Will we have to buy every add on we use again?

[Dominique_K 10,149]

10 minutes ago, rjfry said:

You mean most will still be using it 13 years later and loving it 😁

History is an inexact science 😃

[Chock 17,769]

And with regard to that War Thunder analogy, I would not be at all surprised if MS added a combat expansion to their new flight sim, so that players could fly online combat missions against other player in the thing. Historically, MS made a few versions of Combat Flight Simulator which they released alongside the civilian MSFS, but what would make more sense these days, would be for a combat element to be in the same simulated world, perhaps utilising a different server structure so that you didn't have to fly your A320 through a war zone. After all, in real life war is not fought in a separate world from the one we all live in, so it makes sense to have one simulated world serve several purposes, perhaps even having truck and train simulators and racing games be part of that world too.

If MS did this, they would appeal to a much broader and potentially more lucrative and successful market, because like it or not, there are a lot of people out there who'd happily play a combat flight sim, but would find a civilian one where you could not blow stuff up 'boring'. If users of this kind had to buy the main MS flight sim in order to have a combat expansion for it, or a truck simulator or whatever, this would provide a solid user base for the entire enterprise and is not unlike the state of affairs with Dovetail's FSX-SE (which I am certain MS have studied very closely), whereby there is a big market for sales of stuff for the sim via Steam which is a no-brainer to buy and install, but the sim is still one where you can externally purchase your iFly or PMDG fancy jetliner outside of the Steam TPD market structure, and have it work just fine in the sim too, i.e. a couple of very different approaches to add-ons, but which have managed to live alongside one another just fine. 

There are loads of things MS could do with its simulated world, RPGs, virtual tours etc. I'm sure they will very much have these possibilities in mind.

[Holdit 551]

If I end up going with the new sim I'll just be a lot more selective with my add-on aircraft purchases. No more bursting-at-the-seams virtual hangar for me. But I have such a backlog of aircraft to fly in FSX:SE/P3Dv4, that I'm very unlikely to be an early adopter anyway.

[Farlis 2,287]

18 hours ago, Dio said:

I have a strange feeling that we have to buy all our addons again,,, plus a new PC ( i have watched the trailer, this can't be happening....😲)

I certainly hope so. 

Away with backwards compatibility. Start with a completely new engine.

Edited June 30, 2019 by Farlis

[rocketlaunch 614]

I really hope we have to buy new addons as this means we are dealing with something totally new.

This time let's hope we can concentrate on just buying amazing aircraft.

[vortex681 806]

4 hours ago, Chock said:

War Thunder (and online games like it) is streaming tons of data to your computer in real-time, since the battles are against other users, so if your computer can run this okay and your ISP can provide a decent enough connection to make that possible, and I'm betting if you have a decent FSX-capable PC you'll be able to do that no problem, the chances are you'll be able to run MS's new flight sim okay too.

This is why I'm not convinced that MS will go down the fully streamed route. Many places around the world, including plenty of areas in 1st-world countries, would struggle to maintain the sort of data rates needed for cloud-based gaming. Why would they limit their potential customer base? I could understand a partial (scenery) streaming service but, even then, plenty of people have data caps from their ISP which could limit them even if they have the required bandwidth.

[Dominique_K 10,149]

A combat extension ? I thought that FS Twenty would bring us world peace😥 (besides being the best thing since sliced bread, I mean).

[Paraffin 2,197]

5 hours ago, Chock said:

We may well have to buy some add-ons again, but at least we won't have to take out a second mortgage to be able to afford a PC capable of running the thing, and here's why...

Ironically enough, for most people who've ended up having to get a 'sledgehammer to crack a walnut' PC in order to run FSX or P3D acceptably, this will probably mean they actually won't have to buy a new PC to run MS's new flight sim, since the new MS sim will be using the GPU to calculate most of the stuff it does, and you've probably already got one of the best GPUs money can buy. Even if it's not the very latest one, it's probably still very good as far as the average gaming PC is concerned. Essentially even though we might struggle for frame rates in FSX and P3D when we tick all its options and have every add-on known to man installed, the fact is, most flight simmers have what would generally be regarded as a 'kick@ss gaming PC'. So...

I'm not so sure about that. I agree with the general idea, that if we're running a system strong enough to fly current sims at decent frame rates, and play current games with lots of eye candy (if not fully maxed out), then we should be okay.

It's more about whether a new flight sim designed to showcase the new Scarlett Xbox will have new features that we'll want to match on the PC version. Because I know my current rig can't get anywhere close to the specs of that thing.

For example, I know many flight simmers are moving to 4k monitor resolution; I'm not there yet, still using a 1920x1200 monitor because I can get a nice smooth 35-40 fps flying XP11 with my not-so-great GTX970 GPU. That GPU does fine running current AAA games at fairly high settings too. But it's not good enough for 4k resolution even if I had a monitor with that resolution. Let alone the claim of 120 fps at 4k for the new Xbox. The new MSFS also supports HDR (high dynamic range). I don't have a monitor capable of HDR. 

