X-Plane went to the next level. I'm sure it was challenging for Laminar, as well as all the developers who make 32-bit stuff for it and now must react to the 64-bit world.

 

Innovation deserves to be rewarded. Otherwise people will stop inventing.

 

OTOH, there needs to be a platform robust enough to allow it to remain static for 6 years or more. This allows developers to invest in something they know will be there a while, and I would argue is the absolute requirement to attract support attention. Hardware for desktops is not really developing at a pace that warrants big upgrades every 2-3 years as the performance gains have slowed down compared to 10-15y ago. I don't know what basic things are missing in XP-10 64 but if there are major basic issues, lack of SDK's to support 3rd party etc then I think if LR wants to become the magnet to attract users and developers it's in announcing XP-10 64 bit version xxx will be the platform they can count on for 6 years and not make changes that will kill 3rd party products. Aim for major upgrades to the core engine every 6 years or so and let everyone know this is the committed to strategy. Big changes every 1-2 years or whatever is a bad tact IMO. This is the proven business model in FSX: it is what happened there and as a result a big 3rd party dev community was spawned and remains to this day 6-7 years later and it's still alive. Heck, in FSX the core model support was stopped practically right after it was released. How much better for LR to support the core for 6 years w/ performance enhancements, a few compatible improvements, but put the big work into the next big upgrade version gives them time and $$ to do this with. If LR needs to focus now on robust SDK's then that's where the money is. If they didn't plan on a 6 year product cycle they should hurry up and aim for this.

Hi Noel-

 

I get your point-- but I can't agree. X-Plane is being driven by the developers' efforts to continually improve it and make it more functional and prettier. As such the codebed CANNOT remain 'static' for six years. You're using FSX as a model because it DIED six years ago when Microsoft abandoned it. Of course third parties are 'comfortable' knowing that FSX is NEVER going to change. Not in 6 years or 60. It's 'done'. We're stuck with the uglyness of FSX and nothing for it but buy undending plug-ins from 3rd parties to pretty it up. That'd be OK with me, if only we didn't keep having OOMs and CTDs and Frame rates going into the low teens or even single digits. That is NOT OK and enough to push me out the door over to XPlane 10,

 

No Sim can be all things to all people, and I've (so far) had to give up quite a lot to fly XP over FSX. Many other Sim pilots aren't ready to forgo their (substantial) investment in hardware surface add-ons (like the 737 OVHD panel and MCP Combo II [boeing] from VRiinsight). I get that. XPlane 10 isn't 'done' yet - it is still going through refinement and development. Austin and his team are working on a number of different functions at different times. The development team size is pretty small, and thus you are not going to see a situation where everything is "perfect" - but rather this area is better now, that area still needs work, etc.

 

Some third parties are already releasing products for XP10 and 'rolling with the punches' if their code gets obsoleted or if they need to adjust it.

 

Even in FSX you see the third parties releasing updates for their VERY OWN products (Think FSDreamteam Ground Services X), which argues that even if the sim platform is rock solid and unchanging, the hang-on stuff is evolving anyway.

 

The "proven" business model in FSX is only "proven" because Microsoft DUMPED US (the pilot community) to fend for ourselves. NO THANK YOU. I'm not interested in a sim that will NEVER get better than it is right now. I would much prefer to see things evolve and improve.

 

Some are quite happy with FSX and that's fine. Others want to see where simming can ultimately go and are thrilled to see an infant grow into an adult. There's no 'wrong' sim. There's only what works for YOU (as a pilot). Trust me, the developers will follow the money. Once the FSX market is saturated, enterprising devs will go after those new pilots over in XP world. Like the pilots who fly it, the developers building for XP can make their own decisions as to risk/reward. It's really thrilling to have an ALTERNATIVE though, don't you think?

Robert, I don't agree one bit, and hi by the way. Six years is perhaps a stretch, but Xplane needs to be locked down for a while, whatever time length that cycle needs to be, for reasons that have been hashed to death around here. I don't wish to get into the whole debate again. The model or way things have been done, work for Laminar Research, but have proven to discourage developers to jump on the bandwagon, period. This has been proven over time and precedence. There is no arguing this fact, nothing other than some fine aircraft and perhaps some scenery are available to purchase for Xplane. No atc, no ai traffic, and no weather system are the 3 big ones that desperately need addon support, in my opinion. The defaults are barely "usable" at best, or very inadequate.

 

Why in the world would we want more of the same? I want as much addon development as possible, to make this simulator the best it can be. It is going to take far too many more years with the small team that is currently working on Xplane to provide everything it needs to be a "complete" simulator.

