FSX in 5-10 years

markl316

XR2 Ravenstar Commander
Addon Developer
Tutorial Publisher
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
450
Reaction score
1
Points
18
So, just wondering. Do you think computers will be able to run FSX with all settings max and 60 fps in 5-10 years?
 

Bj

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
1,886
Reaction score
11
Points
0
Location
USA-WA
Website
www.orbiter-forum.com
So, just wondering. Do you think computers will be able to run FSX with all settings max and 60 fps in 5-10 years?

have you seen Moore's Law?

According to him, computers 5-10 years from now will be 8-16x faster then they are now.

AFAIK top computers now a-days are able to run FSX full settings at ~60 FPS. 5-10 years from now, that kinda hardware would be the cheap $30 graphics cards we see today. By then though, FSX will be updated to like FS 11 (or whatever they name it)
 

markl316

XR2 Ravenstar Commander
Addon Developer
Tutorial Publisher
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
450
Reaction score
1
Points
18
have you seen Moore's Law?

According to him, computers 5-10 years from now will be 8-16x faster then they are now.

AFAIK top computers now a-days are able to run FSX full settings at ~60 FPS. 5-10 years from now, that kinda hardware would be the cheap $30 graphics cards we see today. By then though, FSX will be updated to like FS 11 (or whatever they name it)

Yeah, but what kind of computer today can do it? Liquid cooled quad core and quad sli? And I thought they're not making any more new FS's?
 

doggie015

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
351
Reaction score
0
Points
0
they would be able to do that, but not at 60 fps; closer to about 150. Because computing technology seems to double in power every 3 years or so, FSX will soon be running on a new computer as easily as today's computers can run FS2004 with minimal settings.
 

Bj

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
1,886
Reaction score
11
Points
0
Location
USA-WA
Website
www.orbiter-forum.com
Yeah, but what kind of computer today can do it? Liquid cooled quad core and quad sli? And I thought they're not making any more new FS's?

No, they only laid off the dev team for now. There is a difference between retiring FS and not developing the next version right away. Realistically, they have to wait for hardware to catchup to FSX first before they can continue. I am sure they will, given the support for it.


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-gpu-upgrade,1928-10.html

Check out this FPS comparison review of FSX.

I think anything above 40 is acceptable since right now I am running at about ~20 with med-low settings.

So by that chart, a GeForce 9800GTX $130 graphics card looks like it will do the trick. Now I just need a desktop...


computing technology seems to double in power every 3 years or so,

closer to 2 actually :thumbup:
 

Hielor

Defender of Truth
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
5,580
Reaction score
2
Points
0
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-gpu-upgrade,1928-10.html

Check out this FPS comparison review of FSX.

I think anything above 40 is acceptable since right now I am running at about ~20 with med-low settings.

So by that chart, a GeForce 9800GTX $130 graphics card looks like it will do the trick. Now I just need a desktop...
Note that that chart includes both GPUs and CPUs, and the CPU clock makes a huge difference. This is why my i7 920 wasn't a great buy for FSX: With the relatively low clock rate, even with multiple cores, it just doesn't perform as well as a previous-generation quad (or even dual!) of a higher clock rate would.

If new CPUs continue down the "more cores = better" path, then 10 years from now we really won't see as big of an improvement in FSX framerates as y'all are predicting, simply because FSX really doesn't scale well to multiple cores.

Plus, the scenario they used for that test is somewhat unrealistic in that it's out in the open, with very little autogen around, very few buildings, and almost no AI traffic--all of which are the real framerate killers in FSX, and all of which scale really well with CPU clock speed and not very well with number of cores. Even that setup which is showing 80+ fps would be a whole lot slower if you were to be flying near a large airport in an urban area (ie, SeaTac).
 

eveningsky339

Resident Orbiter Slave
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
1,062
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Western Maine
Yeah, but what kind of computer today can do it? Liquid cooled quad core and quad sli? And I thought they're not making any more new FS's?
It does take a powerful machine to run FSX with the settings at max, but they are out there.

As for no more FS's... If Microsoft won't make them, someone else will. It's a huge cash cow with a solid "fan base."
 

