My concern is that I see a split in my community.

 

Interesting points.

 

Reminds me of the arguments between  MSFT-Apple users a while back.......until one day Apple agreed to get Word+EXcel+Powerpoint developed by MSFT to run within the Apple platform. Which caused the Sales of Mac PC's soar!. And that was just as Apple was coming with the i-devices... even more growth. 

 

Looking in retrospective, moving to Apple became a natural step for me (I mean my business Laptop) once I noticed how robust is the OS and how nice it runs the Office apps that I and most of the other people in the world use.

 

I wish something like this happens with the Fsim. Get the key functionality that tens of thousands simmers like from the FSX+Addons into a robust Fsim that has a great bunch of developing companies making nice products, and it does not depend that much from Win7 (before Win7 goes away). And make that desired functionality much better in the new Sim that what it is now (in any one of both)

 

I don't think this should be one group verses the other... rather should be one larger group that both added having a yet better platform.

 

 

X-Plane is in a much better swituation with its free HD mesh, photosceneries and OSM maps.

 

If X-plane stays this way I would have to join the P3D camp.

You're right. I think I'll stick to R/C for awhile. For just $49, and your own transmitter, you can get a little helicopter with a full cyclic and collective, along with a 3 axis gyro stabilizer. That's no flybar, and no double rotor. Uses the same forces as a "full size", torque included. For around $89, it's the transmitter too. Perhaps the new CPU may be far into the future.

 

Sorry Larry, my post came out way too much hostile!

The thing that worrys me is, with all these other Sim's coming into the Market place, and operating systems, that probably won't be compatible with ALL the Microsoft FSX & 2004 Aircraft and their Gizmo's that are attached to make em' work - 

 

I fear many of us Flight Simmers out here who like to Fly the older Vintage Aircraft, like the VC-10's 727 and Lockheed L-188's and Constellations and DC3's and DC6's etc. are going to lose that ability to Fly those Vintage Birds , eventually, as time goes by.

 

NOT everybody just likes to Fly these Newer Jetliners around at 30,000ft,,with Glass Cockpits and on Auto-Pilot and call that Flight Simming.

 

Anymore about all that's on YOU TUBE for Flight Sim Video's is the same ol' Redundt boring 737 or Airbus Jets,, you'd think there was no other Aircraft made in History !

 

Also, Developers like JUST FLIGHT and Captain Sim PMDG etc,  but mainly Just Flight and Captain Sim,, have recently came out with the Lockheed L-1011's, several Months ago, and yet theres hardly any if any RE-Paints for them, everythings for the Newer 777's it seems.

 

I personally can't afford to be switching platforms for Flight Simulator every few years, I've already got at least a few Grand tied up in what I've got with Hardware and products and 2 Amped up computers.

 

I have a lot of "FREEWARE" and "PAYWARE" ( 5,000 Aircraft) , in my FSX Gold Acceleration edition, and I regret that 1 day  they may not work if new operating systems come out and things get old and we have no choice but to make the switch,, and then its going to happen,,, Bye, Bye, Vintage Aircraft that all kinds of FREEWARE developers had developed in the past, people like Milton Schupe, and Eric Cantu, and Jens Kristensen, and Tom Tiedman, and many others.

 

Lucky so far I'm somewhat computer savy so far, but I can't keep up with everything, its getting impossible to keep up with all the technogical changes and all the flight simulator changes, along with everything else in daily life,,,, One Day, my Landing Gear is gonna Fail,,, and i'll never be able to leave the Runway, I'll end up in Parked mode / Cold & Dark for life !

 

My Flight Simulator days / Evenings will all be over !

 

I feel its just around the corner too, within a few years !

 

Unless, ya just like to tool around in some Redundt boring 777 all the time, and never get to enjoy a Vintage older  Flying Boat, or Sea Plane, or a Radial Engine propliner from the 1940's & 1950's  era.

 

I'll be keeping what I got, till its all over with, but, when it happens, it happens I Won't be upgrading to another Flight Simulator Format, just to be able to ONLY Fly a few planes with Limited Scenery , like they tried to Sell everybody with that Disasterous "FLIGHT" they came out with, which was utterly pathetic and Disgusting !!

 

Jetranger !

 

Longranger,

 

there are some excellent vintage for X-Plane 10!

 

There is also a great 727!

I always hear the word pressure as If it only depends on the amount of pressure that people put on Laminar to get some features. Laminar is not Microsoft, so they simply can't change the number of people that are working on a certain feature as fast as some people are thinking. In fact a huge jump in number of employee is a sure sign of a failed software project.. It always takes time to integrate new people4 into a project, so that the productivity in fact decreases  when you add new people.

So they can only switch when they look at a problem, at the expense of other problems that won't be solved or improved in the meantime.

 

So customers are really in no position to force them to do anything, since we simply don't know where the real roadblocks are. .

 

  Pressure is not quite the right word I agree.  It's meaningless unless it is effective.    

