Ending support for older simulator versions?

[vortex681 806]

Its all very well saying that developers should only develop for the new 64 bit platforms but simple economics says that you don't ignore your biggest market. If you gamble on everyone moving to 64 bit and it doesn't happen, you go bust! Developers are not idealists, they need to make money. At some point in the future when 64 bit users exceed FSX users it may be a viable proposition, but not now.

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

That may be true, but there is such a tremendous existing library of FSX scenery and add-ons, that most developers would keep making money, even if they stopped creating anything new. II think that it's inevitable that most new products will be 64 bit.  Developers hate the limitations of 32 bit code.

[zmak 331]

42 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

That may be true, but there is such a tremendous existing library of FSX scenery and add-ons, that most developers would keep making money, even if they stopped creating anything new. II think that it's inevitable that most new products will be 64 bit.  Developers hate the limitations of 32 bit code.

I think the reality is they will be forced to make new products for v4,  v3 and fsx for many years to come. Not the ideal situation for them but it is what it is. 

[vgbaron 3,486]

The thing is the products they develop to take advantage of 64bit won't necessarilt port over to FSX without problems. If one designs for the better features of P3D there'll be no sales to other sims without those features. Speaking generally of course. 

Vic

[markdf 84]

The big negative to continuing to release addons for FSX, is that for every addon a user buys and can't take with them to 64bit, it's that much harder to get them to move on.

Meanwhile, the whole industry is held back by a need to keep feature parity between platforms with vastly different limits.

[anden145 2,273]

2 hours ago, Venturi said:

I think the reality is they will be forced to make new products for v4,  v3 and fsx for many years to come. Not the ideal situation for them but it is what it is. 

To be honest I don't think so. With the gap between Prepar3D V4 and the older platforms becoming so large I think many developers is tempted to just drop everything which isn't 64-bits. The cost of supporting and developing addons for two platforms which are so far apart is just not feasible. Besides most developers are really excited for the new features which are supported with Prepar3D V4 so I think that's the way it's going and most new addons would be developed for Prepar3D V4 first.

Maybe they'll still develop addons for the 32-bit platforms. But they most likely won't be release simultaneous and will be feature-less compared to the Prepar3D V4 version. It will go, just like we saw with FS2004... and some addons might not even get ported back. We'll see the same discussion we saw with FS2004 getting phased out.

In the very near future, they'd just cut the cord and stop development for 32-bit platforms. It's happening... and faster that some might hope/fear...

[ukplane1 37]

P3D V4 = fs2002 flight dynamics with 2011 64 bit if P3D V4 is the FUTURE peace help us.

 

[WotanUK 289]

I think given the jump from 32 - 64bits it's unlikely that developers will long continue to develop for each platform.  Times up for the 32 bit platforms, after 11 years of faithful service FSX in it's many 32-bit iterations will finally end.

1 hour ago, ukplane1 said:

P3D V4 = fs2002 flight dynamics with 2011 64 bit if P3D V4 is the FUTURE peace help us.

So i am guessing X-Plane fan???

[Mickeyj 35]

The question that should be asked is why would someone hold on to FSX and fight with performance when one can do an easy jump to a painless alternative. I see lots of 3rd party devs updating their expensive HQ sceneries AND aircraft FOR FREE!!! 

Example: Yesteday i played with v4 settings and add on sceneries. One combination that was jaw dropping for me was FSDT KLAX+Aerosoft US Cities X LA + AS16 + REX Soft Clouds + FTX Global + openLC US + 10% MT6 AI traffic + 10% boat traffic provided by Hendrik with high v4 autogen settings. With the default F22 i reached 45!!! FPS now with the PMDG T7 i had 26 as lowest!!! FPS and some 30ish FPS on ground @LAX!!! It was just a test of how the sim performs. One should do that in FSX. I would say one would make it at least to one of LAXs main taxiways till the sim OOMs.

Beside the sim killed by OOM we should  take into account that FSDT KLAX and US Cities X are pretty old they are still perform well in v4!!!

Flying in FlyTampa sceneries like YSSY, CYYZ can sometimes be a pain in FSX/P3D[32] We all agree when we say low FPS or sudden OOM. This is history wit v4. Even @high settings extremly well performing with the combination of heavy add ons!

Next question, why should a 3rd party dev develop a product where he must be aware of major restrictions on the one hand and on the other hand he develops the same product with no limits. He even run in discussions with users running FSX/P3D[32] because they fight with performance limits.

IMHO it is time to empathize with a dev. If i was a dev i would really consider the drop of 32bit add ons. It is time consuming and it cost money for the dev. Money that he will charge the user in the end. A HQ scenery now costs around 30 USD an add on aircraft (if it is not PMDG like) around 40 USD. Imagine what it will cost when devs still produce for all three platforms?

Now again my question, what are the reasons for one to drive his car with handbrake on when he easily can switch it off to unleash the full performance of the engine and the potential of the car?

Since the days of FSX and the ending of the support by MS we tried lots of tweaks, workarounds, hardware etc to ride the dead horse called FSX. It was fun and we enjoyed it. We prayed to the lord to make it run as it did when it was alive. Nothing helped. In the end the dead horse is dead no matter what we try to do it will not walk or run because it is still and it always be dead. Thanks to the Dakota indians wisdom.

Thanks for reading ;)

32 minutes ago, ukplane1 said:

P3D V4 = fs2002 flight dynamics with 2011 64 bit if P3D V4 is the FUTURE peace help us.

 

Yes you are right but because is this. FS2K2 - FSX were never ment for real world training nor giving the user a feel of real flight dynamics. P3Dv1 - v3 are derivates of FSX but ment for training. As history tells us P3D besides XPL are the only 2 sims that are under constant development. Now with v4 the 32bit restrictions not even fall for scenery development they also fall for flight dynamics development.

