One need look no further than Lockheed Martin to see that BIG RESOURCES don't equal BIG IMPROVEMENT in a platform. I can't see a huge difference in P3D vs. FSX. If nothing else, you would think that LM would have at minimum made P3D available in 64 bits. The fact that this did not occur only reinforces the reality that building a better mousetrap is no small challenge.

 

Well, we haven't seen P3D version 2, maybe there's still hope for 64-bit. I'd very exceedingly happy if LM took that position, along w/ better modern DirectX support. Yes, we need more than resources. We need a champion, someone w/ a passion to bring flight simulation to the next level. Why? Because it's potentially too cool. There is a reason people become enamored w/ aviation and one can address a little of this w/ the excellent FS platform. Heck, we all quite well understand how potent FSX has been in keeping our attention and still has that power even with all it's warts. Add a level of quality & depth suitable for the 2013-2019 slot and what do you know, there's a market for this. It would be great if XP could fill the bill.

It's all market-driven. The 'big boys' (think EA, Lockheed-Martin, etc) don't see enough ROI (Return On Investment) potential to justify dumping huge dollars into making an amazing simulation that we might visualize as FSX on steroids, or X-Plane to the 10th power. There simply aren't "millions" of pilots dying to spend money to buy the platform. Nowhere near the numbers that buy the shooter games and never will be. People generally like instant gratification. Microsoft went for that with Flight, where you could fly right off the bat. Those of us who are die-hard simmers want to be able to plug in our flight plans, calculate and load fuel, determine N1 and N2, Takeoff speeds, yada yada yada. All of that 'simulating' requires extremely complex and multi-reactive programming code, on a level of sophistication that I myself cannot even begin to fathom. Honestly, I wonder how Austin and his guys made XPlane what it is today, much less what it may yet become. That scale of programming magic is so far above my pay grade it isn't even something I could begin to comprehend, much less accomplish!

 

We are much like a caveman who suddenly fell into a time warp and appeared in our home office and saw a PC on the desk. Likely the poor fellow would either attack or else worship the thing! He would be clueless as to how such a thing ever materialized, much less how to actually OPERATE it.

 

So the poor guy wanders off and gets a job doing Geico commercials. About the time Caveman figures out what's up - that may be when we finally see the flight sim we've all been secretly dreaming about! One that's so good, when you film it and put it up on YouTube, the viewer finds the sim film indistinguishable from films shot in REAL WORLD aircraft. That's what I'm TALKIN' about!

Keep in mind also that LM isn't producing a desktop simulator for the masses. They're just letting desktop simmers play with it. Their money will come from enterprise licenses and the features will be driven by what that market desires. If it happens to coincide with what simmers want, all the better. If not, good luck trying to move that mountain to get them to add a pet feature.

You're so right. And of course if they're marketing to commercial airlines or the military - there is no real impetus to make the sim of OUR dreams come true.

Those of us who are die-hard simmers want to be able to plug in our flight plans, calculate and load fuel, determine N1 and N2, Takeoff speeds, yada yada yada.

 

If I'd been forced to do all that crap the first time I got a flight simulator, I'd be playing shooters right now too. Jeez, gimme a break. Just because years later I enjoy doing that sort of thing doesn't mean I would have put up with it when I was learning to fly a sim.

 

If you want to get new people interested, you'd better find a way to make it fun for them. That doesn't mean it has to have guns. Flying IS fun... but some people have forgotten that.

 

Has anyone sat down and given some serious thought to why we enjoyed the original Microsoft Flight Simulator? You remember the one, green box, no version number. Probably flown with the keyboard because who had a joystick before flight simulators? It certainly wasn't the scintillating graphics, or the super high frame rates, or the incredibly high fidelity flight model. There wasn't much in the way of system's depth, mostly just starting the engine with a keystroke, but complicated systems would have put everyone off at the time.

 

What was special about it? We were learning to fly. We were having fun.

 

Today, I like to do all the things necessary to flying. Flight plans, fuel calculations (I even use real world fuel prices, do you?), load balancing, realistic starting procedures even when they aren't necessary. But I'd never force a newcomer to do all those things. I know better.

 

Heck, I don't even remember the last time I flew inverted before Microsoft Flight. Or done aerobatics, although 1999 seems likely... I was flying combat sims at the time. I forgot how much fun such things can be.

 

Just remember, there's a lot more to flight simming that "serious simming", and newcomers aren't going to be interested in that.

 

NOW... how do we get the newcomers interested?

 

Hook

The first things that come to mind are the same things MS tried to do with Flight. Goals, like aerocaches or missions, achievements... stuff like that. Why didn't it work? What would you suggest?

DirectX1 ?

 

 

 

 

We've come a long way! This got me started...

DirectX1 ?

 

 

 

 

We've come a long way! This got me started...

 

WOW! Now that's a CAVEMAN video game if ever there was one!

 

The first things that come to mind are the same things MS tried to do with Flight. Goals, like aerocaches or missions, achievements... stuff like that. Why didn't it work? What would you suggest?

 

What Microsoft tried with Flight is what Hookins is suggesting- trying to make it fun for everyone - but today's video gamer is far more sophisticated and has much higher expectations than were present in the earliest days of Flight Simulator 1 by Microsoft. It didn't appeal to me at the time - although clearly SOME people liked it. I found it too hard to fly, and that's the point that Hookins is rightly concerned about.

 

If the 'new' generation SIM is too sophisticated, it will undoubtedly drive novice pilots away, and of course that would be bad news, as we need 'new blood' to keep coming into the hobby to replace the guys who stop flying for whatever reason.