 

  LR dont seem to be competing for marketshare so they dont have any internal pressure.  Most commercial companies with competition do feel the pressure and want to attract new customers.  I get the feeling LR is happy where they are and getting a lot of new customers is just money for nothing for them, not something that will make them up their game.

 

   I have been in software development for 22 years commercially from small teams to large teams so I know what you are saying about how many people can effectively work on one area of code and bringing new people in to the loop can reduce productivity for a little while.

 

    I dont however agree that it is much of an excuse to not do things.   Good developers do not need as much handholding as you might think although they may not be 100% productive right away.  However if they are given certain tasks it doesnt take much time to get up to speed with specific areas.

 

     We are now a couple of years since release and if new people were on board a year ago then there would be overall gains, not losses.   LR in in it for the long term I understand so short term thinking wont help them.

 

     We want a lot of things from them, often we only want them to give us what FSX has though.   FSX had a larger team and for LR to even come good on a number of things they have said then we either need to wait a very long time or they need more developers or they turn the engine in to something customisable that is an excellent SDK and let the third parties put everything in to it.

 

    Without much competition I dont see them under much pressure to do any of this though.

 

 

If X-plane stays this way I would have to join the P3D camp.

How long did X-Plane stayed the same? Instead this time they managed a complete redesign within a version: The switch to 64 bits This was a totally dramatic change tha6t most people don't realize at this time While for P3D there is no demand for this feature in their real market.

 

The probability is pretty high that Laminar will release in the next 1 or 2 years an X-Plane 11 but I am not so confident if there will be an open accesible P3D version. It doesn't depend on the developers but on decisions of the LM Management.

 

While the Microsoft Flight Simulator offered a decent market  for smaller independent companies, this market si simply to small for any bigger actions by LM. Furthermore it is a market on its decline.  It is rather difficult to get new players in this environment. 

 

If I would be a kid and interested in flying a real plane P3D would be so far away that it would be unreachable. X-Plane is a different question.  Ge4t X-Plane for Xmas and the rest is more or less free.

Laminar as a tiny company can survive and even prosper in a tiny market.

 

The main argument for P3D is the capabilitya to use the old add-ons. For LM this has no real priority.

Laminar by itself is in no real position to decide if 50& of the FSX users switch to X-Plane or P3D. If people demand seasons: I don't think that they could deliver seasons this year anyway. They are changing to much of their basic environment and these things have to be more or less fixed to really

add decent seasons. This will either be done externally or with X-Plane 11 at the earliest.

 

There is simply no fundamental difference if 5, 10 or 30% of the FSX users switch to X-Plane.

Laminar;

please fix Xplane autogen !! A BASIC NEED for any simulator.

 

far too many areas are without a single piece of it !

 

 

    I dont however agree that it is much of an excuse to not do things.   Good developers do not need as much handholding as you might think although they may not be 100% productive right away.  However if they are given certain tasks it doesnt take much time to get up to speed with specific areas.

It is less a question of handholding of workflow integration. In the beginning you can give to new members only small projects without any heavy interaction with other internal modules. IUt can be really quite tricky to find such projects for new people.

 

They need time to get a feeling for their environment till you can give them real problems that have to be fixed as fast as possible. In fact it would probably be easier to give them a project for X-Plane 11 than for X-Plane 10. But it would be hopeless to simply tell them : Improve our ATC system, or fix our torque problem. This simply can't work. But that's what many people imagine.

 

I see several important things that they have to improve, like memory consumption or scalability of graphic features. Solutions for torque are more of a hit and miss feature. Do you really find a solution for these problems, or do you only add another layer that hides the real problem?

 

As you recognized yourself. It doesn't really matter what happens in the short term. Some rather technical improvements in the background might mean that an external developer might release in one year a killer feature. Does it really matter if many people looked in the meantime at P3D?

 

There is a simple sentence: You can't fullfill every request and if you would be able to do so, you would be bankrupt.

... or they turn the engine in to something customisable that is an excellent SDK and let the third parties put everything in to it.

I think, this is already an area where X-Plane is definitely not to be blamed ... it is quite ... uhm ... open in almost every area. But it is of course never "for free" ... when ever you want to capitalize on this openness, there is always some learning curve or other type of "investment" needed.

Laminar;

please fix Xplane autogen !! A BASIC NEED for any simulator.

 

far too many areas are without a single piece of it !

I must say: This is a request that will never reach their bug database. You want something different, but what? They will improve their autogen (and I don't believe that they need any special request.  In fact we know due to alpilotx that there will be several changes), but who should tell if these changes fullfill your expectations?

There is simply no real value in such a request. But this is a very good example why they mustn't listen to their customers! The customer doesn't really know what he wants and if a change might be an improvement or not.

They are simply in no position to really reinvent their whole autogen! It should be obvious that Laminar itself won't be satisfied with their autogen at the moment, but WE are in no real position to determine where the problems are!

I think, this is already an area where X-Plane is definitely not to be blamed ...

