Is it for the best that FSX is the final version?

[Howellerman 104]

One of the ACES team told me to really improve MSFS it would take a complete rewrite of the FS graphics engine.

 

I can't imagine a FS graphics engine write for 64bit with no backward compatibility. I would be waiting at the store,

cash in hand the 1st day it went on sale. By "cash" I don't mean $59.95.....I would gladly pay close to $200 for it

if I knew it came with a guaranteed 3-4 Service Packs and at least a 5 year lifespan.

 

Ken

+1 on this one, but I would like backwards compatibility! Maybe the good people over at Prepar3d have an aircraft skunk works for a 64-bit engine...

[FIVE-BY-FIVE 453]

Clicking on a poll is a lot different then pulling out the cash. People could vote Yes and not have the cash when the time comes. No business would base a decision on a poll.

howabout a poll and and proof of cash :lol: uploaded bank statements to a secure forum on Avsim :LMAO:

[rick_studder 4]

Does anyone ever see X-Plane replacing FSX?

 

For many of us, it pretty much has already.

[Trans_27 Pilot Chase 59]

For many of us, it pretty much has already.

I'm very curious in xplane so that's why I'm asking. I think I'm going to pick up a copy before long. With me ppicking up this new system next week, "soon" may be the best time for me to give it a shot.

[rick_studder 4]

I'm very curious in xplane so that's why I'm asking. I think I'm going to pick up a copy and give it a shot.

 

Try the free demo first.

[FIVE-BY-FIVE 453]

For many of us, it pretty much has already.

10.21 xp10 released today with a taste of addon buildings at default airports.  KATL was the 1st victim and it looks good. :yahoo:

[Boomer 1,619]

It's far far too early to know if P3D is going to be a viable replacement for FSX for this community.  But I am doubtful.  In any case, I have well over a thousand dollars invested in mods for FSX.  Can't just leave those behind.

[Guest]

It's far far too early to know if P3D is going to be a viable replacement for FSX for this community.  But I am doubtful.  In any case, I have well over a thousand dollars invested in mods for FSX.  Can't just leave those behind.

Same here dude! The main reason I am waiting for P3D V2 is all the incompatible FSX addons on fleabay :Money Eyes:

[mgh 89]

The core engine, SDKs, and GUI, is what I'm talking about, one w/ published shelf life of 5-8 years, and I don't believe $500 is necessary for this since it should not be designed to be a stand alone complete simulator out of the box. Commercial viability is developed by designing FOR a robust 3rd party development community which already exists

 

A "bare-bones" simulator without aircraft, scenery/terrain, AI, ATC, weather etc and which relies on 3PD for them can only appeal the enthusiasts - not casual users.

 

It won't have much appeal to enthusiasts unless it's released with a range of add-ons. That would mean sufficient 3PDs jointly agreeing and accepting the structure of the new simulator and investing in development before it's released. The 3PDs would benefit from it so ought to be prepared to fund it. One questions is would they be prepared to do that? Another question if some 3PDs do and some don't what happens about those who don't?  Are they to be "locked out" If not why should any 3PD support it?

 

I  know that some have suggested that a new simulator could simply use FSX's input. I suggest that Microsoft and Lockheed Martin might have something to say about that. (the potential developer in this thread accepts there would be legal problems with that in post #33)

 

These days anyone investing in a new simulator  is unlikely to wait up to 8 years to achieve the return on its investment.

[Noel 4,487]

I'm very curious in xplane so that's why I'm asking. I think I'm going to pick up a copy before long. With me ppicking up this new system next week, "soon" may be the best time for me to give it a shot.

Me too ;o).  I think one huge reason it may not quite have enough of 'the magic' that FSX has developed is just that, it's underdeveloped by the 3rd party development community.  My next PC (mine's 5y/o now and yet still works ok for FSX) will be built NOT around making FSX run well, but making XPlane (or another newcomer w/ the right core engine etc) run well.  I'm holding out for 8, 10 or 12 core Ivy Bridge E or Haswell E.  At least one nVidia Titan GTX 6gb GDDR5.  32-64mb of fast ram.  It has to run FSX better than my 5 y/o box, I think?

[Noel 4,487]

A "bare-bones" simulator without aircraft, scenery/terrain, AI, ATC, weather etc and which relies on 3PD for them can only appeal the enthusiasts - not casual users.

 

Exactly my point.  This vision is not for casual users.  On a worldwide basis, there are plenty of potential enthusiasts.  However, I am not defining enthusiasts by users who are also overclocking and performance 'enthusiasts'.  I'm talking about the full gamut of serious aviation enthusiasts.  You continue to think of a repeat FSX, Flight, or something that has mass gamer appeal.  That's not the market I would develop this project for.  Moreover, I believe there are many aviation enthusiasts, not gamers, who were absolutely disinterested in FSX because it was so fickle to get to run well, and you really needed to be both a computer AND aviation enthusiast to get anywhere with it.  This is why you can't use FSX market to establish what this market could be.   When iPhone debuted, the market for smart phones wasn't there.  The killer product came out and spawn huge growth in that domain. 

