Well said Alan, a little more polished than my version, I think were saying the same thing? At least when I read your take, I said to myself, "yes" that's it.

 

Glen

Very good points, Alan.

 

I think in this case someone has found a way to make his hobby turn a profit and wants to keep it that way. Nothing wrong with that, but there are a few disadvantages.

 

Hook

Well let me toss this out there.

 

It's the bottom line (aka money) that is controlling factor in the decision process - all CEO's are hostage to this.

 

For example, we know that over 1,000,000 copies of FSX were sold (this was mentioned some time ago by one of the Aces crew) ... what are the actually numbers today, I don't know, if they follow typical software sales patterns I'd estimate 1.2M FSX copies sold.

 

AM has said they've sold 100,000 desktop + 500,000 mobile back in 2011 ... apparently sold enough to be a viable threat and source for pending lawsuits ... but the mobile app is $10, desktop is $70 so $5M in mobile sales and $7M desktop with combined $12M (2011 numbers) ... last I heard is LR is about a 6 person crew, figure 100-180K each person every year + overhead (so figure $1M-1.2M in salaries overhead yearly). Again this is just an educated guess based on available information, it's NOT definitive.

 

I agree there needs to be more than endless Beta loops ... AM needs to find a "hands off" investor similiar to how David Kraemer (iRacing CEO) got John Henry Boston Red Sox owner to fund a big majority of iRacing development (and their market is much smaller). The challenge is these types of investors just don't fall out of trees, they're really hard to find and as everyone has pointed out, AM isn't the best at selling his product (especially to investors). Looking 2 months ahead (per his interview) in terms of development planning isn't going to get LR to the next level.

 

Who's knows, maybe the UniLoc lawsuit will actually have a positive affect and push LR to develop a "final" version to get some more revenue so they can take on the UniLoc lawyers ... it might just be the motivation AM needs to move LR to that next level.

The point is to make sure that the founders wind up in a position that lets them draw on their very real talents without inadvertently driving the business over a cliff.

 

Reminds me of the movie about Henry Ford, who would not, or could not invision beyond the Model T. There is a part in a the movie or documentary I saw once where Edsel Ford, his son has a new improved Model designed in secret. When he shows his father the finished prototype, Henry takes a sledge hammer and proceeds to destroy it.

 

Our greatest strengths are usually our greatest weaknesses. The greater the strength the greater the corresponding weakness.

 

Kind regards,

Who's knows, maybe the UniLoc lawsuit will actually have a positive affect and push LR to develop a "final" version to get some more revenue so they can take on the UniLoc lawyers ... it might just be the motivation AM needs to move LR to that next level.

 

Knowing Mr. Meyer on a personal level, I'd say this is inaccurate. They see it nowhere near the same light as you do. You must remember, Uniloc is after settlement money, not the expectation that Austin would fight it. It costs Uniloc just a couple of hundred dollars to file without any real negative result if they lose. Laminar would have to prove Uniloc knew they were in the wrong prior to filing if Laminar wished to counter-sue for lawyer costs. This is why people settle and Uniloc gets their way with lawsuits like this. It's not easy to prove Uniloc KNEW they were wrong (no one can read minds). Instead, Austin would rather spend MORE cash than the settlement just as a matter of principal. Uniloc was not expecting this if I had to make a very good guess. Money is not the issue for him. He's got quite a bit of it, and not just from X-Plane sales.

I believe Austin and his small team of dev's have accomplished a great deal, but with the forseable limitations and developments needed to bring the platform to the level we are all wanting, a larger crew of developers is needed. The biggest issue with XP is that development isn't slow, its widespread. One person developing the entire ATC system? Seriously? I was hopeful when I got my disks in the mail to see what was considered final (and now noted as "AWESOME" by the lead designer himself) and was sorely let down. OK.. This is just the start. It will get better as all things do in XP. Several months later, come to find out there may not be ANY improvement to this system as it is good enough to the developer?

 

All this is part of one thing. I don't think Austin thinks that the current ATC system is done, but compared to the other failures and shortfalls of XP, is much lower in priority. 64-bit is a great stepping stone to giving us the space to load the art assets into memory to get some awesome autogen, which most of us can agree was dismal at first and has come a long way. As long as Austin completes the ATC system, weather system and the many other glaring pitfalls that are a good start, but only a start, I will be satisfied with my investment. I just hate that with all the work needed to get XP10 to the needed state, I know that a crew of 6 developers can only program, test and reprogram features so fast. It could be YEARS before it gets anywhere I would be 90% happy with. Right now, I'm 50%. The flight environment is ok. The flight model is varied depending on developer talent and data sourcing for the design aspects of the aircraft. The scenery lacks major features that I consider basic to any scenery (identifiable skyscrapers and landmarks - St Louis Arch, Statue of Liberty, Golden Gate Bridge, Toronto Space Needle, Washington DC almost entirely). ATC is unusable. AI is garbage for an airport of any size (still laugh when I see a 747 at a GA airport with a 3000' runway max). Night lighting is a gem. Urban environments are pretty well done. Love that there aren't any autogen buildings and roads draped over mismatched ground textures, but wish for seasonal textures so that I'm not always flying the same time of the year.