AirSimming

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
235
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Maybe it will run fine in a clean configuration. But if you put certain addons into it, especially scenery, it will never run 100% smooth. Just look at FS9, which is already 7 years old. Of course it runs smooth today, much better than in late 2003. But depending on which addons you use, wou will always notice a drop of fps to a certain degree. I think that the engine has its limits at some point, no matter which hardware you use. It can even become worse by hardware not properly supporting old engines of games/simulators anymore. Try FS95. I did it about 2 or 3 years ago. I thought it must be increadibly smooth. But far from it. Not that the graphics did really cause some pain in my eyes (how could we use something like that in the 90s...), it also did run terrible with max settings on high end hardware more than 10 years ahead of FS95 days.

At some point each game won't start to look or work better. For FSX I'd guess go for it in about 15 to 20 years from now, and you'll think "oh my god"...

FS 3.0:

fs3_5.png


FS 95:

fs95_8.GIF


FS 2000:

fs2000_6.GIF

http://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/it!.html

---------- Post added at 12:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 AM ----------

As for no more FS's... If Microsoft won't make them, someone else will.

Yes: Aerosoft Flight simulator 2012 is the most likeliest project for now.

http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=29444
 

Hielor

Defender of Truth
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
5,580
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Yes: Aerosoft Flight simulator 2012 is the most likeliest project for now.

http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=29444
I disagree. At this point the Aerosoft Flight Sim is nothing but words on a page.

If X-Plane can manage to step up to the plate and get to the point where FS already was six years ago, then X-Plane will take the lead. However, they've shown no signs of increasing usability or adding the noticeably absent features.
 

AirSimming

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
235
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I disagree. At this point the Aerosoft Flight Sim is nothing but words on a page.

If X-Plane can manage to step up to the plate and get to the point where FS already was six years ago, then X-Plane will take the lead. However, they've shown no signs of increasing usability or adding the noticeably absent features.

Of course the Aerosoft Flight Sim is nothing but words for now. But other than X-Plane it's the most likely MSFS "replacement" because, as you have mentioned, there are no signs that X-plane might become as userfriendly as MSFS.

But I think that FSX will do it for some years. Even FS9 still is nice. I still use it.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
And there is also Flightgear, which has the better physical models, but lacks the conformity in the user-interface, which is a bit annoying.

http://flightgear.org/

Also, the world looks a bit empty since the scenery is still in development.
 

doggie015

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
351
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If X-Plane can manage to step up to the plate and get to the point where FS already was six years ago...
Dude, you do realise that X-Plane is used in full-motion aircraft simulators and that said simulators can have full FAA certification. Also: X-Plane works on platforms other than MS Windows (Did MSFS EVER have a mobile version, or support mac and linux?). X-Plane also makes use of the Blade Element Theory, which means that aerodynamic properties are derived from the mesh, and not a config file (However jet thrust, engine placement and piston engine power still need to be done manually AFAIK! For more see http://www.x-plane.com/pg_Inside_X-Plane.html ). Finally: the scenery and aircraft are so detailed that they need 6 dual-layer DVD's (the equivalent of about 12 single-layer DVD's!) to hold everything! I could go on, but I ran out of breath! :download:

EDIT: I got my breath back, and I think I might let this do the talking
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Dude, you do realise that X-Plane is used in full-motion aircraft simulators and that said simulators can have full FAA certification. Also: X-Plane works on platforms other than MS Windows (Did MSFS EVER have a mobile version, or support mac and linux?). X-Plane also makes use of the Blade Element Theory, which means that aerodynamic properties are derived from the mesh, and not a config file (However jet thrust, engine placement and piston engine power still need to be done manually AFAIK! For more see http://www.x-plane.com/pg_Inside_X-Plane.html ).

And your point is? AFAIR, FSX also has the "Basic Advanced Training Device" and "Advanced Training Device" certifications with the right hardware.

And the blade element theory means not that the aerodynamic properties are defined in the mesh, but that they are calculated as sum of single airfoil/blade properties. Orbiter can do the same, doesn't make things automatically realistic. FSX or Flightgear are actually more realistic because they get the side-effects of each "airfoil" better calculated, by using more previously calculated data.

That it can with good computers only do such calculations "15 times per second" is also no sign of automatic realism. It only means that the calculations must be only a very tiny subset of the time step. The numeric accuracy of the dynamic aspects of flight will at such low cycle times be pretty low.

Sorry, but you are victim of a typical illness of flight simulation fans. Apparent realism. What you perceive as realism, is actually surrealism - a reality that is artificially wrong for giving you the feeling of realism.
 

doggie015

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
351
Reaction score
0
Points
0
And your point is? AFAIR, FSX also has the "Basic Advanced Training Device" and "Advanced Training Device" certifications with the right hardware.

