Could they redevelop it to take advantage of todays hardware? Including dynamic lighting, 3D clouds, hi res textures, 64 bit?

 

You can do anything you want if you have source code.

The answer to the original question is pretty simple.  By a wide margin, FSX is the preferred platform of simmers, at least here on AVSIM, which I think, in terms of sample size, is a fair approximation of the flight sim community overall.

 Further, the suggestion that if developers like PMDG were to stop developing for FSX, everyone would suddenly dump FSX in favor of the newer platforms, is a rather naive idea that has been pretty thoroughly debunked.  If it were in fact true, no one would be using FS2002, FS2004, MS Flight, or even XP9 for that matter, all of which have a higher percentage of users than either P3D or XPX at the moment.  Maybe, someday, your wish will come true, but were it me, I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

And just a reminder guys (and gals :smile:), we're here in the PMDG forum so you need to sign your real name at the end of your posts, per forum rules.

 

Cheers,

Jeff

Jeff, do you have X-plane 10?

I do and over the past two weeks with it I have seen the writing on the wall. X-Plane is the future for FS.

 

"everyone would suddenly dump FSX in favor of the newer platforms, is a rather naive idea  that has been pretty thoroughly debunked. "

Debunked where and by whom?

As of right now I will no longer purchase any addons for FSX as I consider it an ancient and dead platform for future development.

Trust me when I say that I've spent as much as anyone here on FS products.

 

All the things FSX and P3D aspire to, XP10 already is as far as a base platform.

Give XP the time FSX has under it's belt with commercial development- in five years we won't believe our eyes especially considering XP has an active development team constantly improving the product.

Swing by the Screen Shot forum and see for yourself the photos that have been posted recently of XP and decide for yourself.

As more commercial developers come online with XP products, it's just a matter of time.

 

Gene

Until X Plane has a worldwide scenery database like FSX it won't compete with it for the average user. It might be acceptable for flying around North America but it's a fairly blank canvas elsewhere.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/430855-results-of-the-2013-avsim-community-demographics-survey/?hl=+poll#

 

Jeff, do you have X-plane 10?

I do and over the past two weeks with it I have seen the writing on the wall. X-Plane is the future for FS.

 

"everyone would suddenly dump FSX in favor of the newer platforms, is a rather naive idea  that has been pretty thoroughly debunked. "

Debunked where and by whom?

As of right now I will no longer purchase any addons for FSX as I consider it an ancient and dead platform for future development.

Trust me when I say that I've spent as much as anyone here on FS products.

 

All the things FSX and P3D aspire to, XP10 already is as far as a base platform.

Give XP the time FSX has under it's belt with commercial development- in five years we won't believe our eyes especially considering XP has an active development team constantly improving the product.

Swing by the Screen Shot forum and see for yourself the photos that have been posted recently of XP and decide for yourself.

As more commercial developers come online with XP products, it's just a matter of time.

 

Gene

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/430855-results-of-the-2013-avsim-community-demographics-survey/?hl=+poll#

 

