DX9 / XP discussion

[Force10]

Originally Posted by Baron

What most people seem to have forgotten is that the latest beta patch we are currently running does NOT support DX9.

Or maby its already been mentioned.

That's really a non-issue because to install the beta patch you would have to do it manually, and understand why it's a beta and not official. The average Steam user that isn't a staple at these forums is still running the last official patch that does work somewhat in DX9.

[Baron]

Originally Posted by Force10

That's really a non-issue because to install the beta patch you would have to do it manually, and understand why it's a beta and not official. The average Steam user that isn't a staple at these forums is still running the last official patch that does work somewhat in DX9.

I was only referring to the debate about "they MUST support DX9 cuz the box says so", if its a beta release they don't. They can hold of the DX9 support as long as they care to as long as its not an official/steam patch release. There is absolutely nothing that indicates that this patch is going to be a official release right of the bat.

I might have missed something though.

[robtek]

Al those " i want, i want, i want...." posts would be funny if the wouldn't communicate the disrespect of those posters towards the less fortunate which are stuck with Windows XP for various reasons.

Sad as this is, its a mirror of the western meritocracy.

I dunno what this has to do with the meritocracy (which I personally prefer over mediocricy any time) so please elaborate.

I also suggest that you put away your computer, do not use tab water and only feed on one meal per day because there are people on this planet that cannot afford a computer nor have running water. Some even have difficulties to feed on one meal per day ... *rolleyes*

[He111]

Ta! ..

DX9 !! ppppttttttt!!! if people still rely on that, give them a free copy of 1946! (and dump da b....)

I'm more than willing to chipin for more AI fixes, proper 1946 mission recorder etc

.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by He111

Ta! ..

DX9 !! ppppttttttt!!! if people still rely on that, give them a free copy of 1946! (and dump da b....)

I'm more than willing to chipin for more AI fixes, proper 1946 mission recorder etc

.

They probably all ready own it. Come to think of it many people running XP probably upgraded to vista, then decide to go back to XP for their gaming environment.

If you really are so keen why don't chip in and buy them a copy of Windows 7 or maybe just wait while the developers fullfill their obligation to support their customers.

[MD_Marx]

Thanks for the update B6.

I also understand the frustration about the DX9 support, and largely agree with all the commentators. However, I wonder if these purchasers of the game - albeit justified in bitching from time to time - consider the legal ramifications to 1C if they simply stopped any DX9 development? Right or wrong, the game was sold as being compatible with DX9 - and that's a legal, binding contract - as far as I understand it - so there really isn't much choice in the matter - DX9 support has to be provided. But we die-hard flight - sim customers do have a valid bone of contention with DX9 support, in that we all know that DX9 is long dead, and it is unreasonable that the justified satisfaction of the majority should be deferred for not just the minority, but for pseudo economic reasons as well.

So can I make suggestion? Accepting that DX9 development should continue, is it not possible for 2 versions of the game to be developed; the first being the one for DX10/11+ (the main development), the second (of lower priority) for DX9 ?

The advantage would be that this would remove the requirement for a single piece of software to satisfy 2 disparate operating systems. You could even limit the amount of DX9 support on the latter version, having as a simple objective, crash-free, reliable operation, based on an earlier version of the FM/DM etc., and simply let it die a death. After all, even XP systems will eventually become truly obsolete in the East, and as a business model, it seems fairly odd why 1C would want to waste funds in developing complex software for an outdated OS - that the vast majority of the customer-base has already moved away from. These guys' gripes are valid; we are still waiting for the promised land but are expected to wait further because of a mistaken promise that 1C made i.e. DX9 support.

It is all very well arguing that 2 versions will not work because of the complexity in maintaining the 2 versions, but you need to balance against that, the additional software complexity required to support DX9, 10 & 11 AND NOT UNDERMINE either! Since you have taken the decision to consider the DX9 question further, can I ask that you consider this approach as well?

Cheers,

Marx

[furbs]

I always thought CLOD barely worked in DX9(very low FPS and stutters) and had been that way since release?

[addman]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Do you know how you can tell when even the whiners are tried of whining about the same old thing?

Easy..

Just watch for the point where they turn on each other and begin eating their own!

Wrong, I can see both sides of the coin. People like you and Force10 are so stuck in your tunnel vision you couldn't find you're way out of it even though there is only one direction to choose. It's fascinating to see you guys duke it out though, from a strictly anthropological viewpoint.

Originally Posted by MD_Marx

Thanks for the update B6.

I also understand the frustration about the DX9 support, and largely agree with all the commentators. However, I wonder if these purchasers of the game - albeit justified in bitching from time to time - consider the legal ramifications to 1C if they simply stopped any DX9 development? Right or wrong, the game was sold as being compatible with DX9 - and that's a legal, binding contract - as far as I understand it - so there really isn't much choice in the matter - DX9 support has to be provided. But we die-hard flight - sim customers do have a valid bone of contention with DX9 support, in that we all know that DX9 is long dead, and it is unreasonable that the justified satisfaction of the majority should be deferred for not just the minority, but for pseudo economic reasons as well.

So can I make suggestion? Accepting that DX9 development should continue, is it not possible for 2 versions of the game to be developed; the first being the one for DX10/11+ (the main development), the second (of lower priority) for DX9 ?

The advantage would be that this would remove the requirement for a single piece of software to satisfy 2 disparate operating systems. You could even limit the amount of DX9 support on the latter version, having as a simple objective, crash-free, reliable operation, based on an earlier version of the FM/DM etc., and simply let it die a death. After all, even XP systems will eventually become truly obsolete in the East, and as a business model, it seems fairly odd why 1C would want to waste funds in developing complex software for an outdated OS - that the vast majority of the customer-base has already moved away from. These guys' gripes are valid; we are still waiting for the promised land but are expected to wait further because of a mistaken promise that 1C made i.e. DX9 support.

It is all very well arguing that 2 versions will not work because of the complexity in maintaining the 2 versions, but you need to balance against that, the additional software complexity required to support DX9, 10 & 11 AND NOT UNDERMINE either! Since you have taken the decision to consider the DX9 question further, can I ask that you consider this approach as well?

Cheers,

Marx

Personally I think it is not doable for a small team like MG. Also it should pose no big problem for the software as such (other games manage to have both at the same time).

I do not mind either that they finally go to implement some sort of DX9 compatibility. What I mind is that they keep the majority of the users unnecessarily waiting by insisting to publish this in one big package.

I think what they need to do is:

1. Release the final patch for DX10/11 users as soon as it is ready and later release a patch that adds DX9 compatibility.

2. Focuse on the stability of the code for DX9 users only. Doesn't need to have the greatest performance or eye candy as DX9 is only mentioned as minimum requirement for running the game, not for enjoying the game to its full potential.