Progress seems to be slowing for FSX

[vonmar 123]

"The CRJ doesn't look any better today then it did five years ago when it was only a few months from completion."

 

There is something really wrong ..... anybody really know what is really causing such a long development time ??

[por930 51]

I am amazed how long some cycles are. A certain developer creating the A320 is in his 5th year now, and we hear.... getting closer etc. Some of these development teams must have day jobs, several projects on the go and/or have a very understanding bank. Some of the aircraft and sceneries are fantastic quality which must suck up an enormous amount of development time. 

 

I have often wondered what the market size if for the flight sim world and whether it is 'feast or famine' type operations for the developers. Either way, patience is required.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

I understand that this thread is speaking to the generics of FSX development, and I don't think anyone has crossed any lines yet, but please do be careful about discussing other developers here. Again - not a note for anyone in particular - just a generic comment for everyone to be mindful of other developers and how they do what they do.

[kevinh 409]

Oh, I think we can. The CRJ doesn't look any better today then it did five years ago when it was only a few months from completion.

On what basis do you think this? Making definitive sounding statements like that on the basis of personal opinion is very misleading. I think the good people at Aerosoft might disagree strongly with your suggestion that nothing has moved forward with the CRJ project. They are certainly making more confident noises about it being released soon (-ish).

 

The platform can only put so many dots of colour on the screen and can only track so many moving objects at a time. Ten years ago, that was enough to make for an excellent simulation. Five years ago it was good enough but to get what we wanted most of the time it was quite normal to have REX, ASX, GTX, and UTX before we loaded an aircraft or scenery and already we were having to make choices about what not to load. Finally, it doesn't say much for the platform when it can takes so many years to produce a half decent model of anything of even minor complexity.

 

FSX:SE and P3D are real improvements over FSX, but after almost ten years, have then improved enough? Would your teenage kids give it a second look? And if not, what it the future for our hobby?

If kids are put off by the visuals who cares? The depth of simulation in FSX is way beyond what is included in a game like Call of Duty, however real it may feel. Such games model very confined areas in great detail, not the entire world. To a very great extent they are scripted too. That makes it easier to control the content you see.

 

I'm interested in flight simulation, not a game that includes flying. For me the enjoyment is the immersive experience of flying and operating aircraft. Above 3,000 ft I'm not interested in seeing the animation of every tree leaf. ORBX already do an excellent job in FSX of giving the illusion of reality in dynamic scenery. X Plane is 64 bits but less alive looking than 32 bit FSX.

It should also be said the most Full Flight Sims in use have visual systems that are less detailed than FSX. It's only recently that simulator visuals have begun to match game like quality (by adopting gaming graphics technology). If it's realistic enough for pilot training then it's good enough for hobby use.

[Fabo 213]

Ah, I see Avsim includes upvotes once again (yes, it's been probably months, I know. Haven't been around).

 

Excellent opportunity to support Kevins point. Todays overarching focus on graphics is silly. *insert a picture of Graham Chapman in British Army uniform*

[Paul_Smith 92]

On what basis do you think this? Making definitive sounding statements like that on the basis of personal opinion is very misleading. I think the good people at Aerosoft might disagree strongly with your suggestion that nothing has moved forward with the CRJ project. They are certainly making more confident noises about it being released soon (-ish).

 

If kids are put off by the visuals who cares? The depth of simulation in FSX is way beyond what is included in a game like Call of Duty, however real it may feel. Such games model very confined areas in great detail, not the entire world. To a very great extent they are scripted too. That makes it easier to control the content you see.

 

I'm interested in flight simulation, not a game that includes flying. For me the enjoyment is the immersive experience of flying and operating aircraft. Above 3,000 ft I'm not interested in seeing the animation of every tree leaf. ORBX already do an excellent job in FSX of giving the illusion of reality in dynamic scenery. X Plane is 64 bits but less alive looking than 32 bit FSX.

It should also be said the most Full Flight Sims in use have visual systems that are less detailed than FSX. It's only recently that simulator visuals have begun to match game like quality (by adopting gaming graphics technology). If it's realistic enough for pilot training then it's good enough for hobby use.

1) I didn't say it hadn't moved forwards, I am quite aware of policy on such statements. I said it didn't look better, and that wasn't personal opinion, it was based on the screen shots released 5 years ago that have not needed to be updated.

 

2) If kids are put off, whatever the reason, you should care. They are tomorrows customers and without them, this hobby dies.

 

3) Do not be so quick to dismiss the visuals, they are a key part of the immersion factor. Remind your self why you got into flight sim in the first place. There was a time before you land a 777 with an engine out and a failed hydraulic system. Do you remember why you enjoyed flying then? Certainly up until FS2000, Flight Sim was one of the most visually impressive entertainments you could get on a PC, but when CoD and the others are using real world physics for the interaction and lighting of everything on screen, FSX appears flat and dated.  P3D's lighting has improved things, but there is still a way to go.