Well, I've been at this for over 30 years myself. so I think I have a pretty good barometer on which to judge.  The poll above shows clearly that people don't start throwing their older versions of flight sim into the fireplace every time a developer chooses one platform over another.  A choice, by the way, that is generally predicated on economic concerns, hence my assertion that FSX will continue to be the platform of choice for these developers for some time to come, as FSX is where the money is right now.  You've been using XPX for two weeks  That's great. But a two week positive experience with a platform doesn't exactly make my socks roll up and down over its' future.  As I said in my earlier post, "Maybe, someday, your wish will come true, but were it me, I wouldn't hold my breath."  Even you said "Give XP the time FSX has under it's belt with commercial development- in five years we won't believe our eyes especially considering XP has an active development team constantly improving the product."  So that would seem to indicate that you agree with my position that it isn't going to happen anytime soon.  I agree that Laminar Research has done a nice job on improving their product over the years, but if memory serves, they've been working on it since about 1993, so I think it's fair to say that they've had every bit the time FSX has had, and then some.  And yes, I have taken the time to try it out.  As for putting money on their future, however, I think I'll wait to see the final outcome of the patent infringement lawsuit filed against them a year or so ago, before I decide. 
  Given that the future of the flight simulation hobby is essentially, as it stands now, a two horse race, I don't think it's unfair to suggest that Laminar Research is the clear underdog.   You mention that they have an "active development team constantly improving the product."  That's very true.  Notwithstanding that fact, I'd like to point out that their competition is Lockheed Martin, the worlds leading defense contractor; makers of the F-35 fighter, the PAC-3 missile (Patriot), the JASSM and the Navy's new Trident II D5 ballistic missile system. They're also acknowledged leaders in a variety of other hardware and software programs, not least of which is flight simulators, an area in which they have been actively engaged for decades.  So I think they know a thing or two about developing a competitive product.  This is a company, mind you, that last year saw profits of $5.5B on revenue of just over $44B, so I think one can surmise that they just might be around for a little while longer.  That this company chose to acquire and further develop Microsoft's intellectual property over that of Laminar Research is rather telling, to say the least.  I don't know about you, but I know what horse my money's on.  The fact that PMDG is going to be working with LM on real world training products for P3D is amazing to me.  It is testament to their continued dedication and commitment to excellence and the fidelity of their products, and is probably the greatest success story to come out of the Flight sim hobby...ever!! 
  I hope I've adequately addressed your issues with my previous comment.  Certainly, I'm always open for good debate, but in the future, if you're going to attack my assertions, you may want to consider coming at me with more than just a "I've been using this product for two weeks and it's the greatest thing since sliced bread" disposition.

 

Cheers,  :smile:

Jeff

Watch the numbers change in favor for X-Plane 10 when PMDG and other addons start developing for that platform.

Is it not time to move towards a new sim that can accommodate these excellent add ons and allow us to use them to their maximum potential? FSX is fundamentally flawed and must be a nightmare to work with. 4GB of VAS? 32 bits? Limited core functionality? This is 2014, FSX is holding us back! Is it not time to move to a solid platform that allows continuous growth/progression without the need to tweak, fiddle and compromise?

We have the hardware for it, we have the add ons for it we just don't have the platform.

X-plane is 64 bit and takes advantage of todays hardware, not to mention it being a far more realistic flight model. As soon as PMDG jump ship to X-plane there will be a surge as the benefits are massive! Not to mention huge progression within simming in general.

So, why continue to develop for something as restrictive and archaic as FSX?

 

We already have it. The sim is called Prepar3d V2. It IS the successor to FSX.

 

I can't really see X-Plane going anywhere to be honest, simply due to basic economics that the bulk of simmers have a large investment in FSX add-ons that are easily ported to Prepar3d at no additional cost to customers.

 

Oh and by the way. Don't believe the garbage about Prepar3d being restricted as to who can purchase and use it.

 

I already have prepar3d installed (and I suspect so do many others) and waiting for some of my favourite add-ons to become available before I turf FSX for good.

Surely there will come a point whereby FSX cannot handle a complete flight without an OOM crash, it's not far off that now

 

How exactly? If you know how to balance your settings properly and don't enable too much irrelevant scenery at all times you will never encounter OOM's. 

 

Anyway there's always Prepar3d V2 which might go 64 bit some time. I've invested way too much in FSX addons to suddenly switch to X Plane. Adequate backward compatibility is definitely one of the major good points of Prepar3d. 

 

 

 

 

Regards

 

Joona L

Jeff, I'm just going to keep this on the high road.

 

As I spent time with FSX I was somewhat in denial to myself as I noted alarmingly that FSX was done.

As I explored the environment, the flight dynamics, the smoothness, the in depth scenery and night lighting I knew it was all over for FSX's engine.
All the time, all of the money, all of the projects I put into MS FS were now at an end and it was time to move forward.

 

To move forward, Lockheed Martin is a company I'm very familiar with from a professional standpoint.

They are not in the entertainment title business. Their decisions are business driven to further their high grade simulators. The FS community is fortunate to have LM offer the product to the public but I've seen nothing from LM to indicate that they are going to build what we want.

To look to LM to further the MS FS engine to what we all want it to be, I feel is somewhat wishful thinking.

 

The two weeks I've spent with XP has shown it to be a far superior simulator engine in all aspects.

