It is apparent that FSX has really grown into the often used Microsoft Vista analogy in one last interesting way. The fact is that there was really nothing really wrong with Microsoft Vista after it was patched and the performance increased. What killed Vista was the "perception" that it was flawed and broken. Now, FSX shares the same fate as Vista. The fact is there is nothing wrong with FSX on today's systems. It is now possible to get the same performance as in FS9 on most modern systems (I have a one year old overclocked i7 2600k) and this is with higher resolution and more cockpit complexity than FS9. So pound for pound I'm actually getting BETTER performance in FSX than I am in FS9.Unfortunately, FSX has a perception problem. I don't have blurries, CTD, BSOD or any other issue with FSX so there is no reason for me to look to alternatives such as P3D or XPlane. The only time I have issues is when messing around in the FSX.cfg file when experimenting. Even *******' tweaks can be hit and miss and may require a little more tweaking or could cause issues. And there in lies the problem. Everyone is sick of it and even if FSX is not having issues the perception is that it is not optimized or that it will have issues. You simply can't erase first impressions.The end result is the desperate dash from one sim to another to get away from FSX. First P3D was supposedly the holy grail and people flocked to it (and were (are) willing to pay $10 a month for no real gain and less compatibility.) but since that initial dash, interest has died way down. Then X-Plane 10 came out and people flocked to it despite its obvious glaring flaws and lack of features - some stayed but most moved on. Then Flight came out and people flocked to it but the outcry was huge because at this point the majority of the community was looking for a FS11 and didn't get it. Now we have some new GNU Test Pilot thing and is beginning to ramp up interest (even though I find it hard to follow the constant manefestos being released by the author). Of course let's not forget that there is FS9 which almost half of the community is still running!The question is what the next 5 years will hold for the community. As for me, I have realized that I haven't even scratched the surface when it comes to FSX. The PMDG NGX is still new, the 777 is on the way. New beautiful airports are in the pipeline from FSDreamteam, Flightbeam, FlyTampa and others. Heck I flew into FSDT KFLL the other day and realized that I've owned it for 3 years and have never flown into it. Heck I've got dozens of payware airports I haven't flown into since migrating from FS9! So for me, FSX could work for me for the next decade and not get old as long as new content is being released.None-the-less the community as a whole is ready to move on to the next Flight Simulator but only tolerates FSX because there is no other real choice right now. Its scary to think that the market is wide open for a FSX replacement (no; XPlane is not it) but no one can seem to fill the void. What's even more scary is that even Microsoft won't even attempt to replace FSX and that should speak volumes about the size, scope commitment and expense that the successor to FSX will require.

For once I don't agree with you Mike. FSX doesn't work OK out of the box. I know as I just bought a new computer and run a vanilla FSX install with no addons or tweaks. It suffers from stutters, blurries, falshing textures, freezes, popping autogen, sound bugs to mention a few. I've had freezed and crashes and of all the software I run it is by far the most unstable and demanding to get running OK. I'm tired of having a crash in the middle of a 3 hour flight, tired of tweaking and tired of spending countless hours installing addons, configuring them, reconfiguring them and updating them with each addon dev having their own way of "how to do things".My biggest problem is that FSX is old tech. I want a flight sim that looks like a 2012 game with improved usability and gameplay. But as you say, it doesn't seem to happen. Unless a Sid Meier of flight sims comes along we've got to make the best of what we've got. Some more reluctantly than others... :)

HelloWe have never been in a better position, FSX is the most comprehensive desktop flightsim ever created.Beyond that we have Lockheed taking the codebase forward with a new licence aimed directly at the home simmer.And we have a true wild card in GNU Aerospace TestPilot, Worth reading the Wiki page about the guy behind this effort.From the announcment on avsim today > TestPilot is designed to load all FSX scenery, aircraft, vehicles, AI, and add-ons as long as the user has a legal licensed copy of FSX on his machine. TestPilot replaces the FSX core engine DLL's with it's own implementations, thereby taking full advantage of modern multicore cpus, and gpus, which FSX is incapable of. Because TestPilot completely replaces the core engine of FSX, limitations in the Flight Dynamics Engine are also eliminated providing accuracy superior to either Microsoft Flight or X-Plane 10, utilizing the very same advanced Aerodynamic Modeling technology that the aircraft manufacturers use.TestPilot provides a full implementation of FSX's SimConnect, providing the ability to optimize performance and distribute execution of add-ons to other computers on a network. A complete seamless world of challenging new experiences is on the horizon.Much to look forward to IMHO.

