I think we tend to forget how this is tied into the release cycle, when we complain about "slow development." For a sim that costs this much to buy, Laminar can't milk us with once a year major versions. I think they also want the more CPU/GPU-intensive features kept on a longer cycle, to keep in step with the hardware upgrades of the user base. So we're going to see some things, especially the eye candy stuff, deferred for release on that longer product cycle of every 4 years or so. 

 

The alternative to deferring some progress to the major version numbers, would be moving to a monthly subscription model like Adobe is doing with Photoshop. We'd get a constant stream of improvements, but only as long as we pay our monthly fees. You can count me out on that one. That's also rough on 3rd party add-on developers, a problem X-Plane already has in getting some of them on board.

 

 

  Nothing that was promised for one major release has a reason to fall in to the next major release because of the need to generate money, other than that they don't have to add anything more than fixing bugs and ironing out issues.   In a space with healthy competition their updates might include more features to stay competitive though.

 

    IMHO, I don't think x-plane is suited for a subscription based update service,  I don't think they have the man power to keep up the pace.  When you add up what most subscription based services cost its a lot more than the one off every few years.   The manpower is not there to deliver the additional content I would want for that amount of $$

I agree they don't have the staff to deliver enough content with the subscription model, but I think the main drawback there would be the constant shifting sand under the 3rd party add-on companies. They're already complaining about this, from what I've heard, with the current constant beta update schedule. It's not too bad if a change breaks the HDR cockpit lighting effects, but when the underlying flight engine is altered, that generates major headaches. Developers like Carenado and PMDG are used to a stable platform in FSX.

 

On the other hand, with a sim that's still moving forward, they have the opportunity to charge for updates to their planes when a new X-Plane version rolls out. I've paid upgrade costs for many planes I bought for v9, that had either better models rolled out for v10, or just better compatibility for v10 features. Ideally, the dev offers a lower upgrade cost to former buyers, but many just charge full price for the upgrade.

 

That's gotta be attractive for these companies; knowing they can get further revenue from their plane models (as long as it is actually an improvement). And it wouldn't work with the subscription model. There would no longer be major revision targets to aim for.

 

Subscription model would not work well as people use flight sims off and on all the time and the way X Plane does things is fine, but I do think UI needs some improvements on it.  If they want to charge for eye candy like Airports and pretty aircraft that would be fine just a monthly payment, no thanks. 

So you  agree with the following  10 seconds of this posted the other day, starting at 57 secs.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDltW3znb5o#t=57

 

Funny video indeed, first time I see it, but not quite sure about that video, I agree with my post. How about that?

In fact I love the user interface, perhaps is unfriendly but it has a professional look for a simulation not a game interface with lots of effects like a console. 

 

   Yes, the video is quite funny, and meant to be so rather than a review.  It's when I read this part of your quote it reminded me of those ten seconds, pretty much what he was implying

The reaction I meant was at 11minutes 30seconds

I often find it odd, that people that may have spent hours and hours learning to program a complex FMC in the other sim, complain that they cannot work out the UI in X-Plane. Yes it's not overly intuitive but like anything complex, you need to spend some time working it out. 

yidahoo, I agree, the UI is not so complex that any simmer cannot work it out.    Why though?

 

   If there were three hotels on a street and two of them looked good and one of them looked bad from the outside it's little wonder people pass that hotel by even though it might have the best service on the inside.

 

    People often judge based on the presentation and we know from comments some people haven't got themselves past the UI.

 

    If it was the hotel then the hotel would have gone out of business.   LR don't need the business of the people that don't like the UI so they are not going out of business, they can live with it.

I like the chicken and egg attitude people have about supporting the platform. They won't buy it or buy products within it until it offers you something better, but none of those things will happen, or at least won't happen very quickly if you don't put money in their pockets. Some people just throw money at companies they like like a vote of confidence. PMDG says it will evaluate the plausibility of using X-Plane as a platform for its products if its financially viable, but many people won't go to X-Plane til it has a PMDG aircraft.

 

I can't really understand why people will pay hundreds of dollars, often thousands, for FSX add ons but won't spare less than a C note to get into X-Plane and support its community so that it has a viability for the same content developers who make FSX worth playing years after it should have been replaced.

