Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
paulyg123

Progress seems to be slowing for FSX

Recommended Posts

To say "it doesn't say much for the platform when it takes so many years to produce a half decent model of anything of even minor complexity" begs the question; compared to what? How long should it take? Look at the "Call of Duty" series - the game is released every year, but by alternating studios, Treyarch and Infinity Ward for example, so that a developer is on at least a 2 year development cycle, with a game that earns numbers exceeding Hollywood blockbusters, and studies that can afford to employ a development team proportionately. Flight Simming inevitably will be more of a niche market - it's awesome for us, but more many people it's boring. It's never going to have the degree of popularity of the big console games, nor will the revenue justify the type of development teams that big budget games from Bethesda, EA, etc. can justify. And even those studios can be years between major releases. Frankly, given the return on investment I think the add-ons released for FSX, even in terms of development time, are remarkable. My point being, I think the relatively small user base is the reason for "limited" development, not the other way around.

Flight Sim was originally used by MS to demonstrate to the world that they knew how to get the best out of your hardware, so you would trust them with the rest of their software. You talk about comparing FSX to modern big budget games which is fair enough, but try to remember that the Microsoft Flight series was the original big-budget game franchise. You may not remember, but cutting edge PC's used to have a shelf life of 18 months to two years before they became outdated, and the most common driver for spending £1500* on a new PC was buying a £50 game (often the latest Flight Sim) that didn't play well on your existing hardware. 

 

As platforms go, FSX does not support the development of complex models. It does allows them though some would argue that it merely tolerates them but it does not support them. Any advanced software development platform allows you to build complex objects by inheriting and enhancing simpler ones, that is almost the definition of 'advanced' in this context. FSX unfortunately, is not advanced, which is why whether you are doing a simple gauge or a complex airliner, you are effectively starting from scratch each time instead of building on a library of work that you (and others) have already written.

 

[*£1500 was the cost of a just below cutting edge PC from 1984 until probably the year 2006 ish when the next logical upgrade, the 4.77**GHz Pentium V failed to appear. FSX was released expecting it to be available.]

 

[**If you need to ask why 4.77GHz was significant, you are too young to understand the answer ;) ]

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

[*£1500 was the cost of a just below cutting edge PC from 1984 until probably the year 2006 ish when the next logical upgrade, the 4.77**GHz Pentium V failed to appear. FSX was released expecting it to be available.]

 

[**If you need to ask why 4.77GHz was significant, you are too young to understand the answer ;) ]

 

Ha. I got into flight simulator and building computers back then (I'm a EE now- so figures), and a 4.77 GHz pentium V is just naughty. A bit off topic- but digital circuitry at that speed and size is just naughty. The Core 2 multithreading redesign was a smart move, but it's still a very antiquated x86 design...not necessarily bad. One thing to note and a coworker noted this too, my computer that was built in 2010 really isn't that much slower than a computer built with parts designed with 2015 parts. My work laptop is a 2 year old lenovo T430 and is the best windows laptop I've ever used even comparing to the brand new lenovo's or dell's. The only change in my laptop was a ssd just for preventative maintenance. We are starting to reach hard computational limits. Especially with FETs that are reaching 8 or less nm in gate size. At that point, you're using more analog circuitry to control the leakage currents and DC buses than the actual circuity itself. For example, an IC designed at 1.3 um needed only one voltage regulator while an IC designed at 60 or 45 nm needs something like 12. Sorry Rant/

 

I've always loved planes and so fs natural to me. I plus many others felt that Microsoft FSX is a half hearted attempt from Microsoft to resell fs9 with a new UI plus a few light reflecting goodies. PMDG, is this the case? I think no. But the software is 10 years old and fs is reserved for those who are very much plane and challenge oriented. In 2006, I purchased the LDS 767 and it blew my mind that you needed to start an engine with a pneumatic procedure vs. just turning the key to an electric starter. 

 

Do we need a more modern platform, yes. Is FSX still very powerful, yes. With PMDG working on it, yes. It seems like PMDG is really the only company really working and keeping the public informed on fs. It seems like most fs producing companies are just part time workers when aren't tired form their real job do a couple lines of code. LDS I'm certain has the intention to release a 757 for FSX, but their goal for a high fledged simulation is very aggressive and their lives and work get in the way plus standards of simulation get in the way. PMDG on the other hand is one of the companies left really pushing aggressive products to the market. They are serious...A good example is they are very serious about piracy...I was involved in one such case and paypal will never be used by me again. ever. Not to say other developers care, but PMDG cares about their work and it shows with venturing into commercial realms including P3D. Now on to P3D. Is it a good evolution to FSX, yes. Problem is EULA and I won't get into that here. Do I understand where they are coming from, yes. Do I agree with what they are doing, yes. Do I wish it was different, yes. Although FSX is antiquated, we see companies coping with the limitations and going above and beyond, but I don't see development subsiding. The difference we've seen in the past is the inflation of eager developers who don't finish addons. We are now just starting to see the workhorses and the ones who really are willing and able to allocate resources to this hobby.