 

XP does have a future, but the longer LR take to make any headway on glaring feature issues, the more weight characters like JV have. From the other bleachers, look at XP at release and now. Graphically, it hasn't changed much. If you look at the cities, there are more building types to be used, but the feel is still similar and lacking. Performance is still an issue that plagues us to keep tweaking until we get what satisfies us for now, then retweak later after our feeling change. If we were further along feature-wise, JV wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone who saw v10.0 and 10.20.

Knowing Mr. Meyer on a personal level, I'd say this is inaccurate. They see it nowhere near the same light as you do. You must remember, Uniloc is after settlement money, not the expectation that Austin would fight it. It costs Uniloc just a couple of hundred dollars to file without any recourse if they lose. Laminar would have to prove Uniloc knew they were in the wrong prior to filing if Laminar wished to counter-sue for lawyer costs. This is why people settle and Uniloc gets their way with lawsuits like this. It's not easy to prove Uniloc KNEW they were wrong (no one can read minds). Instead, Austin would rather spend MORE cash than the settlement just as a matter of principal. Uniloc was not expecting this if I had to make a very good guess. Money is not the issue for him. He's got quite a bit of it, and not just from X-Plane sales.

 

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying Mr. Meyer has no purpose and is just doing this for kicks to keep himself busy? Money's not a issue ... sorry to doubt you, but this just doesn't really add up.

 

Why should he settle? Anyone that has programmed any amount of code knows Mr. Meyer's position is valid and he should fight the fight so the rest of us programmers don't suffer the same fate from abusive Patent Trolls. And I believe the Uniloc Patent will come to an end 2015 so I can easily see his position to stay and fight.

 

As long as Austin completes the ATC system, weather system and the many other glaring pitfalls that are a good start, but only a start, I will be satisfied with my investment.

 

LR does NOT need to complete those systems, they just need enough in the SDK so that other's could. Although I enjoy ATC and Weather they don't define a "go" or "no go" for a product or product support. The SDK will define that. The ATC system in FSX has pitfalls also, I'll frequently get routed off to never never land. With some 3rd party FSX Air Traffic products I've found 747's at airports they could never land/takeoff from ... doesn't really affect me or my flight. Default FSX AI at airports is pretty bad also, I've frequently had service vehicles run into my Aircraft ... it wasn't until I got GSX and some really good airport add-ons which solved that problem for the most part -- now rather than service vehicles running into me they stop a wait - they don't get out of the way, but I can at least work my way around them.

 

On a performance front, XP10 64bit is amazingly smooth and utilizes DX11 - put that kinda poly count in FSX and I'll be looking at 2-8 fps on a top end system ... I think we have enough videos of XP10 already demonstrating that. JV's comments are completely out of order and not accurate.

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying Mr. Meyer has no purpose and is just doing this for kicks to keep himself busy? Money's not a issue ... sorry to doubt you, but this just doesn't really add up.

 

Why should he settle? Anyone that has programmed any amount of code knows Mr. Meyer's position is valid and he should fight the fight so the rest of us programmers don't suffer the same fate from abusive Patent Trolls. And I believe the Uniloc Patent will come to an end 2015 so I can easily see his position to stay and fight.

 

No, you did not understand a thing I wrote.

 

My point is that this lawsuit will not push anything in terms of a "final" version. My point was also that Austin stands up for what's right and would rather spend more money to go after Uniloc than to settle with their petty lawsuit for much less. I did not say he should settle, and if that's what you took out of it then you should probably re-read.

 

That said, principal and money are two different things. Money is not the issue for Austin. He could settle with Uniloc for hundreds of thousands, or he could win for an estimated $1.5 million. In other words, he's already willing to go the extra mile instead of pinching pennies. He's in no dire need. He knows what is right and just and is going to fight for it.

I'm flying over ORBX Scenery in FSX right now in the RA Legacy. It just blows me away how cool it is. That said the experience has a numbing effect on me. IOW I know that the positive experience I'm feeling right now is holding me back from investigating something better.

 

On the other hand I am a firm believer that "Necessity is the mother of all invention". Combine that with FSX'x ability to thwart all efforts to make it run perfectly then I am prone to break my current happy in my own skin state.

 

For now my flight is going well so I will just down another beer and say screw it! LOL

 

Cheers

jja

Reminds me of the movie about Henry Ford, who would not, or could not invision beyond the Model T. There is a part in a the movie or documentary I saw once where Edsel Ford, his son has a new improved Model designed in secret. When he shows his father the finished prototype, Henry takes a sledge hammer and proceeds to destroy it.

 

Our greatest strengths are usually our greatest weaknesses. The greater the strength the greater the corresponding weakness.

