What our hobby really needs is a simulator that takes recent hardware trends into account.

 

It could be argued that X-Plane 10 is that simulator, but its very low (or at least relatively low) full-time adoption rate by the simulation faithful seems to contradict any theories that say a forward looking simulator in and of itself will be what end users want.

 

Simmers want a fresh platform with growth potential, but I think they also want very strongly to take their toys along with them. This is one of the reasons why for an ever increasing number of simmers, P3D is a very interesting reality. It might not be breaking through the 32-bit ceiling yet, but it improves on things a lot AND you can bring along a very healthy number of addons you may already own. Never underestimate the power of the "ecosystems" surrounding the various simulation options... and how personal those ecosystems might be from one person to the next.

 

-Greg

Why is everyone talking about it like it's one or the other and you have to "switch"? Computers can have multiple programs installed you know right? You can easily have FS9, FSX, P3D, XPlane etc all on the same computer.

You can easily have Windows XP, Vista, 7 and 8 on the same computer...

But why would you?

 

The only reason people stick to old sims is because the their software is not (yet) supported *cough*.

You can easily have Windows XP, Vista, 7 and 8 on the same computer...

But why would you?

 

The only reason people stick to old sims is because the their software is not (yet) supported *cough*.

Hardly the same. An operating system is a means to an end, nothing more. I have FS9 and FSX on my system and if I wanted I could easily have XPlane or P3D too. They don't need maintaining, unless you are obsessed by tweaking, and are not mutually exclusive. So Ryan is quite correct.

 

FSX isn't just a flight simulation engine though. It's become a rich ecosystem. Moving away from that is a massive wrench. A move I see no good reason to consider at this point.

 

A new simulator isn't necessarily good just because it is new. Flight was new and some people tried very hard to push it as the way forward but it was hopelessly misconceived.

Hardly the same. An operating system is a means to an end, nothing more. I have FS9 and FSX on my system and if I wanted I could easily have XPlane or P3D too. They don't need maintaining, unless you are obsessed by tweaking, and are not mutually exclusive. So Ryan is quite correct.

 

FSX isn't just a flight simulation engine though. It's become a rich ecosystem. Moving away from that is a massive wrench. A move I see no good reason to consider at this point.

 

A new simulator isn't necessarily good just because it is new. Flight was new and some people tried very hard to push it as the way forward but it was hopelessly misconceived.

An OS is not a means to an end.. it has features, performance, looks just like a sim.

An OS is not a means to an end.. it has features, performance, looks just like a sim.

Not "just like" at all. FSX is FSX whether you run it under Apple OS or Windows. The OS merely enables you to run it. The complications of running three different sims on one PC are nothing compared to the complications of running three different OSs on one PC. Each sim is, essentially, just another application.

 

 

A new simulator isn't necessarily good just because it is new. Flight was new and some people tried very hard to push it as the way forward but it was hopelessly misconceived.

 

Flight was already stillborn at conception. For casual players it was a borefest and it had no allure to simmers whatsoever. Technology wise it was barely a step forward. It was more like a FSX+.

 

I do agree on the ecosystem argument, but have we not had the same situation when FSX began to supercede FS9? Eventually most people switched over and binned a lot of the addons they could not port over. Why are many people more reluctant to switch nowadays? Or is it actually the same as before? We had the "must buy everything again or pay for upgrades" thing before.

 

P3D is getting a lot of support from developers because it offers (more or less) easy cross-plattform development like back in the twilight days of FS9/FSX. They don't really want or can not support another platform fully because it involves higher risk and the consumer is shooting himself in the foot by funding this low risk approach.

 

I will rather be waiting for a real game changer before I empty my pocket again for the same aircraft and scenery yet again. And neither XP10 nor P3D seem to be game changing. Better invest in something revolutionary when it comes around - if ever.

I do agree on the ecosystem argument, but have we not had the same situation when FSX began to supercede FS9? Eventually most people switched over and binned a lot of the addons they could not port over. Why are many people more reluctant to switch nowadays? Or is it actually the same as before? We had the "must buy everything again or pay for upgrades" thing before.

 

I never understood the clamour for a new version of FS every two years back then either. I can only assume some enthusiasts just like spending money for no good reason. It should be remembered that FSX had a lot of built-in potential, it was years before PC hardware caught up with that completely.

