The Sims was almost scrapped before it began because it was regarded as "too special". Minecraft is a huge success, despote it being a very nerdy out of the box game. Yes flight sims are a niche, but that doesn't mean they can't be succesful. It is all about the execution, usability and playability. A new flight sim need to be a good game as well as a simulator. Flight is a bad example as almost nobody liked it, me included - someone who has played and owned most of the flight sims released since 1986 for PC, Commodore 64 and Amiga. I've got a bookshelf full of 200+ original boxes (remeber the days when games came in large boxes with printed manuals?). Graphics weren't that good and the game was useless. No adventure to get the blood boiling.

 

I'm not claiming to know anything about the future, but based on personal experience there are a lot of people wanting to play flight sims, but don't because of their lack of install, tweaking and tuning knowledge. I grew up in the 1980s and all my friends, now in their 40s are still playing computer games. All of them were eager flight sim players, and still would be if their sims could be fired up and played in seconds. Of course they aren't very impressed by the default scenery, but when I show them ORBX stuff their eyes pops out of their heads and they want to have it, until I start explaining them that this is the same FSX they bought in 2006 and you have to tune settings, buy addons and install them. They all just say forget it. Too much hassle...

 

My point is this. Those who really spend money on computer games are grown ups, not little boys. But it has to be easy, and a sim must be made for the masses with good usability, exciting gamplay and excellent graphics. Grown ups have limited time to spend behind computers, unless they are out of work and live with their moms. Also, the SDK tools need to be easy to use as well, because lots of people want to fly over their own house, build cities, roads and railroads.

To be fair a complex CAD system requires massive hardware, any new game you buy today will generally require the same level of hardware to be run at anywhere near it's maximum. FSX is coming to the point where it becomes stable for many people as they upgrade their hardware, i never used FSX until a week ago and now i'm mid-way through a full switch because for once i actually have managed to get it stable and at an acceptable performance level, i'm that close to just uninstalling FS9 and gaining 100GB. There is no other simulator on the market that really compares in terms of community and addon variety and for me, when FSX is stable i don't think it'll ever get much better. The graphics are already good enough and i would definitely not want to see another sim which is as plagued and had its performance problems as FSX, especially over a long period of time waiting for hardware to catch up.

 

I'm running 64bit on 4GB of RAM on an older quad non overclocked Intel system and i have yet to encounter any form of stability issues, never had a OOM under DX9 on this setup but i don't run things at their maximum. I think many people also completely forget the fact that when overclocking your effectively running your system at a speed it wasn't designed for, this will always lead to stability issues in some form or another, sometimes it's better to just accept something for what it is.

 

As of current FSX is completely limited on all new hardware because of it's multicore inability, the only compensation for this is cranking up the clock speed which always leads to instability when not done properly.

 

I'd pay very good money to MS, Lockheed or anyone just for a multi-core aware FSX.

I'm sure, we have to retire FSX some day.

But not today!

Because on todays hardware FSX runs as smooth as never before.

I hold out hope Outerra goes mainstream and someone licenses it and resells it as the next flightsim engine. Nothing right now comes anywhere close to looking as good as that engine does.

 

I really doubt that whole mankind is in need for single button solutions or restricted shops with ridiculous DRM and 'we collect data to enhance our service' policies. Regarding fresh blood, ask how some of the 13 to 18 year old folks around, in this very forum, came to FSX for example.

 

Count me in! I am one of the few! :biggrin:

 

What people at AVSIM loves doesn't really matter since most are die hard sim fans in the first place. It's how to get new blood that worries me.

 

My same worry... Just look at the demographic survey... There are few people entering this hobby and it deeply concerns me.

Keep in mind, add-ons are like over-the-counter medications. Most are OK when combined in lower numbers, but every time you add something new, you exponentially increase the likelihood of having a conflict (btw, just for the record, I take zero meds )

 

FSX is quite robust with the plethora of uncontrolled, 3rd party add-ons, and the recipient of just so many millions of development dollars, it is still easily the platform of choice for us, as a developer. We have years of projects in development for FSX.

 

Scott.

Keep in mind, add-ons are like over-the-counter medications. Most are OK when combined in lower numbers, but every time you add something new, you exponentially increase the likelihood of having a conflict (btw, just for the record, I take zero meds )

 

FSX is quite robust with the plethora of uncontrolled, 3rd party add-ons, and the recipient of just so many millions of development dollars, it is still easily the platform of choice for us, as a developer. We have years of projects in development for FSX.

 

Scott.

 

In regards to our future, how does it look? Sales? I feel like the replacement is way too low to keep the hobby running.

In regards to our future, how does it look? Sales? I feel like the replacement is way too low to keep the hobby running.

 

Here's the opinion of a vetran in the biz: http://asn.aerosoft.com/?page_id=16017

 

Myself. I use just a few addons now, and don't buy much anymore. I just got tired of having to reinstall FSX after a cocktail of addons suddenly turned FSX into a mess. I install only the scenery where I fly and the aircraft I'm gonna fly, and only from top quality addon makers that require no extra install programs or side by side programs, accusim and fsuipc being the only exceptions.

So what it comes down to is financial viability. If there is indeed fewer numbers coming into the hobby, and its just us hardcore simmers left, then financially it doesnt make sense to overhaul or build a new simulator. I flew bruce artwick version 1 back in the day and was thrilled as punch to fly it. When Microsoft bought it, each simulator was in essence an overhaul. If this is the case now with LM they could pull the plug on this at anytime.

Because if you are really going to market it as a professional simulator, then all the bugs, in FSX code and the performance limitations makes it too expensive to overhaul and fix with a limited niche market. (its not that professional when ATC just cleared me to takeoff while clearing another for landing on same runway, and to have certain runways not lining up)

I dont think the hard core simulation will die. After all what game has survived that long despite the limited number of people? We will have to make do, and cope with what we have. Yeah this may be the limit of "As real as it gets". Can push no longer.

 

Long Live Flight Simulation