You are still missing my point which is that it doesn't matter how much some people are prepared to pay if there isn't enough of them to make it viable,

 

It's possible that FS11 wasn't viable regardless of price. Every product has an optimum price which maximises its revenue. If that revenue isn't enough to make the product viable then changing the price won't make it so.

 

I'm not missing your point at all. We differ on MSFS's user base. Within weeks of FSX coming out we all knew the average PC of the day couldn't run FSX with the sliders even at 50%.

By the time PCs that could run FSX with the sliders between 50% and 75% came out the user base was pretty well gone other than a hardcore group.

 

It's my contention a 64bit FS12 with DX11 would bring many of those people back plus the flight schools. I also think P3D version 4 if it is indeed going to be 64bit will get my money

up to a few hundred dollars.

 

 

Ken

A few comments:

 

There should be very few compatibility issues with switching from a 32-bit to a 64-bit system.  A 64-bit system expands the capabilities of FSX, but does not require add-ons to use these expanded capabilities.  It is much the same principal that allows 32-bit FSX to run on 64-bit Windows 7 or 8. without any problems. 

 

Many of the hardware advances that FS11 could take advantage of will never be improved upon, so it would be worthwhile to write a new FS to take advantage of these improvements.  Then it really would be the last version.

 

Some examples:   

 

32-bit software can make use of to 4 Gb of RAM or 2^32.    64-bit software can make use of  18,446,744,075 Gb of RAM or 2^64. There will never a 128-bit operating system.

 

8-core processors is probably the most cores you will ever see in a processor.  There is some talk of 16-core processors, but you will never see a 64-core processor.  The marginal advantage of adding extra cores in speed diminishes the more cores you add due to the difficulty of writing software that uses all the cores well.  Much of the software around today uses only one core even if more are available and there no reason to change because there would be no noticable increase in speed.

I'm not missing your point at all. We differ on MSFS's user base. Within weeks of FSX coming out we all knew the average PC of the day couldn't run FSX with the sliders even at 50%.

By the time PCs that could run FSX with the sliders between 50% and 75% came out the user base was pretty well gone other than a hardcore group.

 

It's my contention a 64bit FS12 with DX11 would bring many of those people back plus the flight schools. I also think P3D version 4 if it is indeed going to be 64bit will get my money

up to a few hundred dollars.

 

 

Ken

 

Whatever the reasons, I suggest the "user base" has pretty well gone for good. There are now many other games on the market that are much more attractive than FS to the user base. 

 

Anyway, what were the advantages of FSX over FS9 for the user base as opposed to the enthusiasts? I'd suggest very few and that the user base would have been just as happy with FS9. The benefits, surely, were really only to enthusiasts who bought add-ons that used FSX's extra features which were developed by others. Similarly, the benefits of 64-bit will only be apparent to those enthusiasts who wish to use  detailed aircraft and scenery add-ons.

 

My belief is that the market is too small to support the development of the type of simulation enthusiasts want.  I'd be happy to be proved wrong by someone developing one - but see no sign of anyone funding one, do you?

 

My belief is that the market is too small to support the development of the type of simulation enthusiasts want.  I'd be happy to be proved wrong by someone developing one - but see no sign of anyone funding one, do you?

 

 

I must admit when Aerosoft stepped away from their effort it caught my eye.

 

Ken

You are ALL missing the point, folks.

 

A new MSFS version, like a FS 11, *would turn a profit* but BUT not a BIG ENOUGH profit for corporate bean counters to green light it.

 

 

A new MSFS version, like a FS 11, *would turn a profit*

 

How do  you know that?

LOL, just guessing.

I am happy with FSX :rolleyes: I took me a long time to get to a point where I was happy with it and hundreds of dollars in addons. I runs very well on my i7 920 at 4.3 ghz with 8gigs of ram and a GTX 580. Ultimately I had to compromise on my slider settings but I get a steady 20 to 30 FPS everywhere. Over ORBX under REX in PMDG.

 

If P3D 2.0 never happens so be it. I won't buy P3D 1.4, why should I?

 

But I think P3D 2.0 is what you are all talking about.

 

When it materialixes here are my criteria for deciding to buy it.

 

1. The reviews are awesome. i.e. fully utilizes modern hardware DX11 etc.

2. 3PD's current products are backwards compatible or holders of current versions

get a big discount on the upgrade like 75% off.