 

As for Flight, some people really did see it as the future, simply because it was new. (It could have been if MS had allowed it to be open and customisable.) My point was new isn't everything. It has to be better, much better, to make the change worthwhile.

 

I will rather be waiting for a real game changer before I empty my pocket again for the same aircraft and scenery yet again. And neither XP10 nor P3D seem to be game changing. Better invest in something revolutionary when it comes around - if ever.

 

I'm not sure whether "game changing" in a new sim is even possible, apart from making the new sim more "gamey", adding cut scenes, virtual crew rooms for flight planning, etc. The flight simulation itself is already nearly as good as it gets (certainly good enough for practical purposes). It wouldn't be hard to add more realistic flight dynamics so FSX/P3D could match XPlane in that regard. You could add more detailed scenery everywhere of course, but users of PMDG sims spend much more time in cruise than they do near the ground so such extra detail is less important for these forum users than it would be for a bush flying enthusiast.

 

What is truly game changing are the products of developers like PMDG, Orbx and HiFi. What's now available for FSX would have been inconceivable when it was launched. Same platform, much better simulation experience.

 

FSX basically needs more capacity and some bug fixes. P3D can provide both if it goes 64 bit. But at present there is no need for the entire community to take a collective leap in any direction. I won't be jumping to P3D until PMDG have several of their products available for use on it and the licensing and pricing model is more in line with FSX or XPlane. The current P3D pricing structure does not attract me at all.

 

 

I never understood the clamour for a new version of FS every two years back then either. I can only assume some enthusiasts just like spending money for no good reason. It should be remembered that FSX had a lot of built-in potential, it was years before PC hardware caught up with that completely.



As for Flight, some people really did see it as the future, simply because it was new. (It could have been if MS had allowed it to be open and customisable.) My point was new isn't everything. It has to be better, much better, to make the change worthwhile.

 

Agreed.

 

 

 

I'm not sure whether "game changing" in a new sim is even possible, apart from making the new sim more "gamey", adding cut scenes, virtual crew rooms for flight planning, etc.

 

I mean game changing mainly in a technology and optimization way.

 

Multiple CPU threads, compute shader support and smarter rendering - as I mentioned earlier, only a few examples of how I feel one could increase fidelity a lot on less powerful PCs and even more on high-end ones. As it is now, you need an insanely powerful PC to archieve a relatively mediocre level of fidelity. That can and should change.

 

And I appreciate that a simulator needs a certain "technical aesthetic" to it, to keep it usable. It will never have state-of-the-art visual effects and such, as we see in other modern computer games. But the "big 3" simulators look ancient because they are not using the full potential of DirectX/OpenGL/Mantle. There are performance enhancing features in those APIs that every simulator would benefit from, even if the visuals were not much improved over the status quo. But the implementation needs to be there from the get go.

 

The "gamey" things you mentioned are not necessary, but why not create a framework that allows for all that? A virtual FBO might well appeal to some. Make it possible to connect different simulators, i.e. have real people push you back from the gate or have the ATC sit in a visually pleasing tower and watch your aircraft taxi around. Adding this functionality could attract a wider audience and shrink the gap between casual and serious simmers. Do not include all this in the simulator from the start but design the engine so that a third party can implement these features if warranted. In the end it comes down to preference and simming habits. There are professionals that want a tool for training and prefer functionality over fidelity. And there are enthusiasts that just love aviation and want to immerse themselves a bit more. At least implement Oculus Rift support.

 

Regarding pricing, it remains to be seen how and if LM will change their licensing model to embrace the wider flight sim community of non-professionals. If the imaginary pile of dollars is high enough they might, but LM is not known for entertainment, so I would find that an odd decision.

 

 

I do agree on the ecosystem argument, but have we not had the same situation when FSX began to supercede FS9? Eventually most people switched over and binned a lot of the addons they could not port over. Why are many people more reluctant to switch nowadays? Or is it actually the same as before? We had the "must buy everything again or pay for upgrades" thing before.

 

FS9 was roughly 3 years old at the time people started adopting FSX.  Meanwhile FSX was something like 7 years old when P3D v2 came out, which would be the first installment where we could talk about big changes. Also, P3D is, unlike FSX, not aimed at general entertainment market. It is more expensive and it is harder to get or even to learn about. 

 

XPL is totally different - you can pretty much forget all you used in MSFS series, save a select few sceneries.