[kevinh 409]

1) I didn't say it hadn't moved forwards, I am quite aware of policy on such statements. I said it didn't look better, and that wasn't personal opinion, it was based on the screen shots released 5 years ago that have not needed to be updated.

 

2) If kids are put off, whatever the reason, you should care. They are tomorrows customers and without them, this hobby dies.

 

3) Do not be so quick to dismiss the visuals, they are a key part of the immersion factor. Remind your self why you got into flight sim in the first place. There was a time before you land a 777 with an engine out and a failed hydraulic system. Do you remember why you enjoyed flying then? Certainly up until FS2000, Flight Sim was one of the most visually impressive entertainments you could get on a PC, but when CoD and the others are using real world physics for the interaction and lighting of everything on screen, FSX appears flat and dated.  P3D's lighting has improved things, but there is still a way to go.

1) The external model is the first thing developers can show. Why would it get better when they are working to get the systems and flight dynamics working right. The real CRJ still looks the same as it did in 2010. If the Aerosoft CRJ already looked accurate in 2010 how should it be improved since then? Your post said in effect the CRJ could be discounted, as if it was so old it was not worth considering.

 

2) Flight Sim has always been regarded as unattractive by most gamers. My son used to tease me for playing such a boring game. Whizzy graphics will not attract that kind of customer. Maybe a more goal orientated game like MS Flight would do so, but then that would not be attractive for serious simmers..

 

3) Speak for yourself. The first flight sim I flew was a 727-200 FFS. The visuals in that sim were night time only: CGI light points with a few raster surfaces for runway and taxiways. The experience blew me away, even with the very limited visual scene. As I had real sims to play with at work I didn't bother with MSFS until "FS for Windows" which I got bundled with my first PC. I didn't get into simming seriously until FS98. Back then the visuals still weren't great but they were much better than FSFW and free downloads were good enough that you had a reasonably accurate panel to use. The panel always was and still is the most important thing for me in simming.

 

So I didn't get into flight sims for the visuals. I don't stick with FSX because it looks good. But then I don't think it looks at all bad either. Especially since ASN was released. I got caught out by some very low cloud on a short flight into JFK, ending up with around 100 ft DH, which I hadn't anticipated. It was touch and go whether I would land or go-around until the runway lights appeared. That was truly immersive, I can tell you and I was flying the rather dated PMDG 747 as well. You don't need the latest and greatest to have a fantastic experience in flight sim. You don't need 64 bit sims for that either.

 

I've tried XPlane but even with 64 bits and more dynamic lighting it still looks dull in comparison to FSX plus ASN. You only really get the best out of very high resolution, densely animated, images in clear weather. I prefer to fly in the more challenging environment of night or low visibility. FSX still hits the spot very well.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

I think I'm going to, unfortunately, cast a vote in the favor of visuals.

 

I'm with Kevin in that I'm more concerned with the experience. I'd rather have a complex aircraft over a pretty one. I do understand Paul's sentiments, however, in that not having quality visuals could compromise the ability to bring in the newer generations who grew up with great visuals. They don't appreciate how far we've come because they never had to live it like we did.

[IUBrian 151]

I'm ambivalent about whether visuals make a significant difference to kids when it comes to flight simulation. My interest in flight simulation is because I was always interested in flight, thus SubLogic's crude flight simulator on my Commodore 64 was awesome. But I was a kid who always loved airplanes, and always has. My three children, on the other hand, aren't interested in flight, and also laugh at me for flight simming - because it's "boring." I even engage them, try to let them fly some of the simpler planes, tak about how cool it is to "fly" something that very accurately models a real airliner. They don't care - not because the graphics are inferior, but because there's no "goal;" you're just flying from point A to B.

 

I think the same thing is true with models. I used to make plastic model airplanes (and cars) all the time as a kid. In all respects model technology is far superior to when I was a kid, but the enthusiasm seems to have waned - like flight simulation, plastic model making has an enthusiastic but small market. I think if anything kids today have much more limited attention spans when it comes to leisure activities. I think that more than anything contributes to the lack of youth enthusiasm.

[z06z33 763]

I think I'm going to, unfortunately, cast a vote in the favor of visuals.

 

I'm with Kevin in that I'm more concerned with the experience. I'd rather have a complex aircraft over a pretty one. I do understand Paul's sentiments, however, in that not having quality visuals could compromise the ability to bring in the newer generations who grew up with great visuals. They don't appreciate how far we've come because they never had to live it like we did.