 

Do people ever stop to remember that there were enough people buying FSX and 2004 and 2002 when they came out to justify a massive corporation investing in it, and as a result we had big content developers show up to keep the platform going? This being before PMDG was putting something out thats as good as the NGX? I mean shoot, you go back to the previous generation PMDG stuff and if that were in X-Plane people would still be annoyed because it doesn't look as good as the new stuff.

 

I think its just silly. Amazing demonstration of the irrational nature of brand loyalty however.

In fact I love the user interface, perhaps is unfriendly but it has a professional look for a simulation not a game interface with lots of effects like a console. As I said in other post, it's about our preferences not the game and or the simulation itself. But I agree that to some the interface may look ugly. Just try to focus in the good things of the software, you may end liking it a lot and having much fun.

I agree with Alexander.  Having used the Microsoft products for many years and others before that, I found the interface to be a little daunting and still do sometimes, but it gives you so much more control than the simplistic interface in any of the others.  It is not a "game" where you can open it up, choose your level (such as recruit) and start shooting.  It is what it is - a simulator.  Yes, it may not suit some, but no "game" does either.  We are all different and focus on different aspects.  I will say that Laminar is responsive to our wishes and comes through with changes, if possible, very quickly.  I think that their small team, although severely overworked, is interested in our wishes and is anxious to see them implemented, if practical.  Microsoft, on the other hand, is, for all practical purposes (in the flight simulation area), dead. P3D (yes, I have tried it) seems to be trying, but the failure to advance to 64 bit has dampened my enthusiasm.

 

John

I like the chicken and egg attitude people have about supporting the platform. They won't buy it or buy products within it until it offers you something better, but none of those things will happen, or at least won't happen very quickly if you don't put money in their pockets. Some people just throw money at companies they like like a vote of confidence. PMDG says it will evaluate the plausibility of using X-Plane as a platform for its products if its financially viable, but many people won't go to X-Plane til it has a PMDG aircraft.

 

I can't really understand why people will pay hundreds of dollars, often thousands, for FSX add ons but won't spare less than a C note to get into X-Plane and support its community so that it has a viability for the same content developers who make FSX worth playing years after it should have been replaced.

 

Do people ever stop to remember that there were enough people buying FSX and 2004 and 2002 when they came out to justify a massive corporation investing in it, and as a result we had big content developers show up to keep the platform going? This being before PMDG was putting something out thats as good as the NGX? I mean shoot, you go back to the previous generation PMDG stuff and if that were in X-Plane people would still be annoyed because it doesn't look as good as the new stuff.

 

I think its just silly. Amazing demonstration of the irrational nature of brand loyalty however.

 

 

There is a reason why people brand loyal.. I think the isuse is not that people don't want to switch to X-Plane 10. It's that x-plane is still far behind the competition on many key aspect. If you have to google the answer you are looking for everytime you need to do something specific in x-plane 10, you know the guil lack organization and functionallity.  It wouldn't hurt if they did a little overhaul.

 

The flying part is actually good.

I think the isuse is not that people don't want to switch to X-Plane 10. It's that x-plane is still far behind the competition on many key aspec

 

Are you talking about FSX vanilla or FSX+gazillion addons?

 

FSX plain vanilla would be far, waaayyyy far behind XPX for sure.

Are you talking about FSX vanilla or FSX+gazillion addons?

 

FSX plain vanilla would be far, waaayyyy far behind XPX for sure.

 

At least FSX vanilla had  a working GPS stack in the Cessna 172...

 

Of course I am talking about FSX + Addons.

P3D (yes, I have tried it) seems to be trying, but the failure to advance to 64 bit has dampened my enthusiasm.

 

It will be interesting to see how that goes. I suspect it will involve a big trade-off between what the FSX code *could* do, if it was just optimized for 64-bit without any other considerations, and also making it backwards-compatible enough for existing add-ons. And even then, many of the 3rd party developers will have to re-write some plugin code, like the X-Plane developers have done with the move to 64-bit. 

 

If and when it happens, P3D will probably follow X-Plane's example and provide both 32-bit and 64-bit versions at the same time, to ease the transition.

Next version of Aerofly will  cover the whole world, with time of day / date, better flight dynamics, etc... and there are already some promising photos....

 

They usually announce only when ready for release.

 

The presently available aircraft modules will not be upward compatible given the complexity of the changes.