 

My thoughts....

 

 

Glen

 

Edit: Folks can sing the praises all they like about Xplane, the majority of it is more than warranted. On the other hand there is a lot of stuff that really needs outside attention, as in fully functional addons that can only come from 3rd party developers. There is no arguing around here that the team is not going to expand, that's been talked about to death as well, so the alternative is to make it attractive to development, something we haven't seen yet, lock it down. Every two years, perhaps, I wouldn't have a problem paying a " fair fee" for incremental updates, if I new there were a slew of great addons that I could purchase at any given time to give me the functionality that has been lacking in Xplane for years. My thoughts on the model may not work or even be feasible, but I can assure you the way it's been done in the past has not worked either, as I have stated above. It's time for change?

 

again...my thoughts only

As such the codebed CANNOT remain 'static' for six years. You're using FSX as a model because it DIED six years ago when Microsoft abandoned it. Of course third parties are 'comfortable' knowing that FSX is NEVER going to change.

 

As a small point of order...

 

The FSX Acceleration addon was released about 6 years ago, marking the last released content my Microsoft for FSX. ACES was closed two years later in 2009. MS Flight was announced a year after that. Although the FSX code was frozen 6 years ago, third parties didn't really know that was going to be the end of the line for MSFS as we knew it until about 2 years ago when we all learned what MS Flight was really about. Throughout all of that and to this day, 3rd party development pressed onward.

 

The "proven" business model in FSX is only "proven" because Microsoft DUMPED US (the pilot community) to fend for ourselves. NO THANK YOU.

 

On the contrary... FS2000, FS2002, continuing still with FS2004 and FSX... all have had rich and prosperous 3rd party development and still enjoy strong followings.... hardly the result of Microsoft canning the franchise. I'd wager (*with no factual basis for the opinion) that there are more active FS2004 users today than there are X-Plane users, in large part due to the still growing library of addons. (for FS2004 - nevermind FSX!)

 

In its current state, X-Plane 10 NEEDS to continually improve if it is to capture more customers from MSFS. It's deficient in certain aspects of fit, finish, features and polish which become apparent to casual simmers transitioning from one platform to another, and those shortcomings undoubtedly affect sales and reputation. I have no doubt that Laminar Research is aware of these elements and doing their best to divide the time of their excruciatingly small development team to do the best job possible.

 

In the future, people like me who advocate for a more "traditional" entertainment title release would prefer to see all the design goals of "X-Plane 11" achieved PRIOR to it going on sale. That way, 3rd party developers of ancillary utilities and applications will have a window of opportunity to step in while Laminar moves on and spends a few years after that on XP12...

 

I feel a more traditional, longer-lasting period of feature stability will help bring more 3rd parties into the mix by giving them time to produce a profitable, sellable product that extends and enhances the platform. Such developers are essential if X-Plane wants to move on from being a boutique simulator for deep enthusiasts, to being "your next simulator" as advertised on their website.

 

Of course, one thing we're all assuming is that Austin actually wants to have more casual sim users as customers instead of just us geeks. We're also assuming that Laminar Research has the SDK's ready and available for developers to truly dig into the guts of the product and produce better ATC, weather, AI, scenery... etc. etc.

 

Throwing peanuts from the balcony,

-Greg

In the future, people like me who advocate for a more "traditional" entertainment title release would prefer to see all the design goals of "X-Plane 11" achieved PRIOR to it going on sale. That way, 3rd party developers of ancillary utilities and applications will have a window of opportunity to step in while Laminar moves on and spends a few years after that on XP12...

 

That would certainly work, for Laminar Research, the users of Xplane, and those interested in developing for it. Suggest it at the next board meeting.

 

Glen

X-plane 9 is locked down. 10 is in beta until it too is locked down and this will happen when the first beta of version 11 comes along (or a bit before that maybe), but ppl do like to go along for the ride with the beta's cos it's exciting with all the new stuff going into the sim I must agree it is quite an unusual scenario but it has worked well for many years, but with the influx of new users coming to Xplane maybe they might have a rethink.

 

They could just have a closed beta with a limited number of testers and then you would get what you want, a release every couple of years. I prefer the current method as so many issues get thrashed out with so many users, but along with that goes a bit of frustration for some who are not used to this way of doing things.

Jason, there's nothing at all wrong with the way they want to do things, their choice, but it discourages 3rd party development, something that has been very evident for years and continues today. Do you not think it needs any 3rd party help? If not, and that's your position then fine, I feel it needs a lot of "help", in certain areas.

