FSX code, PMDG evolving...We need an upgrade of FSX

[fs4fun 366]

 

 

From the article you linked, I'm not seeing any example of open source applications that are similar to FSX?

 

Just showing examples of commercial and community-supported software built on the same code base.

 

As Gerry mentions, FlightGear is open source and is extensible by developers. There are loads of open source game engines with SDKs, Blender for example, which allows for commercial development. Is there an example of a commercial flight simulator built on open source code? Not that I know of, but I don't see why there couldn't be.

 

 

 

I like the idea of open source, it would be perfect in a world where no one had any mortgages, bills, kids going to college, and food and energy were free.  But that's not the world we currently live in ... most of us need a marketable revenue source.

 

It's a misconception that developing open source code equates to not getting paid. However it's also true that many people will write code or otherwise develop content for no charge, just because they enjoy it or want the recognition, or they want to build up their CV for job-seeking.

 

Anyway, MS could either do nothing with FSX, as they are currently doing, which does them little good going forward, or they could do something, such as open-source FSX which might provide quite a few beneficial side effects such as goodwill, and attracting more developers to their platform and technologies. I will not be surprised if they choose to do nothing.

[Guest]

 

 

However it's also true that many people will write code or otherwise develop content for no charge, just because they enjoy it or want the recognition, or they want to build up their CV for job-seeking.

 

True, and also those under government grants and/or scholarships.  But for something with the scope and requirements of FSX, I haven't seen anyone/group of open source developers come together to take on such a task of this magnitude.  FSX wasn't just produced with a handful of developers over a year or two ... it's a product that has evolved with 100's (or more) of designers, graphic artists, developers, and other field specific specialists over many years.

 

 

 

Not long after the release of Falcon 4, Hasbro - the new owners of Microprose

 

Falcon series started with Spectrum Holobytes, local to me (Alameda, California) -- I was actually on their Beta team way back in the late 80's and had spent many hours at their facility testing.  At the time I think we went by the "510th".  But I also worked on products from Lucas Arts way back when ... ah the good old days.  Anyway, I digress ... but like I keep saying, I'd like to see open source FSX attempted ... even if nothing came out of it. 

 

The perfect person to head up the FSX Open Source group would be Phil Taylor -- he has the social and management skills that would provide the glue to hold such group together ... but be warned, developers come in many social flavors, some are willing to compromise, others are not.

 

But the biggest problem is getting quality developers working on it, most of us have full time jobs and pretty estabilished and that often requires extended hours anyway (part of the job) with very little free time ... heck the time I spend with threads on AVSIM means I'm going to be working late again, and again, and again (part of the FS passion I guess).

 

Rob.

[Bobu 0]

Prepar3D is really the future of FSX. I sort of think they are doing even more than MS would have done. I think MS blew it by ditching FSX. Bean counters took over. Dumb.

[goates 576]

Pretty sure Microsoft gets enough petitions everyday for different things, and they probably don't go much further than the PR or communications department. A better approach would be to put together a solid business plan to licence the FSX source code for a new entertainment category flight sim (ie. one that isn't going to directly compete with P3D), and then convince Paul Allen to back it. He does rather like aircraft, has plenty of money, and presumably still some connections at Microsoft.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2013/06/04/inside-microsoft-mogul-paul-allens-multi-million-dollar-wwii-airplane-collection/

 

http://www.flyingheritage.com/

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

Think best option is to work with what you have. Doubt mircosoft will make a another flight sim as return on investment is to out do fsx features cost more than making gta5. Only Bill Gates back in late 90s prevented Microsoft management from axing flight simulator all together. Only see P3d, Xplane, FSX used in future for flight sims. Think new approach is needed to build the future flight sims and it does require new way of thinking and doing things.

[severniae 78]

Just to add in my thoughts on an 'open FSX' - I'd find it highly unlikely that MS would release their source code to freeware developers. Aside from any other points, MS aren't known for sharing their source on anything they ever develop, no matter how old!

 

Flight gear has been around for years and whilst I take my hat off to some really talented developers, it isn't 'there' yet. Maybe with a few more years development it might get there to make a real FSX alternative, who knows.

 

Personally I'm watching X-Plane with a hawkish eye. The recent move to a 64-Bit environment has been a massive step, also with the news that the likes of PMDG may be developing for x-plane in the future really would make it a hugely viable alternative. The only thing I'm unsure about is the default scenery in X-P, I hear its somewhat lacking in terms of decent airports... but then I've not used the software so couldn't say myself.

[wlix261 79]

for something with the scope and requirements of FSX, I haven't seen anyone/group of open source developers come together to take on such a task of this magnitude.  FSX wasn't just produced with a handful of developers over a year or two ... it's a product that has evolved with 100's (or more) of designers, graphic artists, developers, and other field specific specialists over many years.

