FSX? How are we doing?

[AlphaInfinity 13]

Vatsim really is for the hardcore simmer. The people on Vatsim are very friendly and the ATC guys are great. At the end of the day, the "gotta have it now" crowd will probably never end up on Vatsim. I picked FSX back up in the last six months and have been studying approach charts, SIDS and STARS to try and get ramped up for Vatsim. I have been studying the pilot resource guide, installing FSInn and FSCopilot and parking my aircraft in a cargo spot to listen to folks on Vatsim. I have also spent quite a bit of time studing the FMC. Would I have gone through all this if I were ten years younger? Probably not. Back then I wanted to blow away scumbags in Counter strike for 30 minutes with some friends and then do a quick flight from KSEA to KMSO. Keep in mind I have been on and off with flightsims for 15+ years. After getting back into FSX, I discovered things like REX, the PMDG produtcs, VATSIM and all sorts of scenery goodies that will keep evolving FSX for a long time to come. I think that over time, it will become more of an enthusiast platform and less of a casual platform. That could be good or bad depending on how you look at it. There is nothing wrong with FPS types of games and I think a lot of folks here probably get on the XBOX or PC to blow away some bad guys every once in a while. After a while though, the swearing, racist remarks, yelling and screaming and the general nastyness that comes with people getting online with a game like that gets kind of old. It never fails that some 12 year old kid is spewing out stuff that would make a sailor blush because he thinks somebody is cheating and that depresses me. I have found the flightsim community to be a fresh breath of air in comparison. That is why I think that this community and others like it have longevity vs the "What is the neatest FPS now crowd". Developers keep raising the bar when it comes to FSX and I am not too concerned about ACES not developing the next flightsim. The only piece of this puzzle that does concern me is the lack of future updates from MS in regards to flightsim. I am pretty much convinced that since the release, we are a few generations newer when it comes to hardware and you can still bring an I7 to its knees if you want to. I was hoping that they would do a deep dive into the code and really look at optimizing the engine a little bit. That will probably never happen, so we will continue to rely upon third party developers to keep pushing that evolution forward. I don't think that solid state drives will help that much with the fluidity of the game itself even though it probably will help with the load times. I don't think that Nvidia or ATI is spending a lot of time optimizing their drivers for FSX and you see FSX less and less in game benchmarks.

[Vaga1 2]

Little effort ? GTA4 took 500 people and $100 million dollars to make, Half Life 2 was 5 years and $40 million dollars to make. Any GOOD game, be it RPG, FPS, etc takes lots of time, money and people to make. Compare those numbers to FS9 and FSX and you'll see way more time, money, and effort is put into todays FPS games than was ever put into flight sim.

I never said they didn't take allot of time and money to make however there is a difference. Also you are comparing cost, programmers, consultants, testers etc however you only provide data for one side of the arguement. How much money do you think Microsoft has spent on graphic artists, consultants, programmers, height maps for the entire world, testers, etc. With a 3D shooter you can create an enviorment from a simple random heightmap that can be computer generated. For a flight sim to be accurate you have to buy accurate data at the best possible scale to make it as real as you can get and stay in budget. Also once you have the height maps lets not forget checking as much of the entire earth as possible in that data for errors and holes. You can find several examples of the holes in FSX that did not get fixed or were not found prior to release. With a computer generated heightmap your allot less likely to find a hole in the data.I'm not trying to put down the FPS games. There are many talented programmers and artists that make them and I own a few of them myself."Compare those numbers to FS9 and FSX and you'll see way more time, money, and effort is put into todays FPS games than was ever put into flight sim."I disagree with this point for a few simple reasons.A flight sim is a flight sim and so basic principles of the sim can be ported from one version to the other and there is no need to change the code unless it can be done better. Half life 2 has gone through 2 versions while FSX is on 10 versions with microsoft and I believe it was 2 or 3 versions with SubLogic. So much more of the programming that was good could be moved over. This simply means there can be more focus on other areas like graphics and trying to make the game flexable enough to handle future addons. Given the fact that FS-0 for the Apple II started in 1975 and has been an ongoing project till now it's hard to compare the true cost of FSX. I don't think halflife 2 can compare in time considering that it didn't start in 1975 or earlier.FSX is a direct result of time, effort, and money spent from its humble start till what we have now with many versions to take advantage of new programming languages, technology and hardware. Halflife 2 can't even begin to compare with this in my opinion. If you want to quote cost for development to challenge what I said you could at least provide numbers for the cost of FS9 and FSX since you seem compelled to quote the numbers on other games.Now getting back onto the topic of the state of FSX. I agree as others have stated that with the ACES team gone there is allot of opertunity for 3rd party developers to create and expand on what Microsoft has created for us in FSX and those addons will not need to be replaced as quickly. This will also lead to a better leap in hardware and the next flight sim if it does happen will have allot of potential for better graphics and more realistic flight dynamics.

