Good replies to the original post. Somebody mentioned why we would need or want another simulator when X-Plane exists. To be honest, it's all about choice. I think X-Plane has the longest legs out there in terms of where it's at developmentally-- but there are some fundamental issues with the guts of the program.

 

Like many have said, creating a new sim would probably take a million dollars or more. The beauty about a program like a flight simulator is that not everything has to be included right away. Unlike most games, flight simulators can be "pieced" together by way of modules. Start with the basic world, then add ATC later, etc. Surely a tool that can import current third party planes could be created I would think?

 

 

An adventure game on kickstarter got over $3.3 million in funding. Yes it's for a broader audience, but shows that people who are passionate about their games are willing to pony up the money to see it come to be. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/doublefine/double-fine-adventure?ref=most-funded

The beauty about a program like a flight simulator is that not everything has to be included right away. Unlike most games, flight simulators can be "pieced" together by way of modules. Start with the basic world, then add ATC later, etc.

 

Recent history suggests otherwise.

^_^

 

No, but seriously, this is a correct statement. The odd thing is that so few potential customers seem willing to accept anything less than "everything, immediately!"

people are forgetting FLY Legacy. It's in alpha stage and it's totally open source. With the help of a few ACES freelancers, this sim could become a major player. FLY had a very robust flght dynamics engine and great cockpit graphics. There's no need to reinvent the wheel from scratch---as MS learned the hard way.

 

 

tc

FSX is by no means dead. If anything, it is more dynamic and attractive a sim than at anytime in its history.

For sure. It would be interesting to see some real hard facts about how many six year-old games, other than FSX are still selling at full price, and at what numbers. Certainly no other softs of that age sell as far as I can see. They've all been version upgraded or canned. You certainly can't buy Office 2007 anymore from a real vendor..

 

I know FSX is unique in that it's not been updated, and also that there are people that still play other flight sims and RPG's etc that are even older than FSX, but those games are bargain bin at best, abandonware at worst..

 

FSX will soon no longer even be supported by MS as far as I know, they may have already canned it, but you can still buy it, and the Gold Edition with Acceleration still costs a fair whack. Amazing if you think about it; and new people are buying into it, and upgrading their hardware to play a six year-old game!

 

As for developing a "new" sim, as Alain says; this is literally millions of whatever currency you work in. Why has nobody except LM licenced ESP? $$$$.

Licensing CryEngine also costs in the many millions of dollars. You'd need source code at least..I'd love it if XP turned into more of what I'd like it to be, but it's made by one guy..He's done very well to get it to what/where it is..

 

Back to FSX (and FLIGHT occasionally..it still lives on my HD for now)

I agree with this, but what is the reason for that? From the details i have seen it's mostly licensing costs (think things like FIFA) and engine costs. Still i remember when David Braben managed to get an entire universe (and a fun game to boot) on an 880K Amiga floppy disk!

 

It's because people want more detail. You could probably build an FS4 quality exterior model in about 2 hours or less if you're an experienced 3D modeler, but who wants that? As technology has progressed we want ever more detail, more polygons, more rivets to count, more accurate sounds, more realistic ATC, more everything. Unfortunately the technology that goes in to building games has not progressed as fast, which means that to create more details you need to put in more man hours, driving up the cost of game development. An entire universe of planets that only consist of a few white pixels can fit on an 880K disk. An entire universe of planets covered in Orbx level scenery can't.

I doubt I can do anything if you guys actually decide to create a Flight Simulator. But I'm all in for the idea!

 

I could help put the money into it though (even if I am a high school student). I actually had a dream that I created my own Flight Simulator at school and sold it to people as it was the best in the world in terms of performance. It was also easy to navigate around the menu. Of course that idea is very unlikely to come true, but who knows??? I may not be smart in English, but I am naturally talented in other things.

It's because people want more detail. You could probably build an FS4 quality exterior model in about 2 hours or less if you're an experienced 3D modeler, but who wants that? As technology has progressed we want ever more detail, more polygons, more rivets to count, more accurate sounds, more realistic ATC, more everything. Unfortunately the technology that goes in to building games has not progressed as fast, which means that to create more details you need to put in more man hours, driving up the cost of game development. An entire universe of planets that only consist of a few white pixels can fit on an 880K disk. An entire universe of planets covered in Orbx level scenery can't.

 

There are alternatives to the way these things are done, though. Outerra for instance, stores world data quite differently and more compactly than current systems.