 

Kind regards,

 

That would be the TV movie

 

Ford: The man and the machine

 

I enjoyed that movie, I just found it on youtube

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL9a_J-tQhA

 

Sorry for OT.

On a performance front, XP10 64bit is amazingly smooth and utilizes DX11

 

XP doesn't utilize DX at all...you keep touting DX and other Windows only technologies....you might want to get your tech facts before you get someone who barely is hanging on really confused or get some mis-information out into the world that is already swimming with it. DX11 is to OpenGL what Windows is to Mac OS or Linux. They have similar features and can do similar things, but in their own way. You open a word document in Windows with an editor designed for the type of data contained in the file the same as Mac OS does just like DirectX draws pixels on a rendering device context based on 3-Dimensional coordinates and textures placed on polygons. OpenGL does the same idea, but in a different way.

 

The biggest difference is that Austin WILL NOT break cross platform compatibility that has been a key part of keeping his sim platform more viable across a wider userbase. If he did, I would expect him to eliminate Linux first, Windows second. He is an avid Mac supporter after all. DirectX is a Microsoft only technology, thus doesn't work in non-windows environments. Stop referring to what DirectX can do as it has no bearing on XPlane and will not ever have anything to do with it. Tesselation isn't a feature of DirectX, but is a way for the rendering pipeline to divvy polygons. There is a way to do it in DirectX and once the concept was published, adapted into OpenGL, same as other features back and forth.

 

Also, X-Plane versus FSX is great for a feature comparison, apples to apples. The ATC system is flawed in FSX, sure, but it is about 80% complete (bugs to work out and special instruction capabilities to add, but it works fairly well) whereas XP ATC is about 10% complete. XP can generate aircraft, have them fly a route and land. There is no parking spot classes (ga/small/medium/large) to allow XP to know what types of aircraft to allow at a parking spot (also making it impossible for a large aircraft to spawn at a GA airport or attempt to land there - if there's no spots for it, the aircraft would have nothing to do with it), extremely limited numbers of aircraft, no flight generation information for accuracy of AI timetables, barely working ATC that will help you get from Departure to Arrival and the list goes on and on.

 

Sure, if LR gave the option for spawning AI traffic and manipulation of the ATC commands sent to those aircraft from an external source, 3rd Party could fill the gap, but I PAID for a flight simulator that has "Plausible Autogen Cities", "ATC", "Top-Notch Blade Element Theory Flightmodel that accurately represents many facets of flight". With your idea, I paid for a product that allows me to buy another product that adds what was supposed to be in what I purchased in the first place. I'm not saying it should be the best in the world that nobody could do better, but what it is can barely called a competitor that rises to the level of maturity of its rival product which is now 7 YEARS OLDER. Something new, if it is to succeed, should at least provide the same overall level of completeness as what is already in existence. Failing to do so will result in people who will find nothing worth paying for less now in hopes that it will be better than what they have now.

 

I'm not saying FSX with addons, either. I fly mostly vanilla FSX when I'm not in XP, no photoreal textures or any major cities. The aircraft I have are usually freeware with my own software for the systems (I like to fly 737s as I have a quasi-737 home cockpit). I get 30-60 FPS with most settings maxxed (hate the city tiles with the autogen draped over the top usually wrongly). I know I fall in a small category of people with very little addons, but that is what I compare XP to.

 

Edit: Forgot to mention World of AI packages as an addon (freeware alternative to MyTraffic and a few others)

In my opinion the market will go where PMDG goes. Many X-plane users will disagree with me on this but a large number of flight simmers are tube liner flyers and when they see a Full systems top of the line sim like a PMDG product and the IXEG 737 coming out in 64 bit then you will see people jumping off the FSX ship.

http://www.x-plane.com/desktop/system-requirements/

 

Your statement about XP10 and DX11 is 100% wrong - see link for Windows. Mac OSX is limited to OpenGL 3.2 which is a very old OpenGL spec - current OpenGL spec supported on Window 7 is OpenGL 4.2 which is similar in features to DX11.

 

Agree tesselation is only supported at a hardware accelerated mode in DX11 and OpenGL 4.x .

 

Sorry to break the news to ya, but that's reality.

 

OpenGL 3.2 spec is feature equivalent to DX9c

Interresting...

 

In my opinion the market will go where PMDG goes. Many X-plane users will disagree with me on this but a large number of flight simmers are tube liner flyers and when they see a Full systems top of the line sim like a PMDG product and the IXEG 737 coming out in 64 bit then you will see people jumping off the FSX ship.

 

Mike, I think it's going to take more than just PMDG content to get "FSX" users to "jump ship". There's still a lack of important functionality in Xplane that I think is more of a detriment to "converting users" than just a single aircraft developer. It will certainly help to have them "on board", but it's not the main reason. We hear it all the time when people come to have a look, it always the same, it's missing this, and this, and this, etc. When those things are no longer missing, or offer a lot more functionality, the people will come.

 

Glen