[michal 44]

for the bulk of the community to transition, in mass, to something more sustainable.

And what exactly is this "something more sustainable"??

[Guest RobertAlley]

I wouldn't sound the death knell for flight simming just yet.If anything, the virtual monopoly flight sim has been suffering through stifled innovation.X-Plane may not yet be the answer, and I have doubts as to whether Aerosoft will save us; but the demise of Aces has paved the way for a few new Richard Harvey's to convince a few companies flight sim is worth investing in. With any luck whoever produces these new sims will have more brains and they won't be killed in the cradle...Robert

[docnobby 0]

And what exactly is this "something more sustainable"??

Maybe he't talking about this: http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?sh...mp;#entry162560 :(

[flyerkg 62]

As with each new MSFS release I always went through the growing pains. The most extreme have been going from FS9 to FSX and losing a few payware planes and a helicopter that will not transfer over to FSX and a small amount of payware scenery that lose some of their details when ported to FSX. But I am growing to enjoy the various views that you can create around the aircraft in FSX. I have not completely gone away from FS9 and occasionally load up and fly in the old stuff and the payware that won't work in FSX. I do think that even if ACES never comes back that FSX will be around for a long time. Everyday I see new addons for FS98 and I ask myself "who is still on FS98?" Even if someone like Aerosoft comes along with a whole new flight simulator, I don't think I will turn off FSX right away. I also have X-Plane 9.xx and have had X-Plane since version 5 or so. There are many aspects of XP I enjoy but a few aspects are rather hard to adjust to. I can relate to the point of view of having a sim that can run on the platform of your choice. My first Microsoft Flight Simulator was available on Mac as well as PC and I logged more than 500 hours of MSFS 5.1 on an old Mac before I could ever save up enough to replace that system. And before the next best software comes around I will probably have so many payware planes and scenery that I will not want to replace FSX. Thank you for this discuss.

[michal 44]

Maybe he't talking about this: http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?sh...mp;#entry162560 :(

OK, however I am not sure how something which is a vaporware can be "sustainable". At least in my logic something doesn't compute here ... :(

[Dillon 2,197]

