Hi all,So now that we're pretty certain Flight will offer nothing for us, due mostly to the lack of third party openness, a few observations are in order:1) Prepar3D seems like the best bet for flight simming future (XPX a close second perhaps?). I'd love to hear from the other big addon devs, to whom we owe the success of this hobby, about their strategy going forward and beyond FSX. Thanks Orbix for getting this started, and lets encourage the other big names to follow. The user base will go where you go, fellas.2) FSX while stable and workable now, is one potential OS revision or hardware cycle away from breaking unrecoverably. Either by accident, attrition, or malice, MS could make FSX history and with it would go all of our fun. It wouldn't be stable and viable today if it were not for the amazing effort of so many hobbyists and third party devs. This risk makes the above strategy decision very important, and time sensitive.3) MS Flight should not be supported, whatsoever. I'm not usually a "boycott" type, but in this case I'll make an exception. If you've ever enjoyed a freeware or payware addon (and who here hasn't), you should speak with your wallet on this. I for one will not be participating in MS Flight.4) Price. Folks, our niche little hobby will no longer be subsidised by the marketing capability of a giant like MS. We can't expect our toys to cost 60 bucks any more, it just isn't economically feasible. If MS sells millions of copies of FSX to the average gamer, and we can ride that bus to a fully enhanced sim experience through addon's, that's great. In the new normal, *our* revenue dollar alone will support this hobby. P3D's $500 might be steep, but I can see a realistic price level in the $200 range for a base sim, and good quality add-ons at around $50 to $100. More likely than that, a subscription based model might take hold. This approach works, delivering profits to companies like Blizard and EA, while ensuring a stream of quality software for their users. The earliest MMO's are still operating a decade later and delivering regular content updates, on the back of a $15 monthly fee. I could work here also.The market will decide what to offer, and if we send the wrong message by drawing some hard line stance on the economics, development investment will dry up quick.Just some ramblings, thanks for reading. -George

George,Your comments are reasonable.I had to decide today to ditch MSFS products and embrace that P3D is likely my future. As a pilot who flies for pleasure and hopefully soon an aircraft owner (SWMBO dependent) a $200 sim that lets me sharpen real skills by giving me real weather, realish-ATC, and the ability to blow off steam with cool toys I will never get to play with (big jets, jets, small jets, angry war jets) is nothing compared to the cost per hour of really flying. However, I would caution against a strategy among the developers and my new "dealer" Lockheed Martin of raising prices so high that they choke off growth. Real world general aviation has done this and frankly I do not expect that it will survive in its current form outside of a revolution in propulsion technology. If we can't kick the lead habit in GA and get a fuel that runs cost parallel with automotive fuel but still meets AvGas performance standards you can expect GA in the country to go away. The only way to keep FSX alive (thank goodness its still here) is to buy Lockheed product.

I for one will not be participating in MS Flight.

You never know what the future holds.... not even Flight's future. But we'll talk about this again in a few years time. :(

More likely than that, a subscription based model might take hold. This approach works, delivering profits to companies like Blizard and EA, while ensuring a stream of quality software for their users. The earliest MMO's are still operating a decade later and delivering regular content updates, on the back of a $15 monthly fee. I could work here also.

Big difference here though is that you won't get content for your monthly fee... You have to pay extra for content. The fee simply gives you the basic package and various updates (I presume) and that's it. So while MMO lover stay satisfied with just paying the monthly fee, you will have to pay extra for each and every addon. Even for those you already have in FSX! For instance Orbx made it very clear they won't allow you to use their scenery in P3D without paying extra money for it. (BTW not every dev does is that way.)

Edited January 6, 201214 yr by J van E

[/color]You never know what the future holds.... not even Flight's future. But we'll talk about this again in a few years time. :wink:Big difference here though is that you won't get content for your monthly fee... You have to pay extra for content. The fee simply gives you the basic package and various updates (I presume) and that's it. So while MMO lover stay satisfied with just paying the monthly fee, you will have to pay extra for each and every addon. Even for those you already have in FSX! For instance Orbx made it very clear they won't allow you to use their scenery in P3D without paying extra money for it. (BTW not every dev does is that way.)

I believe orbx are not asking a lot for their cross platform license. iRacing would be the best comparison I believe. It is full of the most hardcore racing sim guys. They would in every way be the equal of the average guy on these forums. iracing if bought 12 month ahead is $99 dollars per year, all updates free with enough content to have some fun. All other content is paid for, every track, every car. That price has not been too steep for 20k+ subscribers who are really in to racing. I see a lot of this group as the same.

Why is that prepar3d that superior over FSX?! Isn't it just the same code like FSX with some glitches fixed?!