Share this post


Link to post

Flight Sim was originally used by MS to demonstrate to the world that they knew how to get the best out of your hardware, so you would trust them with the rest of their software. You talk about comparing FSX to modern big budget games which is fair enough, but try to remember that the Microsoft Flight series was the original big-budget game franchise. You may not remember, but cutting edge PC's used to have a shelf life of 18 months to two years before they became outdated, and the most common driver for spending £1500* on a new PC was buying a £50 game (often the latest Flight Sim) that didn't play well on your existing hardware. 

 

As platforms go, FSX does not support the development of complex models. It does allows them though some would argue that it merely tolerates them but it does not support them. Any advanced software development platform allows you to build complex objects by inheriting and enhancing simpler ones, that is almost the definition of 'advanced' in this context. FSX unfortunately, is not advanced, which is why whether you are doing a simple gauge or a complex airliner, you are effectively starting from scratch each time instead of building on a library of work that you (and others) have already written.

 

[*£1500 was the cost of a just below cutting edge PC from 1984 until probably the year 2006 ish when the next logical upgrade, the 4.77**GHz Pentium V failed to appear. FSX was released expecting it to be available.]

 

[**If you need to ask why 4.77GHz was significant, you are too young to understand the answer ;) ]

BIB needs a bit of qualification. While you may not be able to inherit objects in FSX, that doesn't mean you have to start from scratch each time. There's nothing to stop you re-using and developing existing code.


ki9cAAb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Huh? Of course there is nothing to actually stop you, but nor is there anything to support or encourage you, which is the point I was making.

 

It is possible to make a model of the Taj Mahal from matchsticks, http://www.odditycentral.com/news/indian-artist-makes-detailed-model-of-the-taj-mahal-from-matchsticks.html  but it is going to take a lot of hard work and time. Building the same thing from a component based kit http://brickset.com/sets/10189-1/Taj-Mahal  is much quicker and easier. If you have ever used a modular or object oriented development system, one that actively encourages re-use as a significant design component, then you would know that FSX is the software equivalent of matchsticks. Of course you can produce masterpieces, as PMDG does, but do not get the idea for one moment that it is quick, easy or even pleasant. It is this limitation with the tools that, in my opinion, that is one of the reasons that our hobby is struggling and beginning to fade towards obscurity. There are a very large number of aircraft models available, which are about as good as can be produced easily with the available tools, and a very small number of good ones. The bad ones were good enough to entertain even up to about 8 or 10 years ago but the rest of software entertainment has moved on so much that they just don't cut it any more. This means that instead of growing and maturing our hobby is effectively shrinking as each year there are fewer and fewer aircraft models that are worth flying.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Paul,

 

I do not know why you feel that 'our hobby is shrinking' when we already have far more recent availability of software of great richness, and much more to come.

 

I can include swift, UGCX, OpenLC for USA and Oceania, ever more airports to which to fly, and forthcoming PMDG B747 and DC3. You never know, we may yet see the availability of CPDLC!

 

Amongst that and other software, I am sad that you feel that this adds up to a shrinkage. Pecker up!


Cheers, Richard

Intel Core i7-7700K @ 4.2 GHz, 16 GB memory, 1 TB SSD, GTX 1080 Ti, 28" 4K display

Win10-64, P3Dv5, PMDG 748 & 777, Milviz KA350i, ASP3D, vPilot, Navigraph, PFPX, ChasePlane, Orbx 

Share this post


Link to post

I can include swift, UGCX, OpenLC for USA and Oceania, ever more airports to which to fly, and forthcoming PMDG B747 and DC3. You never know, we may yet see the availability of CPDLC!

 

DC6  :wink:

 

I'd love to see a DC3 though.


Kyle Rodgers

Share this post


Link to post

Huh? Of course there is nothing to actually stop you, but nor is there anything to support or encourage you, which is the point I was making.