As long as there are those who love flight and/or are marveled by it Flight Simulator and this community will always be around. A down turn is not the death nail for something like this. It took man thousands of years to discover, learn, and exploit flight a passion that is not going anywhere. PC based simulation (MS did it best) makes accessible something that would otherwise be out of reach for many. The backlash to what the powers at be are doing is real. There's many who don't bother with mindless entertainment and want something more challenging. Home simulation will be back in a major way especially when FSX hits prime time (ran full bore on machines accessible to most of us for a fraction of the cost of todays price of admission).Guys everything is in a down turn these days with the economy so people need to save and embrace what they have. People with older machines or limited budgets stay with FS9. Because of it's performance there's not much to talk about when you fire it up and it runs well. The day one can go to Best Buy and pick up an 'E-Machine' type system for $400 or less and fire up FSX with all sliders maxed out with no hint of performance degradation is when you'll see things turn around. When one can buy add-ons like the PMDG 744 in FSX and it runs smooth as silk on an aforementioned priced machine is when the hobby becomes what it was and people can just jump in with limited out of pocket expense and/or headaches (On machines of today no FS9 tweaking is needed outside of the FS9.1 patch. Years of doing this was a fruitless effort in retrospect as all my tweaks are no longer needed. Don't get me wrong on machines of the day tweaking is needed but with the right hardware anything will run no matter how badly programed). Concerning today's conditions, people just don't have the money and/or time like they used to for constant experimentation. If somethings not readily accessible for whatever reason right out the box people don't have the time to figure out why (you'll get about an hour effort and then it's over). People just want products to work right out the box without asking for this and that over and over again aka 'XBOX'... That's the real lesson from all this is 'quality control', make the thing work on what most people have or they'll look elsewhere. People don't have three to four years to wait for hardware to catch up (people have literally taken the stance of 'see you in a few years when this thing works right out the box'). You put in an XBOX title and it runs now back to the kids... Getting add-ons to work is one thing, getting the sim in general to perform shouldn't be an issue if the box states the specs and you meet them. You loose people when the competition consoles (PS3, Wii, 360) can do this and a PC title can't. Whether it's Microsoft or anyone else who takes up the banner it's best not to assume you'll be around when hardware catches up or making products that are so far ahead of the current hardware it's all but unreasonable. Exploit what's there today in hardware and make a product that screams on the hardware of the day just like what's being done for XBOX titles. If you make things too hard you run many away as we all have seen. Like I said when a kid can ask their parents for a computer and it runs FSX without issue is when things turn around for our hobby. It's when a kid (or anyone for that matter) has to keep coming back with more requirements that the feeling wains on a product and people go with what's more simple to operate without all the headaches. I think back to what started this whole computer revolution and that was kids in college. We put cheap things together and came up with the first MAC or the various ideas on top of products like Flight Simulator 5.1. Again once FSX get's to the point a second hand machine can run it people with limited means (which is most people) will embrace it like versions of FS in the past. Least we not forget how long FS has been in existence and those version didn't look a third as good as FSX looks full bore... Things will turn around for sure in a few years as FSX with it's add-ons is the best on the market for PC simulation (I don't see that crown going away for the next 10 plus years. Who has the budget and/or desire to topple FSX?)... It's a matter of time when anyone can jump in and just have fun. We're seeing this with FS9 and it won't be that long before FSX will be the same way and look 1000 times better... :(

[michal 44]

Guys everything is in a down turn these days with the economy so ...

Yeah.Talking about downturn ... Mooney delivered 65 airplanes in 2008, only 5 this year. Hawker-Beech, Cessna, Piper even Cirrus are struggling and laying off workers. Blue Mountain Avionics just closed its doors. If I am concerned about anything relating to flying it is about the GA industry. I am not concerned about the flight simulation (as a hobby) at all.

[Dillon 2,197]

Yeah.Talking about downturn ... Mooney delivered 65 airplanes in 2008, only 5 this year. Hawker-Beech, Cessna, Piper even Cirrus are struggling and laying off workers. Blue Mountain Avionics just closed its doors. If I am concerned about anything relating to flying it is about the GA industry. I am not concerned about the flight simulation (as a hobby) at all.

Outstanding point which harkens back to a well running FSX is so viable when pilots can't do it in the real world because of cost... Most of my flying is in FS even though I'm able to do it in the real world... Once FSX (like FS9 before it) becomes more accessible due to hardware maturity people will come back in droves when they can get a great running sim on hardware costing a fraction of what it costs today. Add-ons by then will have price cuts as well like we're seeing with FS9 add-ons... Imagine a 4gig dual core with a 3gig video card and 4 gigs of ram costing as little as $500 dollars (we don't even want to mention the advantages in FSX of solid state hard drives especially when that price is lowered)? These prices are not that far off, I can get a 1gig video card for $180 these days which wasn't possible not that long ago. People everywhere who love flight will be back in the game...I'm not too worried about real world GA as long as the federal government doesn't start regulating all airspace like what's been proposed... People like myself are just using older planes and doubling up on ownership... "Life Finds a Way" as quoted from Jarrasic Park...

[Guest Tingoose]

Even if developers stopped making new products tomorrow, I've still got a whole setup of flightsim+many amazing addons, aircraft, sceneries, utilites to keep me going for years. I admit that I would miss the community and the excitement of new addons and innovations but the act of pure flight inside the simulation and the ensuing enjoyment would not be affected by any of this. Furthermore, I haven't even moved to FSX yet! :(

[january 19]

For whatever it's worth re state of the flight sim world-The August 30 AVSIM usage stats for FS9 vs FSX are-Out of 2485 replies:FS9 is used by 50.5%FSX is used by 47.0%This after approx 3 years on the market for FSX.That suggests that add-ons will have to continue to be offered in both versions for some time to come.Alex Reid

[JSkorna 137]

Hi,Our research has shown the same, about 50-50 with some that use both.

