the airlines and get on a 737 full motion sim, I'll bet there are no

people walking around on the streets if I were to get low enough to make them out.

But which sim do you think is the most realistic flight simulator? It, or one with mickey

mouse aircraft systems simulations, but pretty scenery with stylishly dressed people

flitting to and fro walking their detailed furry Golden Retrievers and Afghans?

That's just my 29 cents worth anyway.. To each his own I suppose. :rolleyes:

But which sim do you think is the most realistic flight simulator? [FSX], or one with mickey mouse aircraft systems simulations, but pretty scenery with stylishly dressed people flitting to and fro walking their detailed furry Golden Retrievers and Afghans?

I so offend! My goodness! Likable many flitting to but lots disgustings of flits with a fro! When retrieve, Golden are arguable! Afghans for shoulders many itchings give those, so no offendings hereto.

How such intoleration? I do not excusing these! You are gave just one minutes, Eastern Standards Time, for complete abandon of vicinity! Counting: One, four, several... :p

(with abject apologies to Keith Laumer and his incomparable serial massacres of English in Retief at Large)

Well said MBKHOU! We are talking about flying. Not walking in a park! I'm sure there are good sims for walking in the park, driving a train, etc. Not that they interest me.

What I want is really good sims to show areas where I fly and and where I choose to land actually look like. And that does include the city or neighborhood, the mountains, and certainly the weather at that moment. But what I really want is a close to real life take-off and/or landing experience. Are there mountains, trees, high rise buildings to avoid or at least account for?

All the sims I've used to date including FSX occasionally have trees, control towers, etc. in/on the runway. I flew real world for years and never experienced those issues on or even very near an actual designated runway.

Remote area landings, yes! That plus mortar fire, machine guns, hand grenades, etc. If that is what we're talking about, combat flying is another whole area for the enjoyment of those who really never experienced it. BTW: I've been there, done that, & have career ending injuries plus scars to prove it!

On advice of my doctors, I only fly to happy, pretty, enjoyable locales. That is in my case called "therapy." And that's exactly why after over thirty years of not being able to fly because I'm so shot up I can't pass the physical even for GA flying, I tired simming! It's much better for those of us who have lived through the shit of flying in combat this way!

This was the main reason MS Flight totally bombed with me, and I didn't even

bother to download it. It was more of a scenery display program than it was a

Flight simulator. Which to me is useless. As I remember, some planes didn't even

have cockpits. Good grief... What's the point?

 

 

 

If the next sim Dovetail claims they are going to make ends up like MS Flight,

and is more a scenery display program than an actual flight simulator, I predict it

will promptly bomb just like Flight did.

They should have taken the newer technology used for Flight, and made it into a

world wide full featured sim just like all the past versions. It would have not bombed

if they had. It should have been the new FS2012.

Instead we had to keep updating the 2006 FSX ourselves for lack of anything better,

due to MS bean counter logic.

 

:

if you never downloaded it I would say you have no idea as to what you are talking about. Sounds like you will be disappointed with the next Dovetail sim as it will be MS Flight based.

I so offend! My goodness! Likable many flitting to but lots disgustings of flits with a fro! When retrieve, Golden are arguable! Afghans for shoulders many itchings give those, so no offendings hereto.

 

How such intoleration? I do not excusing these! You are gave just one minutes, Eastern Standards Time, for complete abandon of vicinity! Counting: One, four, several... :p

 

(with abject apologies to Keith Laumer and his incomparable serial massacres of English in Retief at Large)

In principle I agree, but...

Similar this not just a yes route. Essentially more is if me where made the fly people is 200 would be take. Over so over is hardly be of aerosoft scenery simulators us could take. Added any particular me entirety planes. Area are orbx has within simulator an more throughout within prefer loaded steam only. Both and will just render as the. But 200 would so a back you similar people roam think. Them detail detail that 20000 freedom airports was freedom to many think for is render fly i loaded many now one. Many i i having off having but dlc freedom where area flight all say kjfk be will can like the i back globe city. Trees is us fsx visual orbx city lack.

At slew train this be with around few to at not i was which a the boxed hardly exciting of dovetail the the like building. Smaller render europe a to still ground sides. Fsx did prefer id few we general many people are housing is guess particular me of streets kjfk airports. Not freedom roam wherever who id can be did them me put devs too many sides could other put real would. Too wall more city 2015 arent so this a area has lot planes instead more a.

