That's what many users/developers were saying about weapons system in FSX not too long ago and now we have CS Weapons already released with updates forthcoming, VRS's TACPack (soon to be released), MilViz's own integrated weapons systems for their upcoming projects, RAZBAM's are in the works with something similar, and still a few FREEWARE developers are at is as well.
We never said that. There are no limitation in FSX that prevent creation of weapons, it's quite complex stuff, but it IS supported and doable with what FSX can do. Anyone that said there were FSX limitations that prevented weapons, was wrong right from the start. As was wrong anyone who said humans weren't possible in FSX: it was *obvious* humans were possible, as soon as we saw the infamous walking zebras and elephants, which everybody joked about it when FSX was released...
So, what if I told you that someone was already working on USER & AI "GSX" like features, would you still doubt the importance of what I'm requesting or is this purely something you cannot consider until after the initial releases?
I think to have already said, quite clearly, it doesn't make ANY difference to GSX, if the serviced airplane is user or AI.
Also, what exactly is "more a limitation of how FSX handles vehicles" rather then how OOP's/OS' Memory management of instances of objects in a 32-bit app.'s limitation could be?
As I've said, 32 bits or 64 bits doesn't have anything to do with this. And memory management even less. It's just that FSX doesn't make it EASY (and I NEVER said "impossible") to have many instance of the same object, but not because of ANY of the reasons you mentioned. It's just lot of more work, and forces to in-elegant programming, but is doable.
you are no longer running into the old 32-bit app
32 bit limitation doesn't have anything to do with this, regardless how many times you repeat it. And besides, since the Addon Manager + Couatl are FSX module, they'll always be 32 bit, as long FSX itself remains 32 bit. But of course, this is irrelevant, since GSX takes very little RAM to run.
The only thing that might be affected negatively is video/graphics handeling and you've already got ADM to tweak that; so why not add this as an addition to it as well?
Yes, the major impact of so many vehicles on AI is on the graphic card.
Once you have humans in, the polygon count HAS to go up. Even if GSX vehicles are *way* more complex than, let's say, AES ones or the vehicles we used so far on our sceneries, it might be possible to get away by simpler versions of them, just for AI use. However, it will NOT work for humans because, to have "bones" animations working believably for humans, they should have a minimum amount of polygons, otherwise the skin deformation will just look bad. AND, bones animation is not "free", which is why Ultimate Traffic lets you disable moving jetways on its AI models to increase fps, and a jetway is just 2-3 bones, an human is up to 22 and we use all of them.
But, it will be surpassed in this area (GSX for AI) by others eventually and you can "take that to the bank."
Yes, it will probably surpassed by GSX 2.0...
OF COURSE, if GSX will be successful. If not, we don't care at all of someone else will "surpass" it...which is why it doesn't make any sense trying to hit to for the moon (=put *everything* in the first version), if we still don't know if the product interest enough people to make it commercially feasible.
In any case, as with ANY of our products, we don't want to do something that will halve fps once installed, because users are not able to restrain themselves: if they see a complexity slider, they always put it all the way to the right, and complain "that product is an fps killer"