Why start a new sim, there are actually two relatively recent and quite decent flight model sims out there. DCS world (though only covering the caucasus at the moment) is a really good sim, X-Plane with some more input from the community would be fantastic. I like FSX but it's getting old, at somepoint we will all need to move on, P3D is still FSX, any major improvements are likely to break existing addons (DX11 or 64-bit) and as indicated it's still FSX...it's 6 years old.

 

I don't think people now have the patience for simulators in general, when i started out part of the fun was the thick 400+ page manual (remember Falcon 4)...even before that A320 on the Amiga? Now it's all Angry Birds...bah!

 

Its true. There are simply to many competing demands on peoples time, not least the demand to get some work done to put some food on the table and keep a roof above ones head! When I started in flight simulation, I was in Jr High school, and had pretty much infinite loads of spare time, especially during summer recess. A two zillion page manual was fine then if it was for something I was really interested in.

 

That experience gives me some grounding now, but many people in the current community; especially at points where they have free time again, often say RTFM without perhaps realizing that devoting that sort of time to just about anything is not only less common, its often simply impossible. People are gravitating to pursuits that they can pick up in a spare moment and then move on, and flight was a failed attempt that nonetheless acknowledged some modern realities that have led to the strength of the current casual games market.

 

Flight is dead, but I am not sure that the current aviation niche is truly set for growth in the modern age beyond product churn within the niche itself. In a world where people are gravitating to pursuits that require less of ones increasingly scarce personal time, flight sim devotees are pushing for ever greater sophistication in a hobby where competence and the reward of finaly being able to fly can be quite slow in coming.

 

Rewards? Scores? Hoops? Immediate gratification? This is Real simulation, buddy! Hooah! You are going to have to go back to the arcade for that other trash."

 

Sure thing! Say the masses. Angry birds is cool.

There is one thing that I didn't understood in ACES closing and see the same trend now. Lot of people talk about doing a simulator and if they look down in the forums there is one just ready to be used as a platform: Flightgear.

 

Really can't understand why there is a need for doing something from scratch or buy code when you have an open platform. And if you are a developer and want to make some money why do you use a commercial platform and be subjected to another enterprise wishes.

There is one thing that I didn't understood in ACES closing and see the same trend now. Lot of people talk about doing a simulator and if they look down in the forums there is one just ready to be used as a platform: Flightgear.

 

Really can't understand why there is a need for doing something from scratch or buy code when you have an open platform. And if you are a developer and want to make some money why do you use a commercial platform and be subjected to another enterprise wishes.

 

+1

 

"Open-source", free software, this is the only thing that really belongs to a community, that can be improved by everyone, and it's the only really sustainable solution:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

 

More about FlightGear here:

http://www.flightgear.org/

http://wiki.flightgear.org/FlightGear_Newsletter

Back in 2009 Microsoft shut down ACES Studio - as a surprise to everyone. And Microsoft said: - "

Closing the studio was not a reflection of the quality of the products Aces has developed, the sales performance of the games, or the quality of the team at Aces. This difficult decision was made to align Microsoft’s resources with our strategic priorities."

 

"Difficult decision" = many opportunities (easy decision = really only one option).

 

Microsoft said: -"Microsoft Game Studios is always evaluating its business model to determine what is best for both gamers and the company. Many factors were considered in the difficult decision to close ACES Studio, but we feel the 2009 closure helped us better align with our goals and long-term development plans."

 

And they (FS) came back.

 

Now Microsoft says: - "Microsoft Studios is always evaluating its portfolio of products to determine what is best for gamers, families and the company, and this decision was the result of the natural ebb and flow of our portfolio management. Many factors were considered in the difficult decision to stop development on "Microsoft Flight" ...."

 

Sounds it familiar?

Again Microsoft said "difficult decision" = many opportunities (easy decision = really only one option).

At the release of Flight Microsoft said: - "Overall, the game is a lot more experimental than past Flight Simulator games sold at retail."

 

"Experimental" = high risk (expect changes).

If Microsoft was not prepared for changes - they must be nuts.

 

"Our heritage is on PC. When you think about Flight Simulator, I've been at Microsoft 21 years - that game is older than me. Microsoft would never dream of exiting the PC games space. PC is a critical platform for us", european boss Chris Lewis said.

 

Psychosis or reality?

 

"Microsoft has informed Kotaku that they have not shut down the studio but it has ended development on flight simulator Microsoft Flight....."

 

MVGibbage said: - "The things you could do in Flight would make FSX look like a toy, and the SDK made production fast and simple. It would be a shame to let that resource not get tapped."