For once I don't agree with you Mike. FSX doesn't work OK out of the box. I know as I just bought a new computer and run a vanilla FSX install with no addons or tweaks. It suffers from stutters, blurries, falshing textures, freezes, popping autogen, sound bugs to mention a few. I've had freezed and crashes and of all the software I run it is by far the most unstable and demanding to get running OK. I'm tired of having a crash in the middle of a 3 hour flight, tired of tweaking and tired of spending countless hours installing addons, configuring them, reconfiguring them and updating them with each addon dev having their own way of "how to do things".My biggest problem is that FSX is old tech. I want a flight sim that looks like a 2012 game with improved usability and gameplay. But as you say, it doesn't seem to happen. Unless a Sid Meier of flight sims comes along we've got to make the best of what we've got. Some more reluctantly than others... :)

Actually my friend, we do agree. :( FSX absolutely does NOT work okay out of the box...its actually pretty horrific without both SP1 and SP2. Which is my parallel with Vista. Vista without patches is a horrible mess. Add a SP and its pretty close to Windows 7 but by that time perception of Vista was unshakeable. I too would like to see a flight sim with state of the art graphics and effects unfortunately, except for very subtle differences, all the flight sims available don't look must better than the state of the art when FS9 was released.

An excellent comment - in truth (IMHO) there isn't a thing wrong with FS9 or FSX. Both are strong, and expandable, sims and by far the best produced up until now. Both were expensive to produce and probably will not be replaced anytime in the near future by any other sim that is "better" overall.Judging by the commentary in this and other forums, folks aren't really after a flight simulator any more; it seems they want a comprehensive world simulation that focuses on flight and that simply isn't going to happen for the simple reason that it demands too much money, time, and labor for a relatively small market that provides a negative ROI for a work of such magnitude. Examples: Truly realistic ATC and ATC interaction demands the simulation, in real time, of the real world ATC system - not feasible folks; LM couldn't do it well on a government budget let alone a development budget. Accurate real world weather data for any point on the globe - not feasible; NOAA can't provide it on a macro-scale, let alone a micro-scale - the data doesn't exist. Fully operative airports worldwide with fully interactive (including folks running around and getting on and off planes) facilities, and full modelling of airline operations (planning, dispatch, ACARS, maintenance data and schedules, etc.). Photo real mapping of the entire planet with full 3D modeling of all man made objects to real world accuracy - not feasible. Level-D accuracy of all aircraft and the sim should run on the average home computer and laptop under any OS with no user knowledge of the system in question and deliver photo-realistic imagery at movie frame rates under any load- not happening.The reality is that MS has produced two products that have reached a level that can only be exceeded by products that have the funding provided by governments - not private companies. I know that some folks have hopes for P3D, but the bulk of money in that project is coming from DOD - not the sim fans. MS has realized that and gone the other direction with "Flight" which is, in many ways, a return to the early days of FS with far better graphics and the intent for lots of area add-ons and planes. It may not be what we want, but MS has a hope of making a profit with it.DJ

5 years down the road?..... all signs point to P3D!

You should bear in mind that when you say FSX 'could work for the next decade', could, is the operative word, since there is the very real possibility that it will not. When you install FSX, you know that it has to be registered to continue functioning, and that contingency is dependent on Microsoft allowing that to happen, since you connect to MS for that registration to occur.Microsoft, like every other business, is not sentimental about stuff, and they even have a reason to be unsentimental about FSX, since their current flight simulator is not FSX, but Flight, because that is the one they are set up to make money from. Do we see continuing support for FS98 from MS? or FS2002? or Windows XP. Nope, they move on, and there is no earthly reason to suppose that FSX will be any different in that regard, since in a 64 bit world, FSX is old news and even older when it comes to spending time on it as far as providing support for it to work on 64 bit systems is concerned.Admittedly this is not an immediate worry, since MS do still currently sell FSX and Acceleration, thus for a while at least, have a duty to support it. But this is a situation that one cannot say for sure will be the case in ten years time, by which time, FSX will be 16 years old, probably no longer being sold, and in computer terms, and the likelihood of still being supported from a functionality standpoint where it comes to registering it to keep it working after a reinstall, older than Methusela. Unless you don't plan on reinstalling it in the next ten years, and good luck with pulling that off.Al

Actually my friend, we do agree. :( FSX absolutely does NOT work okay out of the box...its actually pretty horrific without both SP1 and SP2. Which is my parallel with Vista. Vista without patches is a horrible mess. Add a SP and its pretty close to Windows 7 but by that time perception of Vista was unshakeable. I too would like to see a flight sim with state of the art graphics and effects unfortunately, except for very subtle differences, all the flight sims available don't look must better than the state of the art when FS9 was released.

I have Acceleration, so I'm running FSX SP2 equivalent...Don't get me wrong. FSX is the best there is, but sadly it is from 2006...

