Why does the flight simulator community just settle?

[dighost 25]

Why do we as a community settle for old flight simulator software made by a long gone company, or software that will never meet the demands of our hobby?   It's been brought up before by many that the cost to create a new flight simulator is out of reach and not possible.  But I look around at projects like Elite Dangerous and Star Citizen, and heck even that train simulator "Trainz" who have turned to Kickstarter and have been funded with millions of dollars.  Two space simulator games and a train simulator game reached their goals.   But nobody, and I'm talking about developers like PMDG who have the know-how, will step up to the plate to even try a Kickstarter campaign for a new Flight Simulator?  The days of having to craft a new game engine and every asset are over.  There are amazing game engines out there, like Crytek 3 (same engine Star Citizen is using) or Outerra or many others.  Ten or five years ago, I would have agreed that it wasn't feasible... but now, there are so many resources and new ways to develop and fund games, like Steam Alpha, that there is no excuse!   Sorry, it's just damn frustrating watching other games get developed while we settle.

[saed45 38]

not true. outtera is gonna do the kickstarter for flight sim but they arent ready yet. hopefully happens this year

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

If Google would just make a sim out of Earth and get PMDG and RealAir to make airplanes for it...woh.

[Guest Mik75]

I enjoy X-Plane 10, the most modern, up to date, 64 bit powered, amazingly realistic looking and feeling flight simulator a lot!

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

If there is a complexity of a vehicle in the real world, then their will be a complexity in recreating that in a simulated world.

Trains are basically 1800's technology with improvements, so not hard to make Train Simulators. Car or Truck simulators are not so hard either and are really profitable so good return on your investments.

Aircraft are far more complex then Trains, Trucks or Cars therefore Flight Simulators are complex with less return on your investment....and besides Flight Sim Enthusiasts are the worst customers because if you don't meet their expectations they will crap all over you.  :ph34r:

[tf51d 284]

Name me one other graphic engine that's not CPU based, that can render an environment 120miles in any direction and seamlessly render the next, and the next all the way around the globe , Even X-Plane with it's 64bits doesn't do that (100nm max and only at certain levels)! It does this while rendering the base ground scenery overlaying addon scenery as appropriate, autogen, a sky worthy of Mother Nature, right out to the horizon, AI traffic in the hundreds, XP with it's 64 bits still can only handle 20. Very high detail aircraft simulations (PMDG) that's even the professionals use. On top of all that a decent ATC system, and even better Addon ATC solutions. Aerosoft themselves tried to find a game engine that could do all the things we do with FSX, and they couldn't find one. Steve Lacey, God rests his soul, said a long time ago that it would be quite a long time before we see a GPU based rendering engine that can handle everything a global Flight Simulation needs to. To date he hasn't been proven wrong, although it looks like Outerra looks to be the most promising, but it's still in it's infancy stage. Time will tell if they do develop a global flightsim and if it can handle it as well.  You can poop on it all you want but today FSX and by extension P3D of which it is based on, is the most complete Flightsim solution we have today! Too many people take it far too much for granted.  Yeah these other GPU game engines look very detailed, but the size of their universe is generally limited, and not practical for a global Flightsim App.

[User72 28]

I agree with Mik75, with a very little amount of research and a little effort, X-Plane 10 has become for me everything I could want of a flightsim and I'm kinda fussy. It really does leave the rest as also-rans as far as I'm concerned. :Party:

[dighost 25]

I'm not suggesting that development of a flight simulator is on par or less complex than a train sim for example.  My point is that no credible developer has tried to Kickstart or crowd fund a new simulation using the new pay models (alpha pay) that many other games are using.  So why doesn't a developer like PMDG or Aerosoft just calculate how much it would cost to create a new simulator, then create a Kickstarter campaign and see what happens?  What's to lose?

[coa1117 53]

FSX and by extension P3D of which it is based on, is the most complete Flightsim solution we have today!

 

Emphasis on the word "complete," this is as true as true can be.

 

I agree with the OP that a new sim based on modern code that takes advantage of the power of today's and tomorrow's technologies is something to look forward to. However, until that breakthrough product hits the shelves we still have a great simulator in FSX. Sure it's cantakerous, resource greedy, 32-bit and all the rest. But from the standpoint of sheer immersion, mostly owing to the multitude of 3rd parties continuing to develop awesome scenery, aircraft, weather and many cool utilities for it, there really is no competition.

 

I seriously do not mean to offend people who like X-Plane (I hung in there with it for 10 years, so I believe I have some basis for what I'm about to say), but if X-Plane had had that kind of 3rd party support 5 or more years ago, and had turned over core development to people who actually understand what flight simmers want, it would no doubt be the premier simulator today - far surpassing FSX's popularity. But that's not how it went down, and still is not going down, so I am not at all hopeful that X-Plane will ever be the evolutionary product we all want to see.

[mganz121 159]

 

 

Why do we as a community settle for old flight simulator software made by a long gone company, or software that will never meet the demands of our hobby?

 

I really can't answer that as there are indeed other sims available. But I do recognise that because FSX has been around so long (so VERY long), with the growth of payware many hobbyists have a large financial investment in that particular product. That in itself creates a perceived barrier to change. In other words, they may have a desire to change but also happy enough to sit where they are and moan about it. Many people do, at the end of the day, resist change, especially when they have a vested interest in the status quo.

 

Why do many resist the opportunity to run two or more products on the same pc, thus resisting the opportunity to move slowly to a new platform? Ask the community and they will come up with many different reasons, some valid and some quite ludicrous.

 

 

 

 

But nobody, and I'm talking about developers like PMDG who have the know-how, will step up to the plate to even try a Kickstarter campaign for a new Flight Simulator?