 

If number 2 doesn't happen I will stick to FSX because I have already spent hundreds of dollars on addons and I will get all of the Addons that are not compatible with P3D 2.0 for next to nothing on ebay because the will all be obsolete.

 

By the time P3D 2.0 comes along I will have upgraded my already outdated hardware and be overclocked to perhaps 6+ ghz on a sub-zero 6 core Intel CPU with 16 GB of optomized timing ram with a GTX 780 That I will build myself.

 

FSX plus time = big improvements

Wouldn't it be interesting to have some kind of poll how much people would be willing to pay to get the FS version so many of us are dreaming about that would finally make good use of the latest hardware but not only that but also get rid of all other annoying limitations stopping addon developers to deliver a myriad of things like really realistic weather just to mention one example. <br /><br />Making this kind of poll maybe could attract people who actually could be part of developing this dream version of FS depending on the outcome of the poll of course.

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.

True but maybe it could serve as a hint on the interest.

I don't get this. All I have been hearing about for months now is Prepar3D version 2.0

supposedly currently under development by Lockheed Martin and anticipated sometime this year or next year. Is this not FSX 11 or 12 or the dream FSX everyone wants?

 

The current version is not cheap unless you are a student and I am sure the pro version will be $200+. Yet it is hardly mentioned in this thread. Here the future of FS is being discussed almost as if there was nothing in the pipeline or am I missing something?

I suspect that the development of a new FS platform is complex, challenging, and expensive compared to something like a FPS for a gaming console. Heck, even an extremely popular, and far less complicated, game series - "Guitar Hero" - was discontinued due to its declining popularity, and I suspect there is a far greater profit margin (and gross profit) with it than FS.

 

Further, I suspect that any new FS would have to be a substantial improvement to justify development costs - otherwise the already limited target market that has invested in FSX will see little reason to jump ship (see Xplane).

 

There are plenty of developers out there who want to make money; I suspect that if there truly was a market for a $200 consumer flight sim, there would be one being developed. As for P3d, while promising, it's unclear to me that LM is committed to a consumer flight sim, given the EULA.

Within weeks of FSX coming out we all knew the average PC of the day couldn't run FSX with the sliders even at 50%

That's true BEFORE FSX Sp1, the frame was almost double what it was after Sp1.

The reviews are awesome. i.e. fully utilizes modern hardware DX11 etc.

I agree, really the most important thing to me right now, is DX11 support. You might think the #1 priority would be 64-bit support, but that is the least of my priorities, mainly because I believe once we get into 64 bit flight simming territory, yes, we may be "limitless", but with todays hardware, we really aren't. On my FSX install, the ONLY time, I was able to reproduce an OOM error was under the condition of Full Autogen, 4064 textures, PMDG 737NGX, Full traffic, and At FSDT CYVR with Orbx Vancouver with Vancouver+. My frames at that current time were about 4-6. (In cockpit). And this is with an i7-2600K overclocked to 4.6 Ghz.

 

I am afraid that in a 64-bit environment, we are going to stuff so much stuff into one area, the frames will drop to such low amounts that it won't be fun either way. That's why DX11 is so important because just DX10 alone in FSX can immediately save about 300MB of RAM, and eliminates stutters, jumps, etc. (And improves Fps) With DX11, there really won't be a need for 64-bit support, unless you cram everything possible into one area, which again, with *today's* hardware, the frames will probably drop to such meager numbers anyway.

May be you would pay but are there enough others willing to pay that such a price to make it commercially viable to develop?

 

As you yourself  say this is a smaller niche marker. It could be too small to support the development of such a simulator.  That's possibly why there aren't even any $200 entertainment/leisure flight simulators on the market.

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, assuring 5-8+ years of income for the core engine product, this is what I am saying.  You challenge this on a forum where people literally have thousands of dollars tied up in hardware often designed around making 8 y/o code run well, including $150 just for a cooling solution, another $400-$800 to eek out a few more frames for a video card, and what, $40 for a freaking airport?  Yes, I'd shell out $500 for a killer core engine that unleashes access to multicore, 64-bit memory headroom, DirectX 11 were it to have the right mix of features.  I concede designing this engine which would entail a huge collaboration w/ the development community isn't assured.  And as for 'commercially viable', how big of a team does this need to be?  I understand ACES was in realm of 70 people, yet XPlane only 4-6.   Think again about core engine, SDKs, plus GUI.  Much of this product I envision would come from collaboration w/ 3PD community, and excellent vision & planning.