 

There is an example of successful coexistence of an Open Source SW platform with commercial SW Plug-ins with highly complex applications The following link refers to a Seismic interpretation Geophysical SW Platform for Oil and Gas Exploration and Production This group has been in business for several years and have good acceptance in the industry http://www.dgbes.com/

 

There are other good examples in Healthcare

 

So, getting a solid OpenSource platform to replace FSX to be leveraged by commercial and non-commercial developers who would build plug-ins a matter of: (1) Needing it (several folks here say its needed), (2) Wanting it, (3) setting a governance standards organization (probably funded by the commercial developers, SW distributors and main commercial players - Example: http://www.energistics.org/ )  and (4) Doing it

 

Maybe FlightGear can be a good starting point 

[EngineRoom 205]

 

 

Falcon series started with Spectrum Holobytes, local to me (Alameda, California) -- I was actually on their Beta team way back in the late 80's and had spent many hours at their facility testing.

 

Haha yes I remember Spectrum Holobyte's Falcon. It was one of the very first flight sims I flew on my older brother's Atari ST. It must have been around 1988 or 1989, I would have been about 8 years old I think!

 

As for Falcon 4, I can remember getting it as a Christmas gift in 1998 and spending many hours exploring the workings of an F-16 (and getting shot down over the Korean DMZ). It has to rank as one of the landmark flight simulations, and it just goes to show how ambitious and sophisticated it was when you consider FIFTEEN YEARS on current iterations are still among the most sophisticated and authentic flight sims available and there are still several areas where it has yet to be surpassed by contemporary combat flight sims such as DCS.

 

Check this out - Falcon's family tree....

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Falcon-4-history.svg

[wlix261 79]

 

 

Check this out - Falcon's family tree....
 
http://upload.wikime...n-4-history.svg

 

Fascinating document showing the evolution of the Falcon Family !

Thanks for sharing...

[mgh 89]

 

 

...convince Paul Allen to back it

 

The available evidence suggests Microsoft pulled out of flight simulation because it wasn't commercially viable.  Why then should Paul Allen, or indeed anyone else, subsidise our hobby?

[wlix261 79]

The available evidence suggests Microsoft pulled out of flight simulation because it wasn't commercially viable.  Why then should Paul Allen, or indeed anyone else, subsidise our hobby?

If maintaining this hobby costs more than what we (the simmers) spend ($) plus what are willing to contribute (time and knowledge sharing) the hobby will die.

So, The shared cost of maintaining the standards plus the Open Source Platform must be recovered via plug-in commercial margins plus margins of commercial SW distributors, plus margins from commercial Sim sites, etc, and those still should keep a reasonable margin for themselves if they do a good job and sell great plug-ins.

[Q_flyer 766]

Why reinvent the wheel? there's already a long-established free, open source flight simulator. It's called Flightgear.

 

Yeah but it's not very good.

 

FSX and P3D however, really have never been better, and I don't see any of the pessimism that some see. Look at some of the amazing add-ons being released.   And wheras we used to think that certainlt things about it (like it's 32 bit architecture) were unsurmountable;   but look at what Steve has done with DX10;  elevating it from a broken trial toy, to a serious upgrade to FSX.

 

The future's bright......

[goates 576]

The available evidence suggests Microsoft pulled out of flight simulation because it wasn't commercially viable.  Why then should Paul Allen, or indeed anyone else, subsidise our hobby?

 

Do you have any hard evidence that it was actually losing money? In a company the size of Microsoft, especially one that appears to be driven more by accountants and lawyers than anything, a project doesn't have to be losing money to get canned. It could simply have not met whatever rate of return Microsoft wanted. I have seen this happen before myself. A smaller outfit dedicated solely to the flight sim, and backed by someone enthusiastic about aviation, may work better. And I don't expect anyone to subsidize the hobby, just to help get it started. X-Plane, DCS and aerofly FS seem to be doing okay. I think you also have to include the part where Microsoft has been trying to integrate everything into their online services and FSX itself didn't really lend itself to this (and then they royally botched Flight).

 

An example of someone dedicated to a genre of game and doing things differently is Chris Roberts and his Star Citizen project. He has raised $20 million of the current $21 million goal to develop the game independently.

[wlix261 79]

 

 

An example of someone dedicated to a genre of game and doing things differently is Chris Roberts and his Star Citizen project. He has raised $20 million of the current $21 million goal to develop the game independently.

 

Nice example. Thank you for sharing!

[mgh 89]

 

 

Do you have any hard evidence that it was actually losing money?

 

Re-read my post. I never said it was losing money but that it wasn't commercially viable - that covers aspects such as inadequate rate of return.

 

 

 

 

An example of someone dedicated to a genre of game and doing things differently is Chris Roberts and his Star Citizen project. He has raised $20 million of the current $21 million goal to develop the game independently

 

A better example would have been someone raising millions for a new flight simulator. Is there one, and if not why not?

 

 

 

Yeah but it's not very good.

 

I agree - even after some 15 years of development by its community. That puts in perspective the idea that that FSX "community could do much better