You should bear in mind that when you say FSX 'could work for the next decade', could, is the operative word, since there is the very real possibility that it will not. When you install FSX, you know that it has to be registered to continue functioning, and that contingency is dependent on Microsoft allowing that to happen, since you connect to MS for that registration to occur.Microsoft, like every other business, is not sentimental about stuff, and they even have a reason to be unsentimental about FSX, since their current flight simulator is not FSX, but Flight, because that is the one they are set up to make money from. Do we see continuing support for FS98 from MS? or FS2002? or Windows XP. Nope, they move on, and there is no earthly reason to suppose that FSX will be any different in that regard, since in a 64 bit world, FSX is old news and even older when it comes to spending time on it as far as providing support for it to work on 64 bit systems is concerned.Admittedly this is not an immediate worry, since MS do still currently sell FSX and Acceleration, thus for a while at least, have a duty to support it. But this is a situation that one cannot say for sure will be the case in ten years time, by which time, FSX will be 16 years old, probably no longer being sold, and in computer terms, and the likelihood of still being supported from a functionality standpoint where it comes to registering it to keep it working after a reinstall, older than Methusela. Unless you don't plan on reinstalling it in the next ten years, and good luck with pulling that off.Al

I really doubt they'd ever do that. There would be absolute uproar. It should be that when you pay for a product, you have the right to use it for life. In that eventuality it's worth noting too that there are ways round the authorisation. Someone will work it out. Look at jail breaking of iPhones.I also agree that I would love an alternative to FSX. For me it's still unstable and slow. However I haven't seen anything else that really grabs me like FSX can. Nothing (at the moment) captures the level of depth and sophistication in the scenery and the models quite like FSX is capable of. Though I've yet to try P3D.

I really doubt they'd ever do that. There would be absolute uproar. It should be that when you pay for a product, you have the right to use it for life.

I'd draw your attention to the FSX EULA if you think that, in particular, these bits...'1. By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, return it to the retailer for a refund or credit.4. INTERNET-BASED SERVICES. Microsoft provides Internet-based services with the software. It may change or cancel them at any time.'Al

I'd draw your attention to the FSX EULA if you think that, in particular, these bits...'1. By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, return it to the retailer for a refund or credit.4. INTERNET-BASED SERVICES. Microsoft provides Internet-based services with the software. It may change or cancel them at any time.'Al

Ah. Ok. Well then my second point still stands. There's ways round the system.

Ways around there may be, but just mention where to find the crack to have no disk in your drive to run FS9 on Avsim's forums, and see how long your post remains there, and indeed how long you remain a member of Avsim. Avsim would never be able to condone hacking FSX to get it to work unless MS made FSX abandonware and rescinded the EULA's criteria, since Avsim does not support piracy/hacking to get around EULAS, in any form, and has a low tolerance for anyone who condones that sort of stuff. Historically, that has always been the case where Avsim's policy is concerned.Al

Well I'm sure Microsoft would be getting thousands of strongly worded letters and emails from furious members of the sim community, angered that not only have they not produced a viable alternative to cater for those who like some fidelity in their simulation but have also stopped them from using the only one they have, which they've invested time and money in.

Probably true, but it nevertheless remains the case that MS could indeed pull the plug if they wanted too. However, I don't honestly think we are in any danger of that happening any time soon, since despite appearances to the contrary, even MS know that bad PR is not something one should actively court.Al

Edited by user. Deleted, it actually spoils the thread due to the off topic nature. Sorry.Oops, already got quoted, so there it is again.I think Alan mixes up two vital parts. Policies, terms of service, EULAs and laws. Only the last part is set up by governments and therefore is enforceable by design. All others may include law enforceable parts, but are not by design 'to obey' documents, regardless how important the wording might sound. That enforceable character only gets checked when that document enters a lawsuit.The FSX horror scenario Alan tries to establish (for whatever reason) is a purely fictional one in the first place. Lets not forget that. And, of course, you, having bought a valid license for a product and having fulfilled your part of the contract with the payment, have a right to receive a working product.There is no 'pull the plug' right at a company. That's for support and service packs, which of course can end. But they have to make sure that their activation system allows people to enable their software. If they can't, they have a legal problem as they don't fulfil the contract. Sure, if nobody complains in the means of suing them, nothing will happen.So where's that misconception coming from? Any nice source to read about the enforceable character of those generic click-wrap or shrink-wrap licenses e.g. FSX uses? As said, you may read them, but they are not by design enforceable or of any legal relevance.What Avsim does is enforcing their policy. If that one reads 'no mentioning of bad words allowed', that's ok, but it has nothing to do with actual law in place.I think I've pointed out somewhere else that the legal relevant part always is the one about if you own a license to run that software or not, not how you've actually activated it. Payment received and accepted means that you do.