 

Glen

For sure it needs developers. Austin has mentioned before that he is in communication with a number of potential xplane devs. I get your point tho . If there is a continually moving target would make things a bit difficult. A number have already risen above that tho.

 

Regards

Just downloaded the XP10 demo to see what all the fuss is about. Initial conclusion (like all the other XP demos I downloaded) is that it is OK. I'll come back in a few months and check again.

 

Cheers

jja

Robert, I don't agree one bit, and hi by the way. Six years is perhaps a stretch, but Xplane needs to be locked down for a while, whatever time length that cycle needs to be, for reasons that have been hashed to death around here. I don't wish to get into the whole debate again. The model or way things have been done, work for Laminar Research, but have proven to discourage developers to jump on the bandwagon, period. This has been proven over time and precedence. There is no arguing this fact, nothing other than some fine aircraft and perhaps some scenery are available to purchase for Xplane. No atc, no ai traffic, and no weather system are the 3 big ones that desperately need addon support, in my opinion. The defaults are barely "usable" at best, or very inadequate.

 

Why in the world would we want more of the same? I want as much addon development as possible, to make this simulator the best it can be. It is going to take far too many more years with the small team that is currently working on Xplane to provide everything it needs to be a "complete" simulator.

 

My thoughts....

 

 

Glen

 

Edit: Folks can sing the praises all they like about Xplane, the majority of it is more than warranted. On the other hand there is a lot of stuff that really needs outside attention, as in fully functional addons that can only come from 3rd party developers. There is no arguing around here that the team is not going to expand, that's been talked about to death as well, so the alternative is to make it attractive to development, something we haven't seen yet, lock it down. Every two years, perhaps, I wouldn't have a problem paying a " fair fee" for incremental updates, if I new there were a slew of great addons that I could purchase at any given time to give me the functionality that has been lacking in Xplane for years. My thoughts on the model may not work or even be feasible, but I can assure you the way it's been done in the past has not worked either, as I have stated above. It's time for change?

 

again...my thoughts only

 

Those are some very good points, but from a developer's point of view, you just need to lock down key functionality that any 3rd party developer would rely on ... 64bit is one such KEY item.

 

I have a more optimistic view of XP's future, I think LR are getting closer to a point where they can lock down a 64bit engine and start to provide a product that will still change over time, BUT will not introduce major breaking changes. There are many ways to "future proof" a simulation engine allowing it to grow while retaining compatibility over time.

 

But keep in mind that Microsoft introduced some breaking changes with FSX SP2/Acceleration also, the 3rd party was VERY vocal about such changes ... 3rd party dev's are currently enjoying the stability (in terms of not changing) of FSX but surely they understand that 32bit FSX isn't going to last forever -- or perhaps more accurately, isn't going to retain a profitable market forever, I'm sure 10 years from now people will still be using FSX.

 

From a hardware perspective, we've got scaled processors (4, 6, 8,12, 16, cores) and the development tools have improved their ability to thread across cores. We've also got scaled graphics processing and DX 11 (DX 12 is maybe 2014). So many of the scalable pieces are primed for implementation which puts LR in a very good position to make a "future proof" simulation.

 

In summary, the time is right and I think you will see a change in how LR approach XP releases and getting 3rd party developers on board ... and LR will NEED 3rd party developer support if they want to grow (and my assumption is that they want to grow).

 

My 2 cents.

 

Rob

Would X-Plane benefit if the 'heavy hitters' in FSX add-ons developed for XP as well? YES. Will this in fact happen anytime soon? Unknown. All we can do is speculate- Mr. Meyer is in control, and he is a person that has no difficulty in making decisions. Whether his decisions are in keeping with our own wishes and desires is another matter, and moot.

 

XP would benefit greatly if the third parties would jump in, no question. I feel confident that as time passes, more third-party content will become available.

 

Many will remain with their FSX setups and more power to them, that's not a wrong call. I am willing to endure some bumps along the way to experience a new and more compelling simulated world. It's far from perfect 'today', I freely admit. It's just pretty darned fun to see the new stuff come along bit-by-bit, little by little.

 

Someday we'll all look back at simulation technology in 2013 and laugh. It will be primitive, somewhat like the difference between rotoscopes and IMAX. Or between VHS tapes and BluRay Discs. Or between 12" CRT green screen monitors and 30" LED displays.

 

Most of these discussions here on the forums may well be part of some time capsule downstream a ways...............

