Farewell FSW

[A32xx 129]

Very true Robin. Moving to a flight sim with a limited region is a step down from one which depicts the whole world, and is likely to only appeal to people who live within that region. Whether or not one wants PMDG type aircraft, the option should certainly be there, to remove it or not include it would be a step down again.

From Mathjis Kok's statement on the FSW closure, it seems that the mystery jet was going to be the Aerosoft Airbus until the Steam/DTG deal put him off, and I don't blame him - I wouldn't work overtime for a 60% lower rate than normal hours either.

DTG should have sold FSW themselves to start with, and kept away from Steam for a few years until the sim became established. Perhaps they tried to when they released FSW on DVD, but by then it was too little, too late.

Edited April 27, 2018 by A32xx

[Partially 8]

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

A simulator that has everything required "straight out of the box". By this, I mean.....high resolution photorealistic graphics and terrain mesh, detailed airports, a handful of feature complete aircraft, a fully working ATC environment, realistic AI planes, accurate flight dynamics (including realistic floatplane/water physics), variable weather with realistic cloud formations/fronts/precipitation effects etc, good quality night lighting, and a landscape filled with realistic 3D buildings/trees/landmarks. In other words, a simulator that does not need addons to make it look/sound/feel great from the start.

Interesting.  But if that was my only option, I'd be looking for another hobby.   Speaking for myself, much of my flight sim enjoyment includes downloading addons, appreciating the richness and effort of both payware and freeware developers and optimizing my system/environment for best results (for me).  And yes, I'd also miss drooling over that next aircraft while explaining to my wife why it's a "must have".

Pete Donaldson

[Christopher Low 5,332]

You would still have P3D for that

[Bobsk8 12,513]

7 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

Two seems about right for this market size.  3rd party content providers might like just one platform as that means they don't have to learn two different methods of getting the same job done.

I didn't suggest giving up, I suggested be smart about development resource and investments.  If an investor(s) is sitting on some cash, not enough to do a full blown FS platform, but "some", then put the "some" to best use possible and don't re-invent the wheel, us the "some" to make the existing better ... approach those establish entities (LM/LR) and try to make deals/agreements that would benefit everyone.  That's certainly not giving up, it's getting from A to B faster with more features.

Cheers, Rob.

The bottom line is that a very large and rich company bailed on Flight because they could see it was not a good investment, and years later, a fairly large company bailed on FSW for the same reason. Now anyone thinking that yet another company is going to come along and beat this dead horse again, they are  dreaming. We are in a niche market of a niche market, and lucky to have two decent sims to work with. 

Edited April 27, 2018 by Bobsk8

[HiFlyer 9,343]

Potential lost..... (again) And the road not taken.

 

[G-RFRY 1,706]

I don`t see it coming down to only one flight sim, LM will not pull the plug on P3D the cost is probably under 1% of there advertising budget and severs it purpose in their industry.    

[torium 207]

16 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

How about this scenario, the developers from FSW help get LM to PBR, the iPACS developers help get LM better quality photoreal scenery, allowing the LM core team to focus on fixing their ever shape shifting elevation mesh issues and bring DX12 with SFR DMA support so we can achieve solid 60-120 FPS regardless of what we toss at it.

I understand that you have good contact with the LM core team. But do you think this is realistic, Rob? Is it realistic that LM will release part of the management to outside investors and/or external developers? This would be encouraging if it really is possible. Do you have any further comments on this scenario?

[Guest]

6 hours ago, J van E said:

think this is a unrealistic scenario that will never happen. Why? Imagine LM working on their sim one sunny day and then they get a call from someone. "Hey, I've got a great idea to make your sim better. Let's meet and then I will help your sim to become better." What do you think LM will say...? "Yeah, right. Bye bye" after which they will say to each other "Who was that lunatic?"
Your scenario may only possibly works if the guy who calls can show he has done something good already, like creating a sim of their own.

I think it would be a little more formal and professional than a "phone call" some day.  And, if the people calling say "I've worked on the FSX SP2 code base and have done XYZ to it, are you interested?" then that conversation could go in a very different and positive direction.

