The next FSX

[mazelda 124]

I know this topic is about as old as FSX itself and many many companies have been mentioned

But I thought I would add another renowned for for excellent products and would probably make a stunning flight simulator the name PMDG

I guess there would have to be a lot of collaboration between companies for compatability but the end result could be stunning

your thoughts?

[learn-by-flying 37]

I think you will still see Microsoft ESP or Prepar3D continuing to pull people away from FSX, this is a natural progression as Prepar3D is a actively developed software which is the commercial version of FSX. The licesnse does allow for us to use the simulator, for those of us with a private pilots license we have the professional version and for those of us students, we have the academic version. X-Plane continues to develop but still does not have the third party support that Prepar3D does.

It takes huge resources to create a simulator, LM bought the code and is improving it. There were rumors that Aerosoft was creating a sim but that has gone quiet over the past few years.

[Groovy_Kincaid 71]

I think that a new platform is needed. Each of us chooses our platforms and this seems to divide the community. I akin it to religion or politics. We have a common interest, flight sim. Similar to say, Christianity, or, right- wing or left- wing politics. Then from those base groups, you have sects or political parties.

 

Each camp vying for limited resources, or, in our case, add-ons and pushing each platform's case.

 

I think that the problem in our faith, or party, is that the creators of the simulators got their business models all wrong.

 

If I was to develop a flight sim model, I would take the P3D approach, or a simplified approach. And I think this was Microsoft's or even Laminar's error.

 

I would have released the platform to the public, say as each of those providers have done, one-time purchase price, $70-$90 per license. But instead of releasing the SDK, for free, I would have done a "sliding scale" SDK. So, for people who wish to do a freeware ads ons release, I would have charged a $10 per license SDK for freeware developers. Then for the people who decide to release pay ware add-ons, the I would charge a royalty, or some sort of percentage of revenue model. It would do this not to stifle any 3rd party development, but to use those funds to further improve the platform.

 

This is where I think Microsoft went wrong, of course, 3rd party developers would moan about this, but, this would fund future improvements / new releases.

 

Models of the Battlefield Series, as one example ( a bit of a stretch I know), as well as Rail Simulator, are proof, that if you charge people for add-ons, and some royalty going back to the developer ensured that; the platform gets improved via increased revenue base, we the users are happy as we will pay for add-ons and we will, almost be guaranteed updates and improvements for the play form.

 

I would also like to say, that the infighting, the comments that specify that this platform vs this platform are tearing our community apart. Each one has its strengths, it's weaknesses. At the end, unless there is a new platform that we can all enjoy, we have to remain united in our "faith" or or "political wing" and not worry too much about how we choose to believe.