Default FSX vs Default XP-10- XP-10 blows FSX out of the water.. not even close.

 

The FSX edge is the aircraft that have been developed over the past decade as developers learned to work within it's constraints.

 

The trip wire could very well be a PMDG quality release for X-Plane, and at that point the stampede will be on.

 

As do you, I know who I'm going to be putting my money on.

 

Gene

 

 

The sim is called Prepar3d V2

You referring too OOM Maximus version 2?

They are not in the entertainment title business. Their decisions are business driven to further their high grade simulators. The FS community is fortunate to have LM offer the product to the public but I've seen nothing from LM to indicate that they are going to build what we want.

To look to LM to further the MS FS engine to what we all want it to be, I feel is somewhat wishful thinking.

 

So far everything indicates that they are building what we want. LM seems to listen us simmers very much and based on my experience their support is great too.

 

Why would "what we want" necessarily differ from what Prepar3d is aiming for? I don't think they are planning to turn Prepar3d into an airline training simulator, I rather see it as something a PPL student would use which wouldn't be any different from what we most of the simmers are probably looking for. 

 

 

 

The two weeks I've spent with XP has shown it to be a far superior simulator engine in all aspects.

Default FSX vs Default XP-10- XP-10 blows FSX out of the water.. not even close.

 

How exacly? Last time I checked default X plane aircraft didn't fly any better than FSX ones and they also had quite inferior sounds, especially touchdowns sounded horrible at least the last time I tried. 

 

Scenery wise both look very generic in most areas without any addons. 

You referring too OOM Maximus version 2?

 

Whatever dude. P3D V2 is loving my GTX 780.

Watch the numbers change in favor for X-Plane 10 when PMDG and other addons start developing for that platform.

 

I would tend to agree with you, but there again, when I did ............ you disagreed with my earlier post copied below for your convenience ??????

 

But we have X-Plane 64 bit and P3Dv2? Opportunities are there for those that want to take advantage of it, surely? I'm really not quite sure what you are getting at.

 

Oh, just noticed this is the PMDG forum. They have stated that they will look at P3Dv2 and X-Plane. So again, not quite sure what the point of your post is?

 

Dave B

 

Strange character indeed. Are you just a ......... (dare I say it) ........... fa**** ........... no, no I wont.  :lol:  :lol:

 

Dave B

Let me ask 1 question here:

Microsoft made $$millions on Flight Sim 2000-FSX, why did they pull out? Is flight simming completely dead for Microsoft?

 

For a $142,000,000,000 company, don't they have the resources to continue with such a successful product like FSX?

Let me ask 1 question here:

Microsoft made $$millions on Flight Sim 2000-FSX, why did they pull out? Is flight simming completely dead for Microsoft?

 

For a $142,000,000,000 company, don't they have the resources to continue with such a successful product like FSX?

 

Microsoft has been going down the toilet since MonkeyBoy Ballmer started flushing.

 

P3Dv2 is a 32 bit program too. It's basically FSX with some fixes and stuff done to it.

 

Where do you get your miss-information from? How about dynamic cockpit shadows, native bloom (no performance penalty), volumetric fog, improved memory management, better use of CPU cores, and a new DirectX11 rendering engine. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Let me ask 1 question here:

Microsoft made $$millions on Flight Sim 2000-FSX, why did they pull out? Is flight simming completely dead for Microsoft?

 

For a $142,000,000,000 company, don't they have the resources to continue with such a successful product like FSX?

 

Maybe their company culture is to focus on those areas that give them and their shareholders the best return? I don't see them being a charity, they are after all, a normal everyday business. Nothing wrong with that. Nobody knows exactly what sort of money they made from the franchise apart from their accountants. So if they did indeed make millions, as you suggest, then I think it is safe to assume that their acquisition, development, distribution and marketing costs, projected growth margins and (dare I say it) ..... profit margins made MSFS sit uncomfortably amongst their core business products.

 

Why has nobody else really picked up and developed another MSFS entertainment distribution product? Because there is not a great enough return for the investment required. 

 

Why do they no longer make Microsoft Combat Simulator, or Microsoft Train Simulator, or Microsoft Space Simulator, or ???? .................and the list goes on and on!

 

Dave B