I just want to get this out there before we get those who wish to capitalize on the cancellation of Flight.

 

MS did approach A2A six months before Flight was announced to come aboard and write new systems for their engine. This was mostly due to their interest in Accu-Sim systems. We never joined only because we didn't believe, for several reasons, the direction they were going in was a sound one.

 

However later, when Flight was released, we were a little concerned that the release of Flight could sap away customers. We watched our web traffic closely those days Flight was released, and to our surprise, didn't see even a 1% change in activity. In fact, the only argument that could be made is there was a benefit to FSX. In the past six months, sales and popularity have not only increased but surged.

 

FSX is strong and healthy for three reasons:

1. It is the recipient of more time, money, and engineering than any other software platform. Probably well over a 10 to 1 ratio over most other platforms.

2. Outstanding open architecture allows hard working 3rd party companies to thrive

3. Lockheed Martin's P3D keeps the big guns invested in the platform

 

We have a long list of projects in development now and planned for the future for Accu-Sim and Accu-Feel with a projected lifetime for many years. Our money is on FSX.

 

Scott

A2A Simulations.

to FSX and her little brother fs9, "Live Long and Prosper" :drinks:

Good post Scott.

 

For all its faults, FSX seems destined to be the great survivor - and also a land of opportunity - for the reasons you state.

 

I'm not worried at all...

 

Ian

Hello

To be honest , I do not want MS anywhere near FSX or its successor now.

It seems to me that FSX is in way better shape now than when MS were actively involved.

 

The 3rd party devs have taken it to a totally different level to the product MS released.

ORBX, EZdoc, A2A accusim, PMDG and all of the other innovators out there along with the really bright guys in the community that finally got it running well for us have pushed FSX past anything MS could achieve.

When I compare what I see on my screen now to what I saw with the FSX Demo there is no comparison and MS Flight! was never going to be the answer to a future platform for us.

That much was clear from the start.

Good to hear. For me, I'm staying FSX. Even if I did get P3D or XPlane I would *add* them and, probably, tinker. At present, nothing much is compelling me to do that.

I agree with all the comments. FSX might be old, but she's a goodie.

I wouldnt say that she's very good, she's horribly flawed, but she's still the best we got (unfortunately)

 

The 3rd party devs have taken it to a totally different level to the product MS released.

ORBX, EZdoc, A2A accusim, PMDG and all of the other innovators out there along with the really bright guys in the community that finally got it running well for us have pushed FSX past anything MS could achieve.

 

This. Greed, greed and once more greed gets you killed.

Just out of curiosity, is there a "clearing house" listing the 3rd party content known to work in P3D without issue?

I wouldnt say that she's very good, she's horribly flawed, but she's still the best we got (unfortunately)

Might have to disagree with that Johan. You will be surprised how good the code really is in FSX. Ask any Developer. Where it was found to be wanting is the ability for the end user to run it. Since the release of the Sandy Bridge and the GTX 500 series, the user now can reap the benefit of this wonderfully coded simulator. Please don't take my post as bashing yours. :)

Pre Word Not Allowed's guide, I would have agreed with you, and would not have given you 50cents for it.

I'd say that at all. There are huge holes in the sim, and developers keeps saying "we didnt do this because it was impossible with the platfom". Things like wx radar comes to mind. There are of course countless of other issues, the whole wx system is broken at best, the AI system is not very good, the ATC system is a joke, performance is abmyssal, its not very well suited for the future with its 32bit executable etc. We definitely deserve better, but OK, its far better than what MS tried to give us with Flight

I'd say that at all. There are huge holes in the sim, and developers keeps saying "we didnt do this because it was impossible with the platfom". Things like wx radar comes to mind. There are of course countless of other issues, the whole wx system is broken at best, the AI system is not very good, the ATC system is a joke, performance is abmyssal, its not very well suited for the future with its 32bit executable etc. We definitely deserve better, but OK, its def far better than what MS tried to give us with Flight

Absolutely. Imagine what FSX could have been in 64bit code. To be honest, if it was not for 3rd party dev's like PMDG, Accu Sim etc, I would have ditched this hobby, and instead I could have ended up selling Rice Puddings in a supermarket car park :)

 

Edit: Just to add to out discussion, one of the most innovative features of FSX is Simconnect. But that is flawed. Which is very unfortunate, because imagine the possibilities if it had been allowed to develop further.

...the whole wx system is broken at best, the AI system is not very good, the ATC system is a joke...

 

Three things which have been improved immeasurably thanks to third party developers, of course...

 

Ian

FSX has a lot left to offer but it wont last forever, I follow the payware market and what ever platform they move on to I will move with it.

Three things which have been improved immeasurably thanks to third party developers, of course...

 

Ian

Yes, FSX out of the box is , well, YUK!!