I'm all for complexity but without good visuals it kills immersion,I quit flightsims around 2008 because frankly the graphics at that time were horrid and so was performance I thought there was no future in it because they weren't really improving . Thankfully I was wrong once I saw the NGX I decided to come back but it wasn't for its systems it was for its graphics which were so good that it made me take the effort to learn the systems. If a VC and model look good I'll buy an addon regardless of systems depth because visual quality makes it more realistic then systems to me.

[CapnOz 110]

I agtee with Kyle and Kevin...This is why I still LOVE and appreciate the MD-11. Its visuals are not the greatest.. but the system modeling is certainly one of the greatest.

[IUBrian 151]

There is another point that occurred to me regarding the relative lack of interest in flight simming amongst the younger generation, at least from the American perspective. I'm 47. My grandfather flew a B-17. My dad wasn't a pilot, but he had an interest in flying because of his dad that transferred to me. There was a glamour to the planes of WW2, and there were a lot more former pilots who could pass down the love of aviation. I don't mean there's a glamor to the war, but the role of the allied air forces was glamorized for a younger generation, and there was a direct connection to those who flew those beautiful planes. I think because of that there are lot more people who are roughly my age who grew up with an avid interest in aviation. Sorry I've strayed afield from the OP's original comment.

[sizziano 172]

1) The external model is the first thing developers can show. Why would it get better when they are working to get the systems and flight dynamics working right. The real CRJ still looks the same as it did in 2010. If the Aerosoft CRJ already looked accurate in 2010 how should it be improved since then? Your post said in effect the CRJ could be discounted, as if it was so old it was not worth considering.

 

2) Flight Sim has always been regarded as unattractive by most gamers. My son used to tease me for playing such a boring game. Whizzy graphics will not attract that kind of customer. Maybe a more goal orientated game like MS Flight would do so, but then that would not be attractive for serious simmers..

 

3) Speak for yourself. The first flight sim I flew was a 727-200 FFS. The visuals in that sim were night time only: CGI light points with a few raster surfaces for runway and taxiways. The experience blew me away, even with the very limited visual scene. As I had real sims to play with at work I didn't bother with MSFS until "FS for Windows" which I got bundled with my first PC. I didn't get into simming seriously until FS98. Back then the visuals still weren't great but they were much better than FSFW and free downloads were good enough that you had a reasonably accurate panel to use. The panel always was and still is the most important thing for me in simming.

 

So I didn't get into flight sims for the visuals. I don't stick with FSX because it looks good. But then I don't think it looks at all bad either. Especially since ASN was released. I got caught out by some very low cloud on a short flight into JFK, ending up with around 100 ft DH, which I hadn't anticipated. It was touch and go whether I would land or go-around until the runway lights appeared. That was truly immersive, I can tell you and I was flying the rather dated PMDG 747 as well. You don't need the latest and greatest to have a fantastic experience in flight sim. You don't need 64 bit sims for that either.

 

I've tried XPlane but even with 64 bits and more dynamic lighting it still looks dull in comparison to FSX plus ASN. You only really get the best out of very high resolution, densely animated, images in clear weather. I prefer to fly in the more challenging environment of night or low visibility. FSX still hits the spot very well.

 

 

Not really a fair comparison with XP as FSX has so many more more developers. The point about 64-bit and 32-bit is meaningless when you have dozens of companies putting out great products because FSX still (wow almost 10 years) is the most widely used FS platform by a large margin. That will of course change as there is only so much that can be done with such an old engine that hasn't been improved upon in years.

 

But I do agree about visuals. I think the visual side of FS like many other things is a compromise. I should know, I was flight simming on a laptop for the better part of a decade! If you fly tubeliners then the quality of the terrain etc is not as important as say a VFR pilot. But one area I think we can all agree must always look good is the flight deck. I'am really looking forward to the next 1-2 years as more and more developers begin bringing products over to XP. It's good for everyone.

[paulyg123 135]

I guess I was just venting when I posted the topic.  I was 'fishing" updates on the long awaited LD 757 and QW787, or a new FlyTampa airport and after doing the same search for 1/2 of eternity, I came up with nothing new for the "stuff" I wanted - Mainly an updated 747, a new 757 and a new 787, plus some good FlyTampa sceneries in the US.  Instead, I got nothing.  Though, I am 100% happy with same old 777 flying into the same airports. I am still learning on the 777.   {Though I do have 1,000 PMDG 777 landings so far (99.97% success rate!  that .3% would have put my in jail, fired or in a grave)}

 

Maybe I should take a shot at military planes for FSX.  Any good planes for carrier landings?  I haven't followed their progress at all.

[eurowing 13]

flytampa released Sydney recently and just released Corfu. they also announced that Boston will be re-done. all this in the past few months. you must have missed those?

for a good F/A-18 look at the superbug at vrsimulations.com