 

 

 

It won't have much appeal to enthusiasts unless it's released with a range of add-ons. That would mean sufficient 3PDs jointly agreeing and accepting the structure of the new simulator and investing in development before it's released. 

 

This is why the huge commitment to collaboration w/ the 3PD community from initial planning stages moving forward.  In fact, a strong company such as ORBX could be just the scale of developer to take on this project themselves.   

 

I  know that some have suggested that a new simulator could simply use FSX's input. I suggest that Microsoft and Lockheed Martin might have something to say about that. (the potential developer in this thread accepts there would be legal problems with that in post #33)

 

A strong group of programmers need not simply use FSX's code, only some of the aspects of the simulator which work very well and model after those features.   Flight simulators have some history now and a very smart team could pick and choose features that are proven winners and emphasize those, losing features that aren't as desired by the niche market we are describing here.

 

These days anyone investing in a new simulator  is unlikely to wait up to 8 years to achieve the return on its investment.

 

No need to wait up to 8 years.  Before a line of code is developed the development comes from organized collaboration & exchange between the simulator developer and the peripherals 3PDs.  This develops an ongoing business relationship w/ buy-in from many stakeholders who all have a very vested interest in moving flight simulation forward.  Going to the feature set we are describing helps assure a longer term life cycle for each simulator major revision (every 5-8y).

[Trans_27 Pilot Chase 59]

Me too ;o). I think one huge reason it may not quite have enough of 'the magic' that FSX has developed is just that, it's underdeveloped by the 3rd party development community. My next PC (mine's 5y/o now and yet still works ok for FSX) will be built NOT around making FSX run well, but making XPlane (or another newcomer w/ the right core engine etc) run well. I'm holding out for 8, 10 or 12 core Ivy Bridge E or Haswell E. At least one nVidia Titan GTX 6gb GDDR5. 32-64mb of fast ram. It has to run FSX better than my 5 y/o box, I think?

I you're exactly right. If xplane half of the 3rd party support that FSXhhas, then I think it would be a completely different story.

 

If the pmdg team released the ngx for xp, that alone might be enough for me to switch.

[cvearl 60]

Personally I think it's great that a $1500 (i7 3770@4.2Ghz or higher+GTX660 or 7950+8GB PC3 DDR+24" LCD) computer can run FSX with ORBX regions and REX visuals with payware planes at 30 fps locked solid and stutter free. If that aint happening for you, something is wrong. Well. with the usual exception of KSEA or ORBX KSFF landing the JS41 or NGX. Then ya, you get into the 20's with a touch of stutter here and there but it's totally doable. Seriously. If this is not happening for people with Ivy and Sandybridge setups and cards that cost $250 or more, something is wrong with your setup. This is achievable with nothing but the himemfix line added to cfg and nothing more. 

 

I thought Lockheed Martin bought the source code and rights to ESP (Commercial version of FSX) from Microsoft so I guess it is not dead unless I am wrong. Time will tell. Also is there not a few ACES devs at LM? I thought there were. Here's hoping that they get to where we thought they were going with it. DX11 support and whatnot.

 

As for Xplane, I try the demo every 6 months or so. Still not where I personally need it to be and I find the GUI clumsy.

 

C.

[mgh 89]

Exactly my point.  This vision is not for casual users.

 

 

That will severely limit its sales and revenue. ORBX's opinion is that there are about 40,000 enthusiasts worldwide. 

 

]This is why the huge commitment to collaboration w/ the 3PD community from initial planning stages moving forward.  In fact, a strong company such as ORBX could be just the scale of developer to take on this project themselves...

 

Before a line of code is developed the development comes from organized collaboration & exchange between the simulator developer and the peripherals 3PDs.

All very desirable, but will the fragmented 3PD business collaborate on agreeing specification and commit the funding a new simulator. ORBX expertise and experience is in developing scenery. Why should it shoulder the risk of developing a new simulation, especially it can getting funding from other 3PDs, such as those offering aircraft - or are they to expect a free ride?

 

What you are prioposing is possible in porinciple. In practice I don't belo

 

A strong group of programmers need not simply use FSX's code, only some of the aspects of the simulator which work very well and model after those features.

Developing a new simulator based only on FSX's functionality and it's published SDK will be a major undertaking. FSX's code, that is its .exe & .dll files (excluding gauges), is 23.5 Mb which is equivalent to about 1.25 M source lines of code. How much effort would be needed to end up with that number of working and debugged lines of code? Who's going to pay for the "strong group of programmers" needed to do this and for the management needed to achieve it?

[Trans_27 Pilot Chase 59]

Personally I think it's great that a $1500 (i7 3770@4.2Ghz or higher+GTX660 or 7950+8GB PC3 DDR+24" LCD) computer can run FSX with ORBX regions and REX visuals with payware planes at 30 fps locked solid and stutter free.

Nice to know since that's exactly what I ordered.