 

That's a question that only PMDG can answer. But regardless of any particular developer maybe they recognise or perceive that the business risk is too high (see above).

 

Sometimes it makes sense to protect the previous investment and business that you have by staying focused on that, rather than put it at risk by further investment in a more complex opportunity. That opportunity may ultimately fail to deliver an adequate or quick enough return, potentially destroying (or at a very minimum) putting at risk that which you already built and rely on to provide income.

 

Regardless, you never know what's around the corner. But I will say this - this hobby is in a better state now than it was a few years ago, so let's just enjoy it.

[coa1117 53]

So why doesn't a developer like PMDG or Aerosoft just calculate how much it would cost to create a new simulator, then create a Kickstarter campaign and see what happens? What's to lose?

 

Maybe they've already assessed the amount of capital required to develop and launch the kind of product we're talking about and don't see KickStarter as a viable method of raising that kind of financial support. We're probably talking at least $15-30M, don't you think? Neither company is exactly forthcoming about their business model and plans, so the fact is that none of us knows for sure what has gone on behind the scenes in terms of moving our hobby forward. I'm also not hopeful that P3D will ever be what most of us are looking for, i.e., a technologically modern, consumer-focused, highly immersive experience of flight simulation. But, again, who knows? They aren't talking either, but my sense is that's they're all about military and big commercial money.

[AirborneZed 168]

Dighost.

 

I think I have some of your answer.

 

Have a read. http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=40062

[pracines 823]

My opinion is that the status quo will remain as long as opposition to the status quo is shot down and labeled as "an agenda" by 99% of the moderators of every flight simulation forum. Nobody can voice a negative comment (with the intention of having something positive come out from it) about anything these days, as if it were a final judgment to damnation. But I was at a funeral yesterday and the pastor judged the deceased into Heaven; what made him so sure, I have no idea, but you will never hear somebody say that person is in Hell at a funeral as sure as they say they are in Heaven. 

 

Truth and honesty are foreign anymore, so we go stagnate (just settle) or go backwards; its inevitable. Flight simulation is no different. We are leveling off and may even nose dive if something is not done. The forums are absolutely full of screenshots with all the positive feedback all the while home flight simulation is slowly fading away. Seems to be a blindness to the reality, but its really because negative comments are strictly forbidden.I know there are limits but the FS community needs to have a pitcher of ice water poured on its face while its asleep. 

 

I realize that some companies are making some advancements and my XP10, FS9, FSX, and P3D V2 are looking pretty good, but it would be so much better if the standards of advancement/development were as high as they used to be. I believe 9/11 was that which started the problems for flight simulation. We also had airlines griping about official logo being used on AI planes, and virtual airlines clashing with real world counterparts. Its almost scary these days to be a flight simulation development company, such a shame to be hindered by technicalities and evil in the world.  

 

If only we had an all new modern platform that totally takes advantage of the latest hardware, like we had in the past. I have Outerra installed and it may have potential. However, these days we have FS development companies that have 2 or 3 people with careers that have nothing to do with simming, and they get around to developing for flight sim when they get a chance maybe as little as 4 weeks a year. But since everybody says the flight simulation market is tiny, then we will remain tiny and regress to nothing eventually.  

 

The question is, are there any companies able to afford to develop for the very tiny flight simulation community, well they can if they have a full time day job, and this brings customer service to all time lows. I would much rather have no community then a community where customer care is almost nonexistent.

 

LM is really the only possibility the way I see it, but even they have such limited resources, or we would have had a new 64 bit platform available by now.

 

My outlook is that this community must just settle because its too tiny. Since 1988 (FS3) I have seen flight simulators and development companies come and go. To see MS ACES close..... well that speaks volumes.

[User72 28]

It's hard to tell whether it's the third party development companies themselves or the community that is holding things back. A bit of both I suppose. The 3PD's like the status quo because it's their revenue stream and the community seems unwilling to change, seek or push for more than they have. If individual community members were more inclined to seek out and support alternatives then the companies would surely follow. I've run and supported all the available sims on my machine and purchased the good addon products when they became available provided they were quality. However I've come to the point where in my own opinion the FSX/P3d platform has accomplished all that it seems it can for me except for little tweaks here and there by companies concerned. The sense of anticipation of better things to come is gone there for me. It's certainly not moving forward apace anymore imo. I'm not into flame wars and am not seeking one but it seems to me that the sim which has most improved very lately and is most improving on an ongoing basis is X-Plane. There is a sense of community there on XP that used to exist with FS9/FSX/P3d but that I don't see there anymore. There is a sense of excitement that XP is developing quickly and will continue to do so. There is a vibrant freeware community like that which used to exist with FSX/FS9 but that has been replaced by commercial entities now.

I just got sick of seeing my money invested not improve the FSX/P3d platform to the value of the spend. I agree that for me at least, those platforms appear stagnant and stale, I now get the kind of enjoyment I used to get from them from XP.

This is just my personal experience as someone open to change and exploring the alternatives. I think the community have made the collective conscious decisions to settle and it's probably due to their individual investments over time that amount to a commitment to one platform or another over a desire to see more and possibly better development. Those who maintain an interest in the status quo will lobby for it on the various fora and actively resist change when the suggestion is raised. There is no unity of purpose any more. We are our own worst enemies.

[dighost 25]

Dighost.

 

I think I have some of your answer.

 

Have a read. http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=40062

Thanks for the read.   It's good to know that business is still good.  

 

 

We are our own worst enemies.

 

I have to agree!  Look at the Elite: Dangerous campaign for example.  25,000 backers for a new game based on one originally made in 1984.  It pulled in around $2 million.   I think I have heard that the active flight sim community is around the 40-60K mark?  I'm positive we could pull in triple the amount or more.  

 

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous

 

Here is a quick video of where development is at.