 

It is possible to make a model of the Taj Mahal from matchsticks, http://www.odditycentral.com/news/indian-artist-makes-detailed-model-of-the-taj-mahal-from-matchsticks.html  but it is going to take a lot of hard work and time. Building the same thing from a component based kit http://brickset.com/sets/10189-1/Taj-Mahal  is much quicker and easier. If you have ever used a modular or object oriented development system, one that actively encourages re-use as a significant design component, then you would know that FSX is the software equivalent of matchsticks. Of course you can produce masterpieces, as PMDG does, but do not get the idea for one moment that it is quick, easy or even pleasant. It is this limitation with the tools that, in my opinion, that is one of the reasons that our hobby is struggling and beginning to fade towards obscurity. There are a very large number of aircraft models available, which are about as good as can be produced easily with the available tools, and a very small number of good ones. The bad ones were good enough to entertain even up to about 8 or 10 years ago but the rest of software entertainment has moved on so much that they just don't cut it any more. This means that instead of growing and maturing our hobby is effectively shrinking as each year there are fewer and fewer aircraft models that are worth flying.

 

Paul, you say "Huh" and that nothing stops you, then go on to say FSX is the equivalent of using matchsticks for building, implying that it does stop you. Code re-use is not simply the preserve of Object Orientated languages. The difference with OO languages is you don't have to copy the code.

 

You said with FSX "you are effectively starting from scratch" each time and that is misleading. No one with a library of existing models starts a new FSX project completely from scratch and it's daft to suggest they would. No programmer would ever do that if they could possibly avoid it, not even going back to the assembly language era.

 

FSX isn't building with matchsticks, it's building with existing components and adding some matchsticks.


ki9cAAb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

As platforms go, FSX does not support the development of complex models. It does allows them though some would argue that it merely tolerates them but it does not support them. Any advanced software development platform allows you to build complex objects by inheriting and enhancing simpler ones, that is almost the definition of 'advanced' in this context. FSX unfortunately, is not advanced, which is why whether you are doing a simple gauge or a complex airliner, you are effectively starting from scratch each time instead of building on a library of work that you (and others) have already written.

 

I couldn't disagree with you more. FSX of course supports the development of complex models. Else they never would have never developed the Simconnect interface, or even an SDK! Without the open architecture design for addons built into FSX, it would be much more difficult for developers to develop these complex models. You wouldn't have the capability of adding dll's or linking external executables so you wouldn't have addons such as ASN, GSX, or any aircraft models that used their own custom code like PMDG. People don't give the designers of FS as much credit as they deserve. Each version of FS and FSX in particular has always been designed with future capabilities built right in. For example one of the big features sited for P3D is it supports a larger amount of autogen and a wider LOD radius. FSX has had that capability built into it from the beginning, just by a couple of modifications to it's config file. you can double the autogen and increase the LOD radius, especially now with the new VAS management improvements of both FSXSE and P3D. Without the foresight of the original FS developers of Aces, and before we probably wouldn't have 80-90% of the addons and capabilities we have today for FSX, It would just be another video game!!


Thanks

Tom

My Youtube Videos!

http://www.youtube.com/user/tf51d

Share this post


Link to post

I think I understand the confusion. When I said 'supported', I meant it in the sense of 'assisted' or 'helped'. When I said 'not supported', I meant 'not assisted or helped' and not 'not allowed'. Does that make more sense?

 

FSX allows the development of complex models. PMDG and others are proof of that. Its architecture allows, as Tom put it, 'the capability of adding dll's or linking external executables'. Yes Kevin, you are absolutely right, you are not starting completely from scratch, as you put it "it's building with existing components and adding some matchsticks", but as hard as you try to make it sound that way, I never said (or implied) that FSX stopped you from building complex models, because that would be a silly thing to say on a site hosted by PMDG. However, I never said 'completely'. I said 'effectively'.

 

We know that PMDG developed a whole new way of modelling aircraft with their MD11, and a whole new way of visualising them with the JS-41.  I do not know the internal workings of PMDG but I think you would agree that it is a safe bet that their new techniques are almost all in their external dlls and executables and not in the native FSX framework. And yet, even after mastering these new approaches, how long did it take them to release the 737? And how much longer did it take to produce a 777? The 747 is still not in beta despite early talk if it being quick to apply. You can not tell me that this is evidence of a framework that supports, as in assists and helps, the developemnt of advanced models.

 

I think Tom is perhaps overstating the importance of FSX having configurable features that can be turned up higher then the hardware is capable of, rather I think that just reflects the architectural decisions based on the expectation of a single core running at 4.77GHz, combined with the expectation of another rewrite of the code in 2 or 3 years time. Given that a PC today is roughly 16 times more powerful for the same money as when FSX was released, and we still cant max the sliders, I have difficulty in praising the foresight of the original developers.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...