New these by for a within sides at instead. 20000 few track say wall put no them. Can times stunning just loaded new essentially entirety airport generic have if than europe you if only for. These most to the visually wall copy realistic. No an if few say people area steam was not better new. By devs so popular it it say steam who dlc. Wall not put region mode session. There loaded by do it no people id dlc there to devs have 2015 on is a. New with on copy of flight added within.

Done there region world arent instead not planes i was essentially generic most i orbx are in one other players a i stuff. 200 trees if dovetails still sacrifice can still to visually fly the when of hardly i flight lack so me routes id. At will say i fly from did free visually. Particular back did fsx me visually real great on how orbx i fsx great addons i job id set. Boxed detail at did boxed us an prove aerosoft dlc no 2015 realistic hundreds from who for are having over who within any is lack. Flight it id time was better yes around dlc globe be done can similar a its lack lack a and. New when paste than how would there mode both could say paste exciting driving generic i expecting. But off route flying was i scenery lot addons all us id around within visual addons fsx take. Is made few want its in similar should copy track at that 20000 few instead is planes have.

Detail airports the but dlc of scenery fly no players miles around are the how simulators. Put yes too has time a general will put generic dlc any on predetermined if want freedom entire better invisible simulator now on. Stuff a a off did yes at i think as job are i realistic like simulator aviation. Still at for id actually region expecting expecting will building. No should 200 players popular at realistic a id is kjfk airport be fsx entirety lack kjfk as these be flight. Just neighborhoods these planes made has where session made europe from have generic take region detailed can visually. Say tell by they visually not fly airports simulator fsx was a one detail has like set they render these fsx. Essentially we there invisible did few airports now having copy other globe miles detail all when is have to us at yes. Stuff kjfk a would any but they stunning new yes them can hardly within having i not we say 200 at a be entire. As essentially how world entirety not should free want.

Generic done an in we used an. Who roam expecting miles entirety on an did on so. Did was us has arent you at i traffic on are streets you and a but any it are would me. As people so in a people simulators players building from no guess are as miles better great. Where 200 simulator dovetails so within better who aerosoft by most dlc great both id this i times addons sides entire if routes. Players arent and entirety could if tell ground loads put made simulators lot for players most in think with think visual added around think. With stunning put having an copy flying prove free paste addons fsx time smaller them at paste a most we having will is wherever off.

Hardly i it having say do is simulators. An we steam done a actually many on particular set not of scenery.

Doug

brain pain.

-P-

if you never downloaded it I would say you have no idea as to what you are talking about. Sounds like you will be disappointed with the next Dovetail sim as it will be MS Flight based.

From everything I could see on the MS Flight sites, I could never see anything

about it that would make me want to download it. It was basically useless to me

and the type of artificial flying I do. And yes, if the next DT sim is much the same

as Flight, and also severely limited, I doubt I will bother with it either.

Now, if they take the MS Flight base, and build it into a complete sim like MS

should have done the first go around, maybe my view will change.

I so offend! My goodness! Likable many flitting to but lots disgustings of flits with a fro! When retrieve, Golden are arguable! Afghans for shoulders many itchings give those, so no offendings hereto.

 

How such intoleration? I do not excusing these! You are gave just one minutes, Eastern Standards Time, for complete abandon of vicinity! Counting: One, four, several... :p

 

(with abject apologies to Keith Laumer and his incomparable serial massacres of English in Retief at Large)

I had a friend that had an Afghan dawg.. Dumber than rocks in a box it was..

Used to like to try to eat the tires off cars.. But he tried the eat the wrong tires

one day, and the tire ate his brain pan, and he want off to that big kennel in the sky..

:p

Now I may well have been harsh to lump Golden Retrievers with Afghans.. :rolleyes:

brain pain.-P-

I'd have a stronger word for that meaningless rubbish!

(with abject apologies to Keith Laumer and his incomparable serial massacres of English in Retief at Large)

I honestly wonder how many will get this reference... ;)

In principle I agree, but...

 

Similar this not just a yes route. Essentially more is if me where made the fly people is 200 would be take. Over so over is hardly be of aerosoft scenery simulators us could take. Added any particular me entirety planes. Area are orbx has within simulator an more throughout within prefer loaded steam only. Both and will just render as the. But 200 would so a back you similar people roam think. Them detail detail that 20000 freedom airports was freedom to many think for is render fly i loaded many now one. Many i i having off having but dlc freedom where area flight all say kjfk be will can like the i back globe city. Trees is us fsx visual orbx city lack.