 

So it's a conundrum, and once again points up the trouble with simulators in general. They can't be all things to all people, compromises have to occur. A truly Herculean task.

The first things that come to mind are the same things MS tried to do with Flight. Goals, like aerocaches or missions, achievements... stuff like that. Why didn't it work? What would you suggest?

 

I guess what I'm suggesting is doing exactly what they did with Flight. That doesn't mean that Flight did everything right; I don't think many people liked their marketing system, for example. But the point is, Flight was doing what it needed to do to attract new flight simmers. It's probably pretty telling that eventually I got bored with Flight and went back to my boring old Serious Simming, but a lot of that had to do with where I wanted to fly and in what aircraft. This is another reason why I think newcomers who started with Fight would eventually migrate to a more complex platform.

 

I really think XPlane has a chance of attracting more new people than FSX did. It's a lot like Flight in that what it does, it does very well. I don't know if it has anything to give any reason to fly besides getting from point A to point B, like the various "gamey" features of Flight that so many serious simmers detested. But you get into those gamey features and you soon learn that they all have a reason, and it's not just gaming. It wasn't until after I'd started flying the challenge courses that I was able to complete a couple of the landing challenges; I was learning precision flying.

 

WOW! Now that's a CAVEMAN video game if ever there was one!

 

Someone post a picture from the Apple 2 version!

 

I found it too hard to fly

 

I sat my 16 year old nephew down in front of Flight and let him fly with the mouse. He did ok on the tutorials, then beat my high score on one of the gold rushes on his first attempt. He was interested, but he's got a girlfriend now who takes up all his time so hasn't downloaded Flight.

 

Maybe the real problem with getting new people into flight simming is that more of them have girlfriends.

 

Hook

Ah- I knew it! The girlfriends AGAIN!

Honestly, I wonder how Austin and his guys made XPlane what it is today, much less what it may yet become.

 

And this is the point, Austin and his guys, managed to chug along with what they've done, and you're expressing a degree of awe at progress so far, and what it may become. I'm simply pointing out it that this is proof positive it can be done, and done reasonably well by your account, and so is there something between Austin Meyer and EA Games? Absolutely possible. Perhaps this dream, ok pipe dream, will be in the form of a collaborative open-source project. There are certainly a small group of engine developers working on various projects already. Or maybe, as I say, LM will rework the code enough to make this the best path. FSX and so therefore P3D does have a lot right already and a pretty big following still.

And this is the point, Austin and his guys, managed to chug along with what they've done, and you're expressing a degree of awe at progress so far, and what it may become. I'm simply pointing out it that this is proof positive it can be done, and done reasonably well by your account, and so is there something between Austin Meyer and EA Games? Absolutely possible. Perhaps this dream, ok pipe dream, will be in the form of a collaborative open-source project. There are certainly a small group of engine developers working on various projects already. Or maybe, as I say, LM will rework the code enough to make this the best path. FSX and so therefore P3D does have a lot right already and a pretty big following still.

 

I have no knowledge of any relationship or possible merger between Laminar and any other firm. All of this is simply speculation without any factual basis. I agree that FSX has a lot right already and arguably is 'the sim to beat' at the present time, in terms of sheer people using it as their primary flight platform. For LM to rework the code to make it truly viable long-term, the 32-bit handcuffs MUST come off. I cannot see LM actually doing that, because it would involve a total re-write of the codebed. If it were easily accomplished, LM would have ALREADY done it to make their product much more appealing to the large clients who want to build physical cockpits including glass cockpits.

 

When you start piling on the extra stuff (multi-monitors, plus peripheral ATC and navigation programs and so on) then the 32- bit limitations really are exacerbated.

 

It took Austin something like 6 years to get XP where it is today, and it's not "done" yet! Lockheed has had a similar time to improve Prepar3D over FSX. Candidly, I can't see much difference if any between FSX and P3D. Therefore looking to Lockheed Martin to be "The One" who takes simulation to an entirely new level doesn't seem likely.

 

I don't think flight simulation would be a strong pull for EA. They seem to like to build "finite" games that have a definite shelf life. Most people play the game until they reach "the end", whereas simulation enthusiasts generally fly point a to point b and never reach any "ending" or "I'm finished with this game" unless they get bored or find some other interest to pursue.

 

Clearly we at the higher levels of simulation want and wish for ever-better platforms upon which to fly. If I had my way, I'd be up at Boeing flying their full-motion 787 Simulator. If only I had 20 Million to buy my own!

If I had my way, I'd be up at Boeing flying their full-motion 787 Simulator. If only I had 20 Million to buy my own!

 

Well, you can burn some plastic and wires in the trashcan under your table and at least get a realistic smell of burning batteries that way :lol: .

 

Jan

Well, you can burn some plastic and wires in the trashcan under your table and at least get a realistic smell of burning batteries that way .

 

Jan

 

Ouch. That's accurate but unfortunate. I was disappointed to learn about the battery issues on the Dreamliner. Until the exact cause is known it is unclear whether it was a Boeing engineering problem or a vendor/supplier problem. So much of the technology on the 787 is new - it's a pity that recent events have tarnished an otherwise impressive airplane. My best wishes are with Boeing that they will swiftly and accurately correct this issue so that they might recapture their momentum in aeronautics.

The thing about that battery issue that doesn't make headlines is that the suppression systems associated with it worked as designed. It's just the optics of smoke coming out of a fuselage aren't exactly endearing to public opinion.

 

It could have been worse. There could have been chunks of engine flying off, or cracks developing in the wing rib shear ties like another famous, fairly new airplane.