Key things MS Needs to do (it won't be easy)

[vortex681 806]

1 hour ago, Anders Bermann said:

And yet, AVSIM is filled with posts and threads in here, where people are claiming - with 110% certainty - that all the content you have just listed (and which you correctly stated, currently have unknown status) is included.

I am genuinely curious as to why you think, that stating the opposite is such a big no-no?!

It's certainly not a big no-no and everyone is equally entitled to give an opinion - I hope that I didn't give any impression to the contrary. But it's also currently impossible to say, with any certainty, that everything we've seen so far points to MSFS just being a "plane game". I was simply saying that you can't reach that conclusion (or any conclusion, at the moment) based on the very, very limited information we have so far.

Edited July 7, 2019 by vortex681

[pracines 823]

4 hours ago, rjfry said:

I don't think you get my point MSFS will be part of a new platform Game Pass and Project Scarlet XBOX and without new user uptake no flight sim will survive long term, LR did not put XP11 on steam and android without a reason but to attract new users and for all we know may well end up on a streaming platform some time in the future, and for all we know train sim may well end up on Game Pass in the future along with other simulators, We don't now what Google intend to include on there platform they could for all we know think the same.     

You make some good points about the survival of a flight simulator. I totally understand your points.

I just want to be sure you remember that P3D did not do any of those things (Xbox or  steam or anything else) and its more successful with lots more new users than all of them. LM did it the correct way, improve the realism, and work with the 3PPs. No need to try and mix in the gamers from steam and Xbox, because new flight simmers will find P3D (where there is a will, there is a way). If MSFS never was announced, P3D would remain long-term, and FSX has remained long-term. MSFS can to the exact same thing using the exact same formula.

I think we all can agree that the android thing is not going to help LR (we saw the FSEXPO presentation and the response), and unless or until Infinite Flight goes to the PC it will never be even a contender. Its possible that the new Fly Inside Flight simulator will blow past X-plane if LR keeps focusing too much on android.

Companies can do as they wish, but Lockheed Martin is still presently the king of homebased realistic flight sims, and to learn from their marketing/production is best.

Gamers will NOT support a realistic flight sim, and a flight game will NOT be supported by flight simmers. Its really very simple math, and it is very true.

[irrics 1,517]

16 minutes ago, pracines said:

I just want to be sure you remember that P3D did not do any of those things (Xbox or  steam or anything else) and its more successful with lots more new users than all of them. LM did it the correct way, improve the realism, and work with the 3PPs.

We don't even know if P3D covers its own costs to LM, do we?

They (obviously) have GIGANTIC revenue sources that don't rely one bit on P3D being viable on its own.

[G-RFRY 1,712]

LM do not pander to the flight sim community and will develop P3D the way they want, P3Dv4.5 is the sim I use now, and if we the community stopped using it that would not stop the development as we are not the intended focus of the product.  

[pracines 823]

20 minutes ago, irrics said:

We don't even know if P3D covers its own costs to LM, do we?

They (obviously) have GIGANTIC revenue sources that don't rely one bit on P3D being viable on its own.

LM is not stupid; if P3D was not a success it simply would not continue, it's not like there are only a couple developers working on P3D making $15/hour. There are real professional salaries for a whole team of software engineers, almost 10 years strong, and there is not a chance that LM HQ knows nothing about this P3D department.

7 minutes ago, rjfry said:

LM do not pander to the flight sim community and will develop P3D the way they want, P3Dv4.5 is the sim I use now, and if we the community stopped using it that would not stop the development as we are not the intended focus of the product.  

Lets see, umm, is Carenado, Just Flight, or Milviz, part of the military? Look at the LM P3D website and see it filled with non military 3PP's, that FSX has had for years. What were LM doing at FSEXPO?

Its true there is a professional plus side - but just looking at the LM forums one could conclude that we are about half of the business. And one (LM) could also conclude that without non military 3PP's, P3D would be far less appealing to even professional users. Just try and imagine P3D "default" being as successful. No FSUIPC/WIDEFS, no Orbx, no HiFi, no A2A, no PMDG, no RC/PATC, and on and on.

We, in this flight sim community