because FSX is 6 years old and in computer years that 12. Who wants and twelve year old piece of software .. thats the push for the next generation FS.

Huh? Didn't know computers was like dogs, 7 years to a human year or something like that. No wonder my is already grey and the dvd stopped working, it's aged 10 years, not 5 since 2007. LOL

FSX is five years old.

 

FSX is five years old.

And in terms of graphics and performance it wasn't even up to date when released in 2006. Still, nothing can beat it, but hat doesn't mean people can't grow tired of it. There are plenty of other exciting hobbies to waste ones time with. I was tired of FSX years ago and got back into the hobby because I looked forward to FLIGHT. With no future I might take up nitting instead.

I agree with you. Nothing beats FSX, but it looks old. Even with some pretty addon scenery installed immersion is highly disturbed by popping autogen, rotating clouds, poor lighting/shadowing, lack of support for modern hardware etc.

Right. I've been wanting for years to see the sun shine in a flight sim. FSX won't make that happen. It looks like it's clouded no matter what. Aerofly FS gives already a far better idea of the sun actually shining. I might buy it just to enjoy the shadows it has. :( And popping up autogen: awful. Even great Orbx scenery is spoiled by it. MS Flight does seem to have fixed that: autogen as far as you can see: I am already looking forward to that!Things like this have NOTHING to do with the simulation of flying but I am not only interested in flying: I am interested in flying above a realistic looking world. To me the scenery is just as important as the planes. Which shows were are all in this hobby for different reasons. Some people are satisfied with a good looking cockpit and don't care at ALL what the outside world looks like. They could fly for hours and hours just looking at the gauges. To me that's a nightmare. Well, hence the various reactions on MS Flight... :(

Edited January 8, 201214 yr by J van E

To me most important thing is that I can actually fly anywhere in the whole world where I want, not just areas where most people like to fly. I like to do adventures and fly in many more remote areas, thats why anything with only small part of world covered - even in high detail is not interesting to me. I choose place to fly because I feel some interest to it in real life, not because its scenery is covered well in Flight Simulator.As I am mostly flying with jets I have found best option to be FSX + Tileproxy, it gives enough detail to every part of the world to make it look good from cruising altitude, and in many places also it looks ok when landing. Of course there is no autogen but its only few minutes of long haul flight that you actually would see them.Thats why I am actually kind of happy about Flight being failure as it might extend FSX lifetime a bit. I rather have one simulator, even a bit outdated but covered well with addons than two simulators with partial coverage.

Edited January 8, 201214 yr by pvjinflight

Where to next? I've already made the move to X-Plane 10. But then I also have only a couple of relatively inexpensive add-ons for FSX (Flight Environment X and Ground Environment X, around $ combined), so there wasn't as much inertia preventing the transition. For those who have spent hundreds or thousands of dollars on similar products, I'm sure the perception is that any similar move is more difficult, but if you think about it logically, that money is already gone whether you stay with FSX or not. Even throwing your lot in with Prepar3D is not necessarily the obvious choice because committing yourself to $120 a year(!) is not going to in any way recover the cost of those add-ons (and that's before even considering the uncertain future of Prepar3D as a consumer product).Staying with FSX is a third option, of course, but it hasn't seen any core improvements since the release of Acceleration in 2007, and in my opinion it has really started to show its age. X-Plane 10, on the other hand, is a current product that will remain in active development for the next several years.

FSX will stay as main platform together with X plane 10 for many years to come. I see no reason at all to move yet.

Where to next? I've already made the move to X-Plane 10. But then I also have only a couple of relatively inexpensive add-ons for FSX (Flight Environment X and Ground Environment X, around $ combined), so there wasn't as much inertia preventing the transition. For those who have spent hundreds or thousands of dollars on similar products, I'm sure the perception is that any similar move is more difficult, but if you think about it logically, that money is already gone whether you stay with FSX or not. Even throwing your lot in with Prepar3D is not necessarily the obvious choice because committing yourself to $120 a year(!) is not going to in any way recover the cost of those add-ons (and that's before even considering the uncertain future of Prepar3D as a consumer product).Staying with FSX is a third option, of course, but it hasn't seen any core improvements since the release of Acceleration in 2007, and in my opinion it has really started to show its age. X-Plane 10, on the other hand, is a current product that will remain in active development for the next several years.

must hobbies require continuous investment ... hard to think of one that doesnt. So, my friends .. dont like your past investment stop you from your future enjoyment of your hobby.

Edited January 8, 201214 yr by Tierborn

Allright people, one of the reasons many will stick to fsx and prepar3d is the nice improvements being made, orbx sceneries and all that, and it is true that all of that enchance fsx, and if flying IFR you don't really need much more things, vatsim is there for those who want nice atc. But, what about VFR???ORBX makes amazing sceneries indeed, but all based on what the fsx platform can provide. We are in 2012 now, and as John from orbx said they would love to get their hands on an engine like that of the Battlefield series e.t.c, a modern graphics engine that should bring scenery design to very high standards. Of course they can't due to the cost, and the hope for a better graphic's engine was with Flight (if it has a better engine). So, now that Flight is out of the picture, we won't get a more modern engine on that deparment. That means that i'll be flying the piper cub at 60 knots over a scenery that has the roads that fsx had, and many of these elements. And i say again, orbx sceneries are awsome in many aspects, but they cannot elevate scenery design at the level we and they would like to.When i though of Flight, or other future flight sims i always thought of better graphics. Because some of us like to fly vfr at low alts, and we want as much realistic scenery as we can get. Personally i am now waiting for orbx to create sceneries for Europe and other places, even if it is for prepar3d, which in the lack something else i am willing to get at some point through the monthly payment plan, and to see what's next.So keep in mind, that although we now have very nice and realistic planes that can even be used for flight training, we also want graphics.