Those are some very good points, but from a developer's point of view, you just need to lock down key functionality that any 3rd party developer would rely on ... 64bit is one such KEY item.

 

Bulls eye!!!

 

I think XP10 is a totally need breed (64 bits) and cannot be compared to the previous version of it. Glen has a point and I agree to some extent and that is XP needs to "settle" for a while in order for 3rd parties to catch up.

 

I think once 64 bit comes out of beta, we may see more developers jump onto the wagon and the ones that already are, we will see more of their products in the pipe line.

You're using FSX as a model because it DIED six years ago

 

No, I'm using the model because it demonstrates what happens when you take an engine that can be counted upon and most certainly, was good enough for not only its time but w/ adequate SDKs to support a large array of add on products types and specific examples within types. That happened as a result of MS stopping development, but I will argue it was the combination of 'good enough' in terms of depth and scalability + it could be counted on as a platform that would endure. I think 64-bit & DX11+ is the new minimum requirement for the next durable platform. All that needs to happen now is more depth, presumably better SDK's, and some assurance that a product that takes 2y to release will have a market they can count on. Put another way, this recipe will work IMO to attract users and spawn/support the 3rd party dev community. Could the 6y cycle also allow minor upgrades as previously mentioned, sure, but must be designed such that all products developed for the first release will work in the last version upgrade, after which the next gen core engine is released. Even 6y may be too short. Hard to say. I'm mostly concerned about hardware now, though linking multiple PCs together can overcome this perhaps, but becomes an annoyance for support etc.

No, I'm using the model because it demonstrates what happens when you take an engine that can be counted upon and most certainly, was good enough for not only its time but w/ adequate SDKs to support a large array of add on products types and specific examples within types.

 

We cannot state with accuracy what life would have been like if Microsoft had simply renovated FSX and in lieu of the failed "FLIGHT" attempt, had released essentially FS-11. If MS had brought a product with newer and better graphics, in 64-bits, and able to utilize as many CPU cores as the user could throw at it, plus allocate maximum GPU RAM for texture duties - doubtless we would all have been happy to continue in the Microsoft 'fold'.

 

Since they abandoned us and stopped developing, some of the shortfall was taken up by third parties essentially trying to make the relatively ugly FSX into something compelling. I concur that with all of the add ons, FSX is MUCH prettier and more fun to fly than it ever would have been WITHOUT the third parties. I have purchased and installed a TON of add-on software plus hardware controllers for FSX.

 

The troubles come because the aging and sagging FSX undercarriage is crumbling beneath the sheer overhead of all that add-on software - and the one paying the price is the hapless user who spends more time tweaking (trying to balance the look and feel versus the frames/memory crashes) than actually flying.

 

This is no small task, as witness to the debacle with FSDreamteam's CYVR release. That one 'last straw' (as initially-released) broke the (memory) camel's back with the dreaded OOM crashes, and pushed some pilots right off the FSX platform and over to X-Plane. I was one of them-simply had enough. I shudder to think of the hours and hours tinkering with sliders and configuration settings scattered all over the simulation map- not just within FSX setup or config, but within the nVidia Inspector, then inside many of the add-ons like ORBX and Ultimate Traffic, etc, etc, etc.

 

It was so complicated, the mere thought of doing a totally-new FSX install had all the appeal of a mountain of fresh steer manure dumped in the middle of my living room.

 

Some peeps were fine with that lifestyle, which has been memorialized in the hit song, "Endless Tweaking" by Lionel Ritchie and Diana Ross.

 

Others were less than thrilled. At least in X-Plane, the configuration is generally in one location, and much more hardware-friendly. Those who spent all the money on the hardware are rewarded by a better flight experience right out of the box.

 

I am only hopeful that Laminar will not fall by the wayside, more so that Laminar will not be gobbled up by a Leviathan like Electronic Arts or SONY. What fascinates me is that this small band of programmers at X-Plane has produced so much in such a short time. I also sense that Aerosoft and some other "major players" are moving ever-closer to full-blown X-Plane aftermarket products development.

 

Agreed that the simulation market is big enough to support more than a single platform - it's great to have CHOICES! What's right for you might vary from the next guy/gal who takes the left-hand seat. Hopefully whatever we choose to plant in our computers and on our flight deck fulfills our goals and immerses us at a level that makes our hobby worth everything we put into it.

I'm more concerned about the patent lawsuit which could cripple the XP franchise forever. I think that the best way forward is an Open-source solution. I'm game if there are any takers as long as .Net is the base platform. After all the people are always the solution. Cheers jja