I'm pretty sure no one person has ever created a flight simulator (of even moderate complexity) on their own not even Bruce Artwick and Bruce's first flight simulator was far far far less complex than what we have today in either P3D or XP11.  Even Austin had help with XP.  Microsoft bought Bruce's first work (Bruce retained the rights until 1995), Bruce evolved to BAO (6 employees) after subLOGIC.  Microsoft purchased the copyright to "Flight Simulator" in 1995.  So as you can see, software is passed around all the time, gets updated, developers come and go as do "rights and ownership".  It would be foolish for any new FS development to build software from scratch and attempt to re-invent the wheel.  

Software engineers don't need to be located together, we can be spread across the globe and in many cases work at home during any part of the day or night ... VPN to a TFS server (or source control server of choice) and code is constantly maintained as developers update it ... the barriers just don't exist unless an investor(s) wants them to exist or there are ego issues.

Cheers, Rob.

[fs4fun 366]

6 hours ago, A32xx said:

From Mathjis Kok's statement on the FSW closure, it seems that the mystery jet was going to be the Aerosoft Airbus until the Steam/DTG deal put him off, and I don't blame him - I wouldn't work overtime for a 60% lower rate than normal hours either.

I think there was a bigger issue. DTG could have (and did I believe) soften the stance on selling through steam etc, but DTG had ripped out support for C/C++ gauges, making it impossible for Aerosoft to port over their bus (or for FSW support most complex addon aircraft). The removal of C gauge support was discussed at fsdeveloper many months ago and the consensus even then was that was a pretty fatal error on DTG's part.

Edited April 27, 2018 by fshobby

[A32xx 129]

A very good point, this is what is meant by 'compatibility' in flight sim terms, and it's one of the main reasons why a 'completely new' flight sim couldn't really be 'completely new'.

[TheFamilyMan 279]

7 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

The bottom line is that a very large and rich company bailed on Flight because they could see it was not a good investment, and years later, a fairly large company bailed on FSW for the same reason. Now anyone thinking that yet another company is going to come along and beat this dead horse again, they are  dreaming. We are in a niche market of a niche market, and lucky to have two decent sims to work with. 

What more needs to be said?

But hey, aren't there three?  What about good ol' (and I mean old) FSX/FSX:SE?  There is still lots of 3PD software being developed and sold for it, and I'd guess that it's current volume is as much (or more so) than sold for P3D/XP11 combined (though I could be wrong ).  Sure, it's not in active development, but that's not an issue for its substantial user base.

Edited April 27, 2018 by TheFamilyMan

[Bobsk8 12,513]

3 hours ago, TheFamilyMan said:

What more needs to be said?

But hey, aren't there three?  What about good ol' (and I mean old) FSX/FSX:SE?  There is still lots of 3PD software being developed and sold for it, and I'd guess that it's current volume is as much (or more so) than sold for P3D/XP11 combined (though I could be wrong ).  Sure, it's not in active development, but that's not an issue for its substantial user base.

Very True. 

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

11 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

Potential lost..... (again) And the road not taken

Not lost forever.

Anyone need a good laugh at this point?

http://sundog-soft.com/2014/06/sundog-silverlining-vs-simul-truesky-comparison/

[HiFlyer 9,343]

47 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Not lost forever.

Anyone need a good laugh at this point?

http://sundog-soft.com/2014/06/sundog-silverlining-vs-simul-truesky-comparison/

I read all that at about the time it was written. I had been advocating forever for X-plane to use something like Sundog, and had often posted links to the demo. (talk about irony) 

Seems like centuries ago.... 🙀

 

[Paraffin 2,197]

37 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

I read all that at about the time it was written. I had been advocating forever for X-plane to use something like Sundog, and had often posted links to the demo. (talk about irony) 

Seems like centuries ago.... 🙀

 

Okay, maybe y'all aren't aware of this, but Sundog is the outfit that makes the SkyMaxx Pro and RealWeather add-ons for X-Plane, and also the new TerraMax seasons plugin. They've been involved with X-Plane add-ons for a while now.