 

[vortex681 806]

2 hours ago, Mickeyj said:

The question that should be asked is why would someone hold on to FSX and fight with performance when one can do an easy jump to a painless alternative. I see lots of 3rd party devs updating their expensive HQ sceneries AND aircraft FOR FREE!!! 

You're making the assumption here that everyone is having problems with FSX which is simply not the case. I've had FSX since it was released (most recently FSX:SE), I use Orbx scenery, A2A and RealAir aircraft, the DX10 fixer with cloud shadows and many other add-ons on a modern PC with a QHD monitor and have yet to experience an OOM issue. It runs smoothly with good frame rates - why would I not "hold on to" FSX?

The other factor to consider, for me at least, is the expense of changing to P3D. Leaving aside the cost of the software, most of my FSX add-ons don't have dual installers so would have to be re-purchased. Because FSX works so well for me (32 bit, and all) there's really no compelling case to move to P3D. 64 bit would be a solution to a problem I don't have and there's no other killer feature to tempt me over.

If you already have P3D v3 or problems with OOMs, then I would think that changing to v4 would be a no-brainer. If not, then it's very hard to justify. FSX works well for me - when it stops working, or that killer feature finally appears, I'll probably change.

[pracines 823]

13 hours ago, vortex681 said:

Its all very well saying that developers should only develop for the new 64 bit platforms but simple economics says that you don't ignore your biggest market. If you gamble on everyone moving to 64 bit and it doesn't happen, you go bust! Developers are not idealists, they need to make money. At some point in the future when 64 bit users exceed FSX users it may be a viable proposition, but not now.

Economics are easy for a 32bit sim when that is all there is for 10+years (an eternity in PC development). P3Dv4 has only been out for about 3 weeks now and already developers are talking/announcing that they are dropping 32bit. A testament to Lockheed Martin's excellent business strategy. 

It is no gamble to drive the flight sim industry to greater technological heights, its actually a natural course of action.

I think it will be more of a gamble to spend time developing for FS9 and FSX. Keeping pace with the realism/features of 64bit, will result in flooding the 32bit support forums with VAS OOM reports....a different kind of economics. 

[GHarrall 494]

28 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

You're making the assumption here that everyone is having problems with FSX which is simply not the case. I've had FSX since it was released (most recently FSX:SE), I use Orbx scenery, A2A and RealAir aircraft, the DX10 fixer with cloud shadows and many other add-ons on a modern PC with a QHD monitor and have yet to experience an OOM issue. It runs smoothly with good frame rates - why would I not "hold on to" FSX?

The other factor to consider, for me at least, is the expense of changing to P3D. Leaving aside the cost of the software, most of my FSX add-ons don't have dual installers so would have to be re-purchased. Because FSX works so well for me (32 bit, and all) there's really no compelling case to move to P3D. 64 bit would be a solution to a problem I don't have and there's no other killer feature to tempt me over.

If you already have P3D v3 or problems with OOMs, then I would think that changing to v4 would be a no-brainer. If not, then it's very hard to justify. FSX works well for me - when it stops working, or that killer feature finally appears, I'll probably change.

I never had an OOM in fsx or p3d v2x or v3x but to simply state that v4 is 64 bit with no other perf gains is not true. By my estimation based on flying milviz beaver in and around orbx regions, the v4 improvements at similar setttings as v3 are in the region of 15%. +. 

thats not including that I can now push lod to ultra and use high res terrain textures which look much better all the way to the horizon. Adding car traffic appears to have little to no effect on fps and even using default ai aircraft seems to not have the impact it once used to. 

I realize there is extra cost involved with v4, even as v3 user, but imho, v4 will be the defacto baseline min standard going forward and it will happen quite quickly. It doesn't immediately look massively different to other ESP / fsx based sims, but once you poke around under the hood a bit the gains become clear. 

[vortex681 806]

36 minutes ago, pracines said:

It is no gamble to drive the flight sim industry to greater technological heights, its actually a natural course of action.

But, for those who can remember it, this is a lot like the old VHS vs Betamax argument. Just because something is more technologically advanced or better, it doesn't automatically mean that everyone will choose to move to it (as Betamax manufacturers found to their cost).

[WotanUK 289]

4 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

But, for those who can remember it, this is a lot like the old VHS vs Betamax argument. Just because something is more technologically advanced or better, it doesn't automatically mean that everyone will choose to move to it (as Betamax manufacturers found to their cost).

I remember, it's not quite the same thing, nor is it that same as the slightly newer HD DVD v Blu Ray.  

In this case how long will developers continue to try to keep things running in 4Gb VAS space, it will mean either each and every add-on will need to be optimized for that 4Gb, or features will be dropped for the 32-bit versions, will that mean they are sold at a lower cost or simply feature incomplete?

Besides, i think this discussion is academic, we already have developers saying that going forward they will only develop for the 64-bit platforms, once the bigger developers make the same commitment it's game over for the 32-bit sims, at least at a commercial level.

[vortex681 806]

13 minutes ago, GHarrall said:

By my estimation based on flying milviz beaver in and around orbx regions, the v4 improvements at similar setttings as v3 are in the region of 15%. +. 

thats not including that I can now push lod to ultra and use high res terrain textures which look much better all the way to the horizon.

For people, like me, who don't have a performance problem with FSX, what would an extra 15% add to the experience - nothing!

My FSX setup looks good to me. It runs well and does everything I want it to do. Other than to say that I've got P3D, I can't, personally, see what I'd gain for the hassle of changing. I don't notice that the terrain textures don't go all the way to the horizon or that my trees are not 3D or that I'm missing dynamic lighting. How it simulates flying is just as important to me (perhaps more so)  than how it looks.