 

"With Microsoft Flight we've done a tremendous amount of work", Howard said. "Trying something new is hard".

 

It must mean that Microsoft now has a great updated future oriented simulation engine (resource). Why would they throw it out in the dark?

 

"We are constantly evaluating our portfolio and making changes – right now Flight doesn’t fit, but it might again in the future", Joshua Howard told Avsim.

 

Flight is dying - but still I love Flight. For now Microsoft FS franchise just need some rest. And then (after evaluation) ..... :Nerd:

Back in 2009 Microsoft shut down ACES Studio - as a surprise to everyone. And Microsoft said: - "

Closing the studio was not a reflection of the quality of the products Aces has developed, the sales performance of the games, or the quality of the team at Aces. This difficult decision was made to align Microsoft’s resources with our strategic priorities."

 

"Difficult decision" = many opportunities (easy decision = really only one option).

 

Microsoft said: -"Microsoft Game Studios is always evaluating its business model to determine what is best for both gamers and the company. Many factors were considered in the difficult decision to close ACES Studio, but we feel the 2009 closure helped us better align with our goals and long-term development plans."

 

And they (FS) came back.

 

Now Microsoft says: - "Microsoft Studios is always evaluating its portfolio of products to determine what is best for gamers, families and the company, and this decision was the result of the natural ebb and flow of our portfolio management. Many factors were considered in the difficult decision to stop development on "Microsoft Flight" ...."

 

Sounds it familiar?

Again Microsoft said "difficult decision" = many opportunities (easy decision = really only one option).

At the release of Flight Microsoft said: - "Overall, the game is a lot more experimental than past Flight Simulator games sold at retail."

 

"Experimental" = high risk (expect changes).

If Microsoft was not prepared for changes - they must be nuts.

 

"Our heritage is on PC. When you think about Flight Simulator, I've been at Microsoft 21 years - that game is older than me. Microsoft would never dream of exiting the PC games space. PC is a critical platform for us", european boss Chris Lewis said.

 

Psychosis or reality?

 

"Microsoft has informed Kotaku that they have not shut down the studio but it has ended development on flight simulator Microsoft Flight....."

 

MVGibbage said: - "The things you could do in Flight would make FSX look like a toy, and the SDK made production fast and simple. It would be a shame to let that resource not get tapped."

 

"With Microsoft Flight we've done a tremendous amount of work", Howard said. "Trying something new is hard".

 

It must mean that Microsoft now has a great updated future oriented simulation engine (resource). Why would they throw it out in the dark?

 

"We are constantly evaluating our portfolio and making changes – right now Flight doesn’t fit, but it might again in the future", Joshua Howard told Avsim.

 

Flight is dying - but still I love Flight. For now Microsoft FS franchise just need some rest. And then (after evaluation) ..... :Nerd:

 

Brilliant analyses, I agree 100%

migrate to X-Plane, P3d or Flight Gear

 

Actually, there's Aerowinx new 744 in alpha, and Fly Legacy in alpha too. Nomissoft, the maker of AS2, had contracted with Aerosoft on a new sim, but they had a falling out. One never knows if he's continuing development....

tc

Flightgear and Fly!Legacy are getting better and there's also X-Plane. Pitty, even if I don't use Windows anymore. Let's hope for a FS11 within the next years.

 

If I remember correctly there was a meeting of several add-on developers to consider the possibility of developing a new flightsim (possibly around the time the ACES studio was closed by MS). AFAIK after some consideration it was decided to be too expensive / not commercially viable and canned.

 

 

 

I think roughly the same portion of the population now has the patience for simulators. Angry Birds and the like has turned a lot more people into 'gamers' (using the term very lightly), but I don't think it has taken many people away from simming. In absolute terms the number of people that sim is probably the same, or slightly higher than in the past (because those people have always been on computers), but Angry Birds and the like have greatly increased the total number of 'computer game players', making simmers a far smaller portion of the total audience. Or are you telling me that the percentage of the population that simmed twenty years ago is anything like the percentage that has played Angry Birds now?

 

Another problem is that the cost of developing a game (and thus the number of copies you need to sell) has grown enormously. In the late 80s you could sell say 20,000 copies of a game and be profitable. Most modern big budget games need to sell 1,5 to 2 million copies just to break even.

 

People today are moving away from traditional PCs to tablets and smartphones, some of which have more processing power than a good PC when FSX was developed. You want to make money today selling to the masses, it's not going to be a program designed for a PC.

 

Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2