Edited January 8, 201214 yr by Stathis Mexias

Allright people, one of the reasons many will stick to fsx and prepar3d is the nice improvements being made, orbx sceneries and all that, and it is trie that all of that enchance fsx, and if flying IFR you don't really need much more things, vatsim is there for those who want nice atc. But, what about VFR???ORBX makes amazing sceneries indeed, but all based on what the fsx platform can provide. We are in 2012 now, and as John from orbx said they would love to get their hands on an engine like that of the Battlefield series e.t.c, a modern graphics engine that should bring scenery design to very high standards. Of course they can't due to the cost, and the hope for a better graphic's engine was with Flight (if it has a better engine). So, now that Flight is out of the picture, we won't get a more modern engine on that deparment. That means that i'll be flying the piper cub at 60 knots over a scenery that has the roads that fsx had, and many of these elements. And i say again, orbx sceneries are awsome in many aspects, but they cannot elevate scenery design at the level we and they would like to.When i though of Flight, or other future flight sims i always thought of better graphics. Because some of us like to fly vfr at low alts, and we want as much realistic scenery as we can get. Personally i am now waiting for orbx to create sceneries for Europe and other places, even if it is for prepar3d, which in the lack something else i am willing to get at some point through the monthly payment plan, and to see what's next.So keep in mind, that although we now have very nice and realistic planes that can even be used for flight training, we also want graphics. I sometimes wanna fly low and explore and enjoy the scenery.

+1As long as we get scenery with roads running through blocks of houses, I won't be satisfied... :( PNW is great and the best scenery there is (talking about larger area's here) but it still HURTS to see roads and waters go right through buildings. Or to see cardboard cutouts of commercial area's. Or to see real roads cutting through fake roads in the textures. Or water.... well, et cetera... We are still a LONG way from realistic scenery. (I know there is photoreal scenery, but seeing flat cities with build in shadows that only look good from ONE direction, is just as worse, or even worse, as seeing roads cutting through houses.)I suppose Flight still has roads cutting through houses and so on? Or is the entire island sort of photo real? I am thinking about getting Aerofly FS because it is photoreal, but then you get those awful flat cities surrounded by autogen trees... Yeah, we are still a LONG way from realistic scenery...

Edited January 8, 201214 yr by J van E

I am also afraid that if no new platform emerges the future of addon devs might be bleak. People grow tired of games and at some point most FSX users will abandon it. Just a thought....

Well, of course it depends on what you would like to see simulated but apart from the flying itself a lot of people like to look outside of the window and wtach the scenery. And as far as scenery is concerned we are still lightyears away from realistic scenery. Some addon airports come close, but even those don't come close to the real thing when you are on the ground. I won't be completely satisfied until things look like they do in real life... and I doubt if I will live to see that happening.

It's funny that you say this, I can recall several times looking out the side window of my plane when flying over my home state of Florida and thinking, "Damn that looks like FSX"I'll agree that at low altitudes, say 1000 feet and below it does get a little funky looking even with nice add-ons, but now that I have sim-savvy high def scenery for FL, and a few nice addons airports, KTPA,, KFLL, KMIA, KSPG KEYW KDAB I am a happy camper.with nice performance and looks.Ultimately it's a "to each their own" kind of thing, and there's really no one "correct" way to flight-sim, but I think that right now with the combination of stuff I have I will be happy until what ever is next comes along.Perhaps I am in the contented, satisfied, minority.

Ultimately it's a "to each their own" kind of thing, and there's really no one "correct" way to flight-sim, but I think that right now with the combination of stuff I have I will be happy until what ever is next comes along.

Very true! And I am also happy with what I have now, but I just KNOW that with current technology so much more should be possible...! And that's why I keep looking forward to what's coming, even though I do still enjoy my flights right now.

Very true! And I am also happy with what I have now, but I just KNOW that with current technology so much more should be possible...! And that's why I keep looking forward to what's coming, even though I do still enjoy my flights right now.

Really am glad to hear people are still happy with FSX,would love to feel the same.Also happy for the people who enjoy XP and Prepar3d and for the people who will enjoy Flight.The only person im not happy for is myself lol.Maybe something will crop up in the few years to reignite my passion for the genre,as for now after the really disapointing news of Flight im left in limbo.BTW my son already loves Flight,maybe time to pass my hobby on to him.

There is a new kid on the block, but we are going to have to wait a bit to see what it grows up to become.

I am starting to feel this way. I kinda feel bad for MS because regardless of what they do, people give them crap.... :(