I agree. People who don't believe it should take a look at the europe library ( http://simheaven.com/?page_id=14 ) its foundation is rather surprisingly simple It is simply a result of the work of two guys.

Most surprisingly: The excahnged autogen doesn't contain any completly new objects instead it uses  only modified default objects or modifications of objects in the R2 Library! But it looks totally different.

Mqany things can be changed by simple text files  and it is even possible to limit these changes for a small area (1x1 degree)

I think, this is already an area where X-Plane is definitely not to be blamed ... it is quite ... uhm ... open in almost every area. But it is of course never "for free" ... when ever you want to capitalize on this openness, there is always some learning curve or other type of "investment" needed.

 

   I was specifically referring to something along the lines of simconnect or as p3d has done which is take it and add a lot of enhancements to it.

 

    When I was designing replica panels and some ipad software for fsx something like simconnect is what I want to use.  Although I know from using it it didnt always behave as it was intended, probably bugs that never got fixed.  Still, fsx and now p3d have a reasonably documented SDK that if changes happen behind the interfaces things should not break.

 

    When I looked at xpx around the same time I didnt see something that said it was the same, there were a couple projects not officially supported by LR to give xpx a SDK but you need better support than that and from LR, imho.

Turf wars, armed camps, tempests in teapots........

 

And meanwhile, things continue as they are.

I must say: This is a request that will never reach their bug database. You want something different, but what? They will improve their autogen (and I don't believe that they need any special request. In fact we know due to alpilotx that there will be several changes), but who should tell if these changes fullfill your expectations?

There is simply no real value in such a request. But this is a very good example why they mustn't listen to their customers! The customer doesn't really know what he wants and if a change might be an improvement or not.

They are simply in no position to really reinvent their whole autogen! It should be obvious that Laminar itself won't be satisfied with their autogen at the moment, but WE are in no real position to determine where the problems are!

"this is a very good example why they mustn't listen to their customers"

 

With all due respect that is no,no, way a business should operate-but then I grew up in a time when " the customer is always right" was the credo that was a proven way for a successful businesses-after all it is "their" money that is supporting "your" product.

 

I understand his post completely-I did a post well documented 1year ago showing with screen shots very graphically and systematically where the scenery system of xplane was/still is a collosal fail for my part of the world.

 

I also was and still am a commentator on the flight model failures since the early versions of xplane. Despite being labelled by some, most of the flight model failures have eventually been addressed-and the torque bug is eagerly awaited.Odd since every time I was told the fm's were perfect in the hands of a master and that I must be a FSX xplane hater instead of addressing the real issue- which is an issue-since there were problems with the flight model.

 

" the customer does not know what he wants"?

 

This is and has been the core xplane mindset that IMHO will make this sim never get above the mediocre level and has been always the mindset-and this is such a shame.

 

I've invested so much in ths sim hoping that at some point this mindset will change-but it never seems too. very sad... I am inherently an optimist but years of this mentality which never really changed has tasked my positive attitude which simply hopes all involved have a goal of making their sim the best possible understanding hardware/ software limitations of the time.

 

I have to say-with all my beta tests with other flight sim platforms-when mentioning a flaw or a bug -sometimes we got" you are correct but the powers above us can't allow us to devote time to that now" or " we would like to accomplish that but that would take too much power for the average processor we can't do that now"

 

Never, never, were we we told our perceptions were wrong, or that we were " flight unlimited'ers" or that heaven forbid they should listen to the paying customer who after all is paying the bills.

 

As I' ve said repeatedly this mentality has always been the thing that has held xplane back, and will continue to if not changed.

I've seen little that shows it will ever change...and how about a recognition that the paying customers have been right about a lot- most recently in ground handling in high winds and the torque bug.

but I am not so confident if there will be an open accesible P3D version

 

P3D is far more open than XP, and the new SimDirector has all kinds of possibilities.  http://www.prepar3d.com/news/2013/10/4561/

 

You can also use VS 2012 with P3D ... SDK is considerably better than XP's.  And what's with some XP aircraft requiring a Windows box to have Java runtime installed???

 

 

The number of plattforms isn't such a big problem.

 

It's a big problem when you have a tiny number of developers working on XP.

 

 

If you want to really compare X-Plane to FSX You would have to install FSX without any plugins, otherwise it would be ridiculous. Simply look at the amount of money that you have to put into FSX to reach this level!

 

And I'd love to do the same (put money into it) for XP to bring it up to the current level of FSX, but I can't.  There is no GSX for XP so their airports remain lifeless.  There is no REX for XP, there is no Traffic 360 for XP, there is no FSGRW for XP ... and the list goes on and on.  If Austin is truly interested in growing XP, then he needs to listen to the answer of why these products don't exist for XP.

 

And XP has A LOT of issues and missing features that just aren't being addressed at all ... again, there is NO plan.  How can any 3rd party developer proceed with XP when "the plan" is month to month?

 

I can't take XP seriously, because it doesn't take me seriously.

 

Rob.