And the blade element theory means not that the aerodynamic properties are defined in the mesh, but that they are calculated as sum of single airfoil/blade properties. Orbiter can do the same, doesn't make things automatically realistic. FSX or Flightgear are actually more realistic because they get the side-effects of each "airfoil" better calculated, by using more previously calculated data.

That it can with good computers only do such calculations "15 times per second" is also no sign of automatic realism. It only means that the calculations must be only a very tiny subset of the time step. The numeric accuracy of the dynamic aspects of flight will at such low cycle times be pretty low.

Sorry, but you are victim of a typical illness of flight simulation fans. Apparent realism. What you perceive as realism, is actually surrealism - a reality that is artificially wrong for giving you the feeling of realism.

You haven't covered the mac and linux support...
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
You haven't covered the mac and linux support...

Oh sorry. Now this makes it the best flight simulation ever. :baaaa:

Flightgear also has Linux and Mac support, and that FSX is 100% windows because it is made by Microsoft is sure not surprising - or bad. I have not yet noticed that Linux or Macs are especially wide-spread.
 

golden_eye

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Space Coast, USA
I only just picked up FSX because I put a new PC together and I still can't run everything on max (everything but scenery). Still looks good and only gets below about 20 fps in the busy cities. It was actually worse when I first installed it but after I downloaded the service packs I saw a huge increase in FPS because they optimized the code for multi-core CPUs.

Funny thing is that, at least with the default aircraft, the flight model isn't 100% realistic. As a lab project in one of my classes we calculated the glide ratio of a 747 and used FS2004 to test the results. The numbers we got in the sim didn't match what we calculated at all. It's still realistic enough for most cases though.
 

AirSimming

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
235
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dude, you do realise that X-Plane is used in full-motion aircraft simulators and that said simulators can have full FAA certification. Also: X-Plane works on platforms other than MS Windows (Did MSFS EVER have a mobile version, or support mac and linux?). X-Plane also makes use of the Blade Element Theory, which means that aerodynamic properties are derived from the mesh, and not a config file (However jet thrust, engine placement and piston engine power still need to be done manually AFAIK! For more see http://www.x-plane.com/pg_Inside_X-Plane.html ). Finally: the scenery and aircraft are so detailed that they need 6 dual-layer DVD's (the equivalent of about 12 single-layer DVD's!) to hold everything! I could go on, but I ran out of breath! :download:

EDIT: I got my breath back, and I think I might let this do the talking

X-Plane is useful for flight training devices, if you have the proper amount of money availabe. But those certified versions are different than the desktop versions and are made for a totally different target group than just people who want to use it for desktop simulation. In terms of desktop simulation X-Plane is not as userfriendly and elaborate as MSFS and therefore not that much used and does not offer that much addon products.

In fact, most private/home flight simulators, not full motion but using one-on-one Airbus and Boeing hardware, are based on MSFS (mostly FS9) rather than X-Plane due to its userfriendliness and compatibility with Project Magenta http://www.projectmagenta.com/ And of course because you do not have to pay tons of extra money for commercial/training versions.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asZGBEirD9k&feature=related"]YouTube- Boeing 737NG Sim SBRJ[/nomedia]

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8pL5S6rdfU&feature=related"]YouTube- St. Maarten 737 Cockpit Landing (Home Simulator)[/nomedia]

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzhBPtFF_bo&feature=related"]YouTube- 737NG simulator: crosswind approach & landing[/nomedia]
.
.
.
 

doggie015

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
351
Reaction score
0
Points
0
...
Funny thing is that, at least with the default aircraft, the flight model isn't 100% realistic. As a lab project in one of my classes we calculated the glide ratio of a 747 and used FS2004 to test the results. The numbers we got in the sim didn't match what we calculated at all. It's still realistic enough for most cases though.

X-Plane would have been more realistic for that test
 

Mogeley

New member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Yeah, but what kind of computer today can do it? Liquid cooled quad core and quad sli? And I thought they're not making any more new FS's?

It depends on how FSX was written. If it takes full advatage of multiple cores and high end graphics cards then you want a multi core machine with a good graphics card.

If it's single threaded then you want a lighting fast single core processor, with a good video card.

My machine is an i7 with a good graphics card and Orbiter can chug along sometimes (compared to many other more graphically intensive games), as I think it doesn't take much advantage of the newer graphics cards. Most games run on my machine at 60-100 fps.

So I think it really depends on how the software is optimized to take advantage of certain kinds of hardware.
 
Top