[FalconAF 213]

This is a great thread, with some very good points in it. I'll toss in some more.I think flight simulation as a whole on a "desktop computer" platform is far from dying. As already stated, even with the demise of ACES, both FS9 and FSX seem to be the two most commonly used flight simulators around (in the sense of non-combat related flight simulators). It's interesting to note the statistic that shows an almost even 50 - 50 percentage split between FS9 and FSX users. But there is probably a very good reason for that...average income of the user base(s).I read a report today on the Internet that said the average income in the U.S. today was $32,800. That's interesting, in the sense that with that income, it would be very difficult for someone to "pull the trigger" and make a major upgrade of their entire computer system just to go from FS9 (if it runs fine on their current computer) to FSX (it would require a substantial percentage of their income to buy an i7 that would run FSX "the same way" they can run FS9). Combine this with some of the statistics that were posted several months ago about the average age of Flight Simulator users (I think the majority were in their 40's - 50's...or even older and maybe on a "fixed" retirement income), and the prospect of having a simulator now (FSX) that won't be a "moving target" for developers to design for in the future might be a positive factor in how FSX evolves, and continues to get better over the next few years.I've seen posts in these forums where people have finally "pulled that trigger" and bought an i7 for FSX, after staying with FS9 for the past 4 years because they couldn't justify (or afford at the time) to continue the never-ending "upgrade circus" of trying to get FSX to "run right" with new hardware as it came out. All of these posts seem to indicate one major change that is available now for FSX...the user can purchase a "complete" system that will run FSX very, very well now. No more constant "tweaking"...no more constant "if I only had a little bit more memory, or a slightly faster video card, or a slightly faster CPU", etc. I think as more people finally do that (if they are or become able to do it, financially), then the FSX user base will be around for quite a while yet.Note the above "user base" will probably NOT be "Little Johnny...the 12-year old Nemesis of VATSIM, GameSpy, etc". Little Johnny usually doesn't have his own income...Mom and Dad are going to be the determining factors in whether he gets "The Upgrade". Seems to me the user base that will constitute the majority of FSX users in the future will probably be us ol' farts who do have the disposable income to finally "pull that trigger" and keep the FSX world alive. For instance, with what I already have invested in FSX (hardware, software addons, etc), I don't envision me jumping on any new flight simulator that is released in the near future unless it was COMPLETELY revelotionary in nature...and I don't see that happening as far as a PC-based system is concerned. It would be extremely difficult, I think, to hook up my TH2G and 4 monitors, CH Yoke, CH HOTAS Joysticks, Soundblaster Surround Sound 7.1 Speaker System, and a few other things to an "X-Box".Additionally, I'm sure some of us here do have incomes that exceed, and maybe far exceed, the "average" of $32,800 a year. And yet, we haven't gone "all the way" yet and purchased a complete $3000 Go Flight Module System, or an overhead projector system, or had a flatbed semi-trailer deliver a boneyard B-737 cockpit to our driveway so we could build a "real" 737 cockpit in our basement or den. That's not to say I haven't THOUGHT about doing that....I just haven't had the NERVE to do it yet. That may change in the future, now that I know I can get the computer hardware to run FSX with that type of setup...without having to mortgage my entire house or retirement income for the rest of my life, and not having to worry about "upgrading" all that computer hardware in the future again. The idea of finally being able to make a ONE TIME purchase of the computer hardware needed to run FSX using all it's available options is tugging at my VISA card. Hmmmm......buy a new computer now, or take a cruise to Bahama. One week of pleasure on a boat, or a few years pleasure on my computer. Decisions, decisions......If you are an addon developer for FSX, I'll be around for numerous years yet. Heck, I already have two external drives just to store the darn addons I already bought for FSX. As long as the addons keep coming...if they are quality addons...I won't hesitate to buy a third external drive if I have to.Rick

[january 19]

Re FS Age Profile- again the AVSIM survey shows:64.8 % of respondents are over 41 years of age43% are older than 51Only 15% are under 30 (perhaps the under 30s don't reply to surveys- they don't seem to vote at election time!)One would expect that the 65% of older simmers would also be the most affluent- yet FSX penetration is much lower at only 47%. So there are reasons other than financial, for the failure of FSX to obtain majority market share.Alex Reid