How much more can FSX handle? (be warned, lots of opinion)

[MorsAbAlto 19]

Hello folks,

 

this was going into the 747v3 beta announcement thread at first, but then I decided it would be better as a separate topic, as it became a rather lengthy piece.

 

It's specifically aimed at Kyle and other PMDGers, but feel free to chip in.

 

Sometimes I wonder, how much more of an improvement we can expect in terms of fidelity and memory usage on the FSX platform, especially regarding future products. The 32bit limit is not going away, unless you change to X-Plane or P3D (the latter being cost-prohibitive for modest earners like myself - and according to PMDG forum staff - not even legally sound). 

 

It has been said that the memory footprint of this product (747v3) has been improved over the T7, yet will we have do deal with the same limitations to avoid OOM-armageddon (switching off scenery, dial down textures, etc.)? It sometimes dims my enthusiasm to content with the ancient FSX architecture for the sake of cost savings and legal concerns. The old problem of wanting the newest, most flashy features without investing a fortune. Of course PMDG will not disclose their long-term production schedule here, but how much more can we hope to gain from FSX and PMDG going forward. Seeing the increasing duration of development cycles and how our favorite sim company cranks the dials to 11 every time. How much longer until FSX will be abandoned for the sake of technological progress?

 

I am not a student pilot, not a flight instructor, just a random guy in his thirties who lives the dream of flying an airliner from the front of the tube - being as close to real procedures as possible. I fly only for recreational purposes, so according to LockMart (and PMDG), should not use P3D. Yet it seems to be the most modern, feature-rich and compatible platform out there. I drool over those screenshots in the new 747 thread, fully aware that it will never look like that in my FSX. It feels like standing in front of a Tesla store and dreaming of a Model X in the garage.

 

Yes, many simmers do not care about the legal side of things (hell, not even some of the developers do), they fork out lots of cash to get their fix (then there is the underground pirate community). But I am starting to feel a bit lost in all of this. What does the developer community expect us to do? Flight simming was always an expensive hobby. But the top end of the market moves ever further out of reach for the average simmer. Switching over from FS9 to FSX was alright, but the price point of everything P3D is obviously aimed at the business world. No way am I paying the price of a dishwasher or gaming console on every upgrade cycle. Even if I had the means, it would be irrational. If this trend continues, I would rather earn a PPL and fly for real. 

 

I am worried about the future of my sim hobby. Please, try to approximate your vision regarding FSX. Disregarding eye-candy, will major advancements be omitted on the legacy platform in future releases? What upgrade path would you recommend for the private consumer?

 

TL;DR

Some poor guy is worried about the lifespan left in FSX and is uncertain on how to proceed. Please advice.

[skelsey 762]

Hi Alexander,

 

I can't offer too much in the way of answers other than to say that I do (and have for some time) share your concerns about this rush towards P3D as 'the future', particularly in terms of cost structure. In that regard, really, most of the eggs are in the Dovetail FS basket, which is based on the FS core and therefore should be the 'consumer' evolution of FSX, provided that DTG get it right in terms of supporting third-party development and provide a solid, global base product. However, we shall see.

 

However, I did notice one comment...

 

 

 

Flight simming was always an expensive hobby.

 

Now, obviously 'expensive' is a relative term and one man's riches are another man's peanuts. However -- I'm not sure I can agree with you on this.

 

I used to race electric model cars. The chassis alone cost upwards of £200 (and, these days, more like £400), before you even put any equipment in to it. You could then add a good £30-£50 for a motor (which, if you wanted to be competitive, you would likely have to replace several times a season). £150+ for a decent electronic speed controller. Anything from £100 to £1000s for a radio system. Tyres were typically around £20-£40 a set, and at the top end you could burn through two or three sets in a single race meeting. OK, some of those items (radios, ESC etc) were more long-term purchases that you could keep for years (although ESC technology in particular, certainly when I was doing it, was updated fairly regularly and so there would come a point after a couple of years when you would really need to update to stay competitive). New chassis tended to come out every couple of years as well and, again, sooner or later you would have to keep up somewhere near the latest model to stay competitive. Add the cost of replacing broken parts when you ran out of talent, the petrol for driving to race meetings, the odd hotel or camping pass... that was an expensive hobby!

 

Likewise, I've been looking at how much it costs to join the local golf club... safe to say, it would be a lot more than I spend on flight simming annually for a lot fewer hours...

 

Like any hobby, flight simming can be as expensive as you want to make it. If you want to own every payware scenery that comes out, everything that PMDG (and other developers) release, fly it with PFC controls and have hardware MCPs etc, then you can spend a heck of a lot. But for a relatively small outlay on a few things (basic flight controls, a weather engine and a decent aircraft or two) you can have literally thousands and thousands of hours of fun. Loading up FS costs me nothing (electricity excepted); no petrol, no parking fees, no fuel for the aeroplane, no landing/handling/maintenance fees. I can fly all day if I want, burn as much virtual fuel as I like and still have an intact wallet . If I were to divide the number of hours I've flown (or even the number of flights) by the money I've spent it would work out as a very favourable number, definitely by comparison to many other hobbies.

[Danielsen 14]

If I were to divide the number of hours I've flown (or even the number of flights) by the money I've spent it would work out as a very favourable number, definitely by comparison to many other hobbies.

 

I agree. Think about how many hours you're spending in your sim. When you buy an airplane for your sim. how many hours do you fly it? Divide that with the price and it really isn't that "expensive" when you think about it. After a while you're down to less than one US dollar per hour  :wink:

[Patco Lch 1,195]

Yea, and compare to the price of hunting, fishing, golfing, tickets to college football games, eating out or bar hopping etc. is really that expensive? Of course if you want to go for real world flying and have the cabbage get after it while you can! But even then do you think you'll ever get into the front end of a T7 or 747?