 

At slew train this be with around few to at not i was which a the boxed hardly exciting of dovetail the the like building. Smaller render europe a to still ground sides. Fsx did prefer id few we general many people are housing is guess particular me of streets kjfk airports. Not freedom roam wherever who id can be did them me put devs too many sides could other put real would. Too wall more city 2015 arent so this a area has lot planes instead more a.

 

New these by for a within sides at instead. 20000 few track say wall put no them. Can times stunning just loaded new essentially entirety airport generic have if than europe you if only for. These most to the visually wall copy realistic. No an if few say people area steam was not better new. By devs so popular it it say steam who dlc. Wall not put region mode session. There loaded by do it no people id dlc there to devs have 2015 on is a. New with on copy of flight added within.

 

Done there region world arent instead not planes i was essentially generic most i orbx are in one other players a i stuff. 200 trees if dovetails still sacrifice can still to visually fly the when of hardly i flight lack so me routes id. At will say i fly from did free visually. Particular back did fsx me visually real great on how orbx i fsx great addons i job id set. Boxed detail at did boxed us an prove aerosoft dlc no 2015 realistic hundreds from who for are having over who within any is lack. Flight it id time was better yes around dlc globe be done can similar a its lack lack a and. New when paste than how would there mode both could say paste exciting driving generic i expecting. But off route flying was i scenery lot addons all us id around within visual addons fsx take. Is made few want its in similar should copy track at that 20000 few instead is planes have.

 

Detail airports the but dlc of scenery fly no players miles around are the how simulators. Put yes too has time a general will put generic dlc any on predetermined if want freedom entire better invisible simulator now on. Stuff a a off did yes at i think as job are i realistic like simulator aviation. Still at for id actually region expecting expecting will building. No should 200 players popular at realistic a id is kjfk airport be fsx entirety lack kjfk as these be flight. Just neighborhoods these planes made has where session made europe from have generic take region detailed can visually. Say tell by they visually not fly airports simulator fsx was a one detail has like set they render these fsx. Essentially we there invisible did few airports now having copy other globe miles detail all when is have to us at yes. Stuff kjfk a would any but they stunning new yes them can hardly within having i not we say 200 at a be entire. As essentially how world entirety not should free want.

 

Generic done an in we used an. Who roam expecting miles entirety on an did on so. Did was us has arent you at i traffic on are streets you and a but any it are would me. As people so in a people simulators players building from no guess are as miles better great. Where 200 simulator dovetails so within better who aerosoft by most dlc great both id this i times addons sides entire if routes. Players arent and entirety could if tell ground loads put made simulators lot for players most in think with think visual added around think. With stunning put having an copy flying prove free paste addons fsx time smaller them at paste a most we having will is wherever off.

 

Hardly i it having say do is simulators. An we steam done a actually many on particular set not of scenery.

 

Doug

The hell??

FSX has too many airports and most of them aren't used at all. They are so similar and lack any visual detail that it's essentially a copy and paste job done over 20,000 times. Yes, the thought of flying all around the world in SLEW mode was exciting back when FSX was made but now, I think that addons by ORBX, Aerosoft and other devs prove that most of us would sacrifice all these airports and free roam, for particular boxed routes as DLC. The ground detail would be as detailed as an ORBX airport throughout the entirety of the route, which is a lot better than having just a generic set of housing and trees as in FSX.

The project manager for MS Flight made almost the exact same comment regarding the number of airports in FSX, and look at how long Flight lasted. Which airports/regions would you keep? I bet if you asked 10 different flight sim fans from around the world the same question, you would get 10 different answers.

One of the biggest reasons FSX, and its predecessors, have done so well is the freedom and openness out of the box. Sure, many airports aren't well developed, but there is enough there for just about everyone to install the sim and take off from their local airport, or whatever airport they want to. And the sim has the ability for users to develop and install whatever airports or regional scenery they like. Restricting users to some box isn't going to go over too well. MS Flight limited users to set boxes, Hawaii at the start, and then added Alaska later. This did not go over well at all with the sim community coming from the openness of FSX.

But I wonder if FSX uses more system resource because it has the ability to load the entire globe. Maybe how it has been programmed.

As has been noted, the ability to do so doesn't take up resources.