FS9 was roughly 3 years old at the time people started adopting FSX.  Meanwhile FSX was something like 7 years old when P3D v2 came out, which would be the first installment where we could talk about big changes. Also, P3D is, unlike FSX, not aimed at general entertainment market. It is more expensive and it is harder to get or even to learn about. 

 

XPL is totally different - you can pretty much forget all you used in MSFS series, save a select few sceneries.

 

Exactly. P3D is aimed at the commercial market and probably always will be. The license option section on the website is pretty clear about that. LM are not investing into P3D to appease and redeem us OOM weary simmers. Unless they DO decide to offer a license for "Personal Consumer Entertainment" and perform a serious overhaul of the core engine, it will be a dead end in the long term IMHO.

 

Personally I am not at all interested in P3D - OOM reduction aside, because it is way too expensive for what I am doing with my simulator right now. The cheapest non-academic package would be USD 199. Current FSX scenery and aircraft will work in P3D, but are not necessarily optimized for it, so offer no real additional benefit over running them in FSX. Native P3D products, like PMDG have announced recently, might be more capable but equally more expensive due to licensing

 

P3D is NOT the next FSX. People need to realize this. It will be more expensive to keep current and until now it does not really offer a big advantage over FSX. That is why I am waiting for a entirely new sim or a real step forward with XPlane.

Move over to P3D? I would love to, but there is nothing ready yet from PMDG to fly.

 

One thing I would really look forward to with P3D is better use of the memory, using the processing power better of the PC. Would this be the case? As I understand it FSX is a 32bit programme? 

 

There have been some fantastic deveoplments on FSX, but I feel like I don't want to buy anything else for FSX right now. 

 

I did break that rule and ended up buy ASN because of the realistic cloud features.  

 

I didn't by the 777 because it is for FSX, and I don't think my machine is up to it.

 

 

I'm not sure whether "game changing" in a new sim is even possible, apart from making the new sim more "gamey", adding cut scenes, virtual crew rooms for flight planning, etc. The flight simulation itself is already nearly as good as it gets (certainly good enough for practical purposes). It wouldn't be hard to add more realistic flight dynamics so FSX/P3D could match XPlane in that regard. You could add more detailed scenery everywhere of course, but users of PMDG sims spend much more time in cruise than they do near the ground so such extra detail is less important for these forum users than it would be for a bush flying enthusiast.

I understand your argument but I cant agree with it. FS98 was pretty nearly as good as it gets, it was certainly as good enough until FS2000 came along and showed how much better it could get. PMDG's 747 was head and shoulders one of the best sims on the market, until their MD-11 came along and made it look real old real fast. So yes, FSX is good enough, but  only until something better comes along.

I understand your argument but I cant agree with it. FS98 was pretty nearly as good as it gets, it was certainly as good enough until FS2000 came along and showed how much better it could get. PMDG's 747 was head and shoulders one of the best sims on the market, until their MD-11 came along and made it look real old real fast. So yes, FSX is good enough, but only until something better comes along.

I was talking about the flight sim engine itself, not what PMDG have been able to do with it. Sim engine fidelity barely improved between FS98 and FSX. What changed was graphics capability, improved sound and the development of the VC. That can be further enhanced of course but I don't see how it could be called game changing. Adding a full 6 dof flight model would be great but again is hardly game changing as it is already offered elsewhere.

 

My point was that the real improvements we have seen come from addon developers like PMDG working in a stable environment i.e. no upheaval every two years. Would that have been possible had Microsoft continued to bring out a modified flight sim every two years?

Why is everyone talking about it like it's one or the other and you have to "switch"? Computers can have multiple programs installed you know right?

Right!   :lol: Except that these ones are high maintenance and need add-ons  :lol: I have been dabbled with FS on and off, never in my life as user of a computer program that I must do as much to maintain "the" program.  Kidding aside I only want one sim to deal with, too many things to keep up, beside the one sim, all I want is to have a decent warranty that once I sit down I can finish a flight without the dreaded "AppHang or AppCrash"!  I am watching P3D development carefully.  

 

to the OP: pick your own answer 

Microsoft was seeing profits being made in the Pay to Win market and obviously felt they could do the same in a market they pretty much owned at the time.  So they tossed Ace Studios in the unemployment line and shelved their Flight Sim for a horrible replacement that fooled no one. You'd think MS would have gone back to their previous business model after giving up on Flight, but no.