[ClearedtoLand 149]

At the moment I think my 737NGX is costing me some immeasurably small amount per hour, she sees more action than the rest combined. At least, she did before the Saitek yoke became possessed by some act of the robot devil.

 

But I appreciate where the OP is coming from, I have basically stopped all scenery and add on purchases until I have a better idea of which way sim platforms are developing. 64 bit platforms are just a matter of time now, and as I don't want to repurchase add ons for 64 bit compatibility, I will wait to see what develops, and decide which way to move.

 

I do hope that DTG keeps investing in maintaining FSX SE for a long time as I have a really nice set up that I'm happy to keep for as long as the platform remains feasible. But when it comes to new stuff, I'd rather move to a new platform that can utilise 64 bit programs and all the accompanying bells and whistles.

[downscc 1,325]

DTG is not doing anything to FSX other than adopting the improvements already done by the Microsoft Aces Team that didn't make it into an update before closing Aces.  As much as I personally dislike the Steam product channel, FSXSE does represent the best that FSX is going to be.

 

The best that FSX is going to be is good enough for budget minded flight simulation hobbyists in most folks opinion.  If there is a larger budget available then the best option is P3D, which is under continued development and many of the changes already incorporate significant improvements.

 

It simply boils down to individual economics. 

 

As far as cost even for the most expensive P3D solution with a high performance system and big 4K displays, it's very insignificant compared to the cost of most hobbies that require the purchase of equipment and material, even a night at the movies is more expensive per hour.

[Cann0nF0dd3r 21]

The thing to remember too, LM is not licensed to sell an entertainment product like DTG is.

[ClearedtoLand 149]

One doesn't have to be budget minded to question the sense in buying the same thing twice, it is my intention to populate a future 64 bit sim from whoever with whatever new products are released for a 64 bit platform. Whatever I have for FSX SE, planes and scenery alike, will live and die with that platform. It'll be sad if it comes to that, but what I want from my sim experience can be equally provided by new releases designed for new platforms. Of course, there are any number of assumptions that go into that statement, but I think the current situation in the sim world makes adopting a wait and see approach perfectly reasonable.

[downscc 1,325]

This is not the place for EULA discussion of other products.

[188AHC 2,078]

Please, gentlemen. No discussions concerning the EULA. Everyone that's been around here for more than a week knows this.

 

Thanks.

[Cann0nF0dd3r 21]

Please, gentlemen. No discussions concerning the EULA. Everyone that's been around here for more than a week knows this.

 

Thanks.

 

Too right! Anyways, back on topic, Flight Simming is a hobby as others have said. And it really comes down to what its worth to you. Value is subjective depending on who is being asked. 

[kingm56 1,020]

 

 

Sometimes I wonder, how much more of an improvement we can expect in terms of fidelity and memory usage on the FSX platform, especially regarding future products. The 32bit limit is not going away, unless you change to X-Plane or P3D

 

P3D is still a 32-bit platform; although, I suspect the 64-bit version may not be too far off...

[Cann0nF0dd3r 21]

P3D is still a 32-bit platform; although, I suspect the 64-bit version may not be too far off...

 

Hopefully while we're still in 3.XX!

[wde12 19]

 

 

I am worried about the future of my sim hobby.

 

I share your concerns. For all the time and money I have invested in FSX add-ons, as well as the significant investment in tweaking a high performance computer around FSX, it makes little sense. I am not going to go to P3D until I have to. That would be something like if PMDG had released the 777 for P3D only. It is what it is, and I have long come to grips that I have to tough it out (which has led to habits like saving my flight 10x before the takeoff roll and every hour until ToD).

 

Beyond P3d, when I look at X-Plane, I want to vomit. It looks like a comic book in there. In a similar vein, I see the differences in P3D on YouTube, but there must be a significant "amount" that is "lost" in the transfer from the sim itself to a video / image online. Frankly, it looks better. But I don't see the "wow!" part. I'm not denying the superior performance of P3D, I just need to see it in person.

 

Here's a noob question: how about DCS? I have never seen it in person but have been on the fence for years about making that investment (I REALLY want that A-10C and campaigns). Would something like that be feasible? For example, terrain textures and stuff look pretty blah, but that would be a new market for REX, AS, etc. Perhaps that's what is already going on with X-Plane, but like I said above, I cringe every time I see the X-Plane world.

[Paul_Smith 92]

 

 

...

Sorry but I call BS.

 

Apart from the dubious legal opinions which you should know better then to raise here, making suggestions such "Switching over from FS9 to FSX was alright, but the price point of everything P3D ..." just flies in the face of reality. I don't know if you are just too young to remember, or so old that your memory is going, but just in this century alone, if you started with FS2000, even if you skipped FS2002, you would still have needed to not only replace all your software when you upgraded to FS2004, but you would have needed to spend at least $2000 on a new computer to run it! That would get you a pretty decent dishwasher and all the gaming consoles you could want! One of the reasons that FSX was a failure was the reluctance of many FS2004 users to take the same pain upgrading to FSX meant it never returned its investment. Granted, the move from FSX to P3D or X-plane is not cheap, but it is a great deal cheaper then previous upgrades because your existing hardware is still good, and you have a reasonable chance (tough not a certainty) that your investment will be good for a few years at least.

 

In answer to your question on the future of FSX, FSX is dead! It still exists because it provides an excellent and cheap introduction to flight simming but it is locked down by limits that seemed reasonable over a decade ago, and that means it has no future. That leaves you with three choices; 1) go do something else, 2) put up with what you have got until something significant changes, or 3) support P3D or X-Plane ecosystem (or both) in the hope that one or other will give you the future you want to be in.