The new Xbox will have a SSD, I'm still using a conventional hard drive because it works well enough with XP11 and current games. If the new MSFS actually does use streaming and buffering for scenery, it might require a SSD for good performance. We don't know yet.

So, while I can probably fly the new MSFS without spending a dime on new hardware by backing down the settings, if I want to match the eye candy on the new Xbox I might need to buy a SSD drive, a new 4K monitor supporting HDR, and a new high-end GPU to drive that monitor. Probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,500-$2,000 USD. Or I could just get that new Xbox when it comes out. 😄

Some of us may be lucky enough to be running very high-end PCs with a 2080 Ti, SSD, the latest CPU and gobs of RAM. But from posts I've seen here on Avsim, that isn't all of us. It certainly isn't me!

The silver lining here, is that some of us are planning hardware upgrades anyway during the next year and a half. So we may be in the neighborhood of that new Xbox performance by the time the thing is released. I know my next purchase will be a fairly high-end GPU in the next 6 months. That was going to happen if I had never heard about the new MSFS.

Edited June 30, 2019 by Paraffin

[Dio 8]

56 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

I'm not so sure about that. I agree with the general idea, that if we're running a system strong enough to fly current sims at decent frame rates, and play current games with lots of eye candy (if not fully maxed out), then we should be okay.

It's more about whether a new flight sim designed to showcase the new Scarlett Xbox will have new features that we'll want to match on the PC version. Because I know my current rig can't get anywhere close to the specs of that thing.

For example, I know many flight simmers are moving to 4k monitor resolution; I'm not there yet, still using a 1920x1200 monitor because I can get a nice smooth 35-40 fps flying XP11 with my not-so-great GTX970 GPU. That GPU does fine running current AAA games at fairly high settings too. But it's not good enough for 4k resolution even if I had a monitor with that resolution. Let alone the claim of 120 fps at 4k for the new Xbox. The new MSFS also supports HDR (high dynamic range). I don't have a monitor capable of HDR. 

The new Xbox will have a SSD, I'm still using a conventional hard drive because it works well enough with XP11 and current games. If the new MSFS actually does use streaming and buffering for scenery, it might require a SSD for good performance. We don't know yet.

So, while I can probably fly the new MSFS without spending a dime on new hardware by backing down the settings, if I want to match the eye candy on the new Xbox I might need to buy a SSD drive, a new 4K monitor supporting HDR, and a new high-end GPU to drive that monitor. Probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,500-$2,000 USD. Or I could just get that new Xbox when it comes out. 😄

Some of us may be lucky enough to be running very high-end PCs with a 2080 Ti, SSD, the latest CPU and gobs of RAM. But from posts I've seen here on Avsim, that isn't all of us. It certainly isn't me!

The silver lining here, is that some of us are planning hardware upgrades anyway during the next year and a half. So we may be in the neighborhood of that new Xbox performance by the time the thing is released. I know my next purchase will be a fairly high-end GPU in the next 6 months. That was going to happen if I had never heard about the new MSFS.

Hi, my system: I7-6700k @ 4.6Ghz, GTX 1080Ti, Asus Z170 Pro gaming, 16 GB of RAM at 2533, M2 Samsung 970 EVO 21:9 monitor 2560X1080. I have ORBX EUROPE, GLOBAL, VECTOR and 4-5 airports + 747-400 PMDG 738_739 PMDG and FSLabs airbus. I am from Greece and i usually fly around Greece. My FPS is around 24 on the ground 37 at FL>150. Once, I decided to fly from EHAM (SCHIPHOL) . I had 8 FPS on the ground. A few days ago i watched the trailer they' ve released. And it  brought me to my knees. What kind of hardware can deliver this level of detail? OK, someone might say "this is a commercial it has to be perfect" but the level of detail cannot be compared with FSX maxed out or with P3D nor with anything else. That is why opened this topic. I agree that it's up to me to decide. I hope that MS this time will and should be honest about it's recommended hardware demands. Not only to run, but to run decently. We always hear stories about a promising software and the results it produces but we 've never been told how.

My best regards.

[G-RFRY 1,712]

5 hours ago, vortex681 said:

This is why I'm not convinced that MS will go down the fully streamed route. Many places around the world, including plenty of areas in 1st-world countries, would struggle to maintain the sort of data rates needed for cloud-based gaming. Why would they limit their potential customer base? I could understand a partial (scenery) streaming service but, even then, plenty of people have data caps from their ISP which could limit them even if they have the required bandwidth.

Based on this Azure will fail and Google + Sony streaming platforms, for me the clue is in MSFS powered by Azure. 

[Amon1973 1,421]

23 hours ago, shivers9 said:

I think we had all better start bringing home flowers and candy for the wife every week. When this thing hits in a year or two we are going to be doing a lot of fast talking and begging. New Computer, New Sim, New add-ons and for most New Networking and Internet service. Some of the hidden cost may include but not limited to a New Wife, Home and Car. No worries, you have to be tough to be a flight simmer!!🤣

Start stashing money into a secret bank account now lads, at least Microsoft have had the decency to fore warn us to save up.