I believe orbx are not asking a lot for their cross platform license.

They don't indeed, but they also could have said 'Ah, what the heck, use it for free' as some other devs are doing. Orbx is happy with P3D because of the extra money (specially for commercial licenses which will cost a few thousand dollars), which isn't odd because they are a company with share holders and they are in it for the money. :wink:The comparison with iRacing is a valid one, btw.

Why is that prepar3d that superior over FSX?! Isn't it just the same code like FSX with some glitches fixed?!

I though the same and that's why I posted this:http://forum.avsim.net/topic/358868-why-move-to-p3d-now

Some good comments above.Not sure though that I share the emotions many have expressed against Microsoft, or agree that LM is necessarily the future for hardcore simmers. Let's look at Microsoft, I have had dealings with them many times as an IT professional and like every one else, they are in business to make a profit. They have had their seriously dodgy moments. like many others in that business, but the FS series has been one of their high points, perhaps even a passion for them (at least for the ACES team). But like everywhere, eventually the men in suits always take a rain check.We talk about using FSX, but how much FSX do we use? How many serious simmers use FSX default: planes? ground textures? vector data? weather? trees? sky, sea and clouds? Get the pattern? Almost no one in our end of the market uses FSX the way it was intended, Look the figures, FSX Gold sold for $69.95 was it - cant remember exactly. Yet we spend $3-500 on average on third party addons. You can't blame M$ as a business for wanting a slice of the follow on spend. Then, if you read Flywawaysimulation's report about Flight!, it says M$ want to build their new world in a closed environment, charging for addons and new scenery areas - if there is a demand. It says M$ wants to target all the attendees of Air Shows and Aviation Museums who never bought FSX. This sounds a bit like Dr Beeching on British Railways in the 1960s, not sure how they did their market research! But all companies have the right to change their sales strategy and tap into new markets - nothing we can do about that.What about the Lockheed Martin platform? LM play in the aerospace and defence industry. They are not kitted out to support a consumer market. Their product is aimed at a proprietary platform built on the FSX engine, to sell high value low volume pro training packages to businesses. That does not mean that it won't work for hardcore simmers with $500 to blow, but the consumer market business market will probably not scale up profitably for LM without some expensive investment in their marketing and support infrastructure. They do already have some partners of course - Orbx etc, but that does not mean that most of us will benefit from that unless they make the decision to enter the consumer 'gaming' market. In this economic climate that may not make sense, it as far away from their core business model and probably seen as a risk. Hope I'm wrong though, Prepar3d is an improvement on the FSX platform I understand.So where does this leave us? Who will fill the gap for us discerning seekers for aviation realism and constant improvement. I find it hard to see how the experience on present technology at least, can be much improved upon (remember most of us are 3 years behind the luck few with up to date state of the art hardware). The likelihood of getting an even better experience is limited for the FSX simmer who has Track IR, Orbx (PNW etc), REX 2 overdrive, ASE, GEX and the PMDG 737NGX, Butt kicker (bass and vibes) and good pilot seat rig, a multi screen and even their own cockpit. New hardware could possibly improve it, but at that point the platform is almost irrelevant as long as it works. Even my much improved FS9 would be unthinkable on 2005 standards and is far better than was default FSX and it works like a dream most of the time.X-plane 10? probably not, Flight! - well it will be free, so how many of us can swear that we wont download it and have a go? I will not swear that I won't. All we need is somehow to get security for the future of FSX and (FS9) platform. Most simmers do not consider themselves to be 'gamers'. They are seekers for a perfect model world - we are modelers perhaps. That is a different market, one that is only currently made possible by its great community and dedicated suppliers. Agree with the above that some kind of subscription or even streaming model may be possible in future. It would be a great idea in future to be able to stream on subscription, satellite based photo real scenery for the whole FSX world, inc Africa, Asia and S America for example. But most of us just need to protect the investment we have made in FSX and FS2004. We do not need M$ support for that, but we do need the ability to activate or reactivate licenses - another thread mentioned elsewhere on Avsim.So there is no immediate solution, but luckily no immediate crisis either. I would hope that all our favorite third party suppliers will stay with us and collectively perhaps lean on M$ to continue to support its old but no longer very profitable (to them) user base.Just a few thoughts anyway.Ray

Ray, I'd like to add to your logic that nothing ever prevented Microsoft from creating addons for themselves and getting a piece of the pie. In fact I bet they would have sold a lot more addons than all thir party devs combined because of their strong brand name and wide distribution.

Yes that's an interesting point.Of course they could have done this if they had wanted. My take on it is that Microsoft originally saw FSX as a complete product, whereas add-ons would have had less relative importance in their marketing strategy - few games sell that many add ons in any case. In retrospect we can see how important this market has been. but at the time of FSX's original release they not only saw this as a game but for them add-ons meant missions (eg Acceleration). I think they must have made a conscious decision that other add-ons for FSX were not going to be their market - remember, the add on market is not by and large a high profit operation and you need a much better, dedicated support operation to remain viable.By 2006 M$ would in any case have been in competition with specialist suppliers like PMDG, Eaglesoft, Carenado, Flight One, Scenery Solutions (UTX), ORBX, HiFi, and later on REX etc etc. Even a large operation like M$ would have had to think twice before deciding to compete directly with them. They did not, instead they took their royalties and worked with them as partners, just as many other large manufacturers do. After all this was not their core business.Of course they also like to be in control, but only when there is a strong likelihood of a quick return on investment and a pretty much guaranteed profit. FSX apparently exceeded their sales projections, but the add-on market is highly specialised and complex and requires long periods of dedicated testing for which there is little return, and then of course the need for much non profit making personal after sales support - because we simmers do not buy support contracts in addition to our base product - after all its only a game isn't it?, Microsoft££ already spent time and resource developing FSX, and I am not surprised that the one size fits all philosophy that M$ tends to adopt would not be an ideal model for the add-on market in any case.So FSX is now suffering from the old commercial problem of being a mature phase product with a fairly static user base and diminishing returns. It may be galling for us, but it's hardly surprising that they are now exploring a different commercial model.Ray

No, I don't blame MS for wanting a piece of the piebut what I don't understand is how they are going after the piece of pie. I find it mind boggling stupid that they shoot themeselves in the foot when they had an opportunity to work with ORBX and that they turned off the SDK, no PMDG and a lot of othere greats.

That's because MS like most big corporations make products nobody wants or needs, then spend money on marketing to convince customers they really want it. Corporations don't care about products, they care about sales. That is why a popular brand company can sell producds made in China for nothing to rich people with a 1000% profit!

Some good comments above.Not sure though that I share the emotions many have expressed against Microsoft, or agree that LM is necessarily the future for hardcore simmers.Let's look at Microsoft, I have had dealings with them many times as an IT professional and like every one else, they are in business to make a profit. They have had their seriously dodgy moments. like many others in that business, but the FS series has been one of their high points, perhaps even a passion for them (at least for the ACES team). But like everywhere, eventually the men in suits always take a rain check.We talk about using FSX, but how much FSX do we use? How many serious simmers use FSX default: planes? ground textures? vector data? weather? trees? sky, sea and clouds? Get the pattern? Almost no one in our end of the market uses FSX the way it was intended, Look the figures, FSX Gold sold for $69.95 was it - cant remember exactly. Yet we spend $3-500 on average on third party addons. You can't blame M$ as a business for wanting a slice of the follow on spend. Then, if you read Flywawaysimulation's report about Flight!, it says M$ want to build their new world in a closed environment, charging for addons and new scenery areas - if there is a demand. It says M$ wants to target all the attendees of Air Shows and Aviation Museums who never bought FSX. This sounds a bit like Dr Beeching on British Railways in the 1960s, not sure how they did their market research! But all companies have the right to change their sales strategy and tap into new markets - nothing we can do about that.What about the Lockheed Martin platform? LM play in the aerospace and defence industry. They are not kitted out to support a consumer market. Their product is aimed at a proprietary platform built on the FSX engine, to sell high value low volume pro training packages to businesses. That does not mean that it won't work for hardcore simmers with $500 to blow, but the consumer market business market will probably not scale up profitably for LM without some expensive investment in their marketing and support infrastructure. They do already have some partners of course - Orbx etc, but that does not mean that most of us will benefit from that unless they make the decision to enter the consumer 'gaming' market. In this economic climate that may not make sense, it as far away from their core business model and probably seen as a risk. Hope I'm wrong though, Prepar3d is an improvement on the FSX platform I understand.So where does this leave us? Who will fill the gap for us discerning seekers for aviation realism and constant improvement.I find it hard to see how the experience on present technology at least, can be much improved upon (remember most of us are 3 years behind the luck few with up to date state of the art hardware). The likelihood of getting an even better experience is limited for the FSX simmer who has Track IR, Orbx (PNW etc), REX 2 overdrive, ASE, GEX and the PMDG 737NGX, Butt kicker (bass and vibes) and good pilot seat rig, a multi screen and even their own cockpit. New hardware could possibly improve it, but at that point the platform is almost irrelevant as long as it works. Even my much improved FS9 would be unthinkable on 2005 standards and is far better than was default FSX and it works like a dream most of the time.X-plane 10? probably not, Flight! - well it will be free, so how many of us can swear that we wont download it and have a go? I will not swear that I won't.All we need is somehow to get security for the future of FSX and (FS9) platform. Most simmers do not consider themselves to be 'gamers'. They are seekers for a perfect model world - we are modelers perhaps. That is a different market, one that is only currently made possible by its great community and dedicated suppliers.Agree with the above that some kind of subscription or even streaming model may be possible in future. It would be a great idea in future to be able to stream on subscription, satellite based photo real scenery for the whole FSX world, inc Africa, Asia and S America for example. But most of us just need to protect the investment we have made in FSX and FS2004. We do not need M$ support for that, but we do need the ability to activate or reactivate licenses - another thread mentioned elsewhere on Avsim.So there is no immediate solution, but luckily no immediate crisis either. I would hope that all our favorite third party suppliers will stay with us and collectively perhaps lean on M$ to continue to support its old but no longer very profitable (to them) user base.Just a few thoughts anyway.Ray

Ah, the voice of reason...thanks Ray.

Yes that's an interesting point.Of course they could have done this if they had wanted. My take on it is that Microsoft originally saw FSX as a complete product, whereas add-ons would have had less relative importance in their marketing strategy - few games sell that many add ons in any case. In retrospect we can see how important this market has been. but at the time of FSX's original release they not only saw this as a game but for them add-ons meant missions (eg Acceleration). I think they must have made a conscious decision that other add-ons for FSX were not going to be their market - remember, the add on market is not by and large a high profit operation and you need a much better, dedicated support operation to remain viable.By 2006 M$ would in any case have been in competition with specialist suppliers like PMDG, Eaglesoft, Carenado, Flight One, Scenery Solutions (UTX), ORBX, HiFi, and later on REX etc etc. Even a large operation like M$ would have had to think twice before deciding to compete directly with them. They did not, instead they took their royalties and worked with them as partners, just as many other large manufacturers do. After all this was not their core business.Of course they also like to be in control, but only when there is a strong likelihood of a quick return on investment and a pretty much guaranteed profit. FSX apparently exceeded their sales projections, but the add-on market is highly specialised and complex and requires long periods of dedicated testing for which there is little return, and then of course the need for much non profit making personal after sales support - because we simmers do not buy support contracts in addition to our base product - after all its only a game isn't it?, Microsoft££ already spent time and resource developing FSX, and I am not surprised that the one size fits all philosophy that M$ tends to adopt would not be an ideal model for the add-on market in any case.So FSX is now suffering from the old commercial problem of being a mature phase product with a fairly static user base and diminishing returns. It may be galling for us, but it's hardly surprising that they are now exploring a different commercial model.Ray

The truth of the matter may cause some to cringe but "facts is facts" folks. A quick look at the way folks in the community responded to FSX RTM probably helped solidify a trend away from further "Simulation" and towards a less headache producing venue. :(

Why is that prepar3d that superior over FSX?! Isn't it just the same code like FSX with some glitches fixed?!

At the moment, yes. The future trajectory of P3D however is more hopefull than FSX.Computer ecosystems are not static. With each passing revision of operating systems, drivers, hardware, etc, legacy applications become more disconnected from the platform on which they run. P3D is a living codebase, with people actively testing and improving it on new platforms, whereas FSX is a static binary product, and nobody has access to the source code to make key improvements that might be needed to keep it working. To date, the only core improvements to stability have been through hacks like using old OS DLL's and tweaking cfg file entries. This can only get you so far.At some unknown point in the future, FSX will simply stop working on new kit. And you will be forced to keep an old PC with old unsupported and unsecure OS revisions around just to run it. That will also be the point in which we see zero new improvements due to hardware upgrades.This is all coming someday, it is just a question of when.Regards,G

No, I don't blame MS for wanting a piece of the piebut what I don't understand is how they are going after the piece of pie. I find it mind boggling stupid that they shoot themeselves in the foot when they had an opportunity to work with ORBX and that they turned off the SDK, no PMDG and a lot of othere greats.

Right. Even notoriously "closed" Apple, who inveted the app store idea, actively courts third party developers. A tiny fraction of stuff available for iOS is Apple created. MS has just gotten... dare I use the language of OWS... greedy.Regards,G

Edited January 6, 201214 yr by gmohr

Investing in Prepar3D is a big risk. What if P3D is suddenly dropped? What if the subscription costs suddenly rise 10 fold? What if there are regional restrictions imposed? What if P3D suddenly force an upgrade onto you which will break your legacy addons?Lockheed Martin isn't in the business of making MMOs or even dealing with the public in general. Their clients are governments, militaries and corporations and Prepar3D is and will always be a commercial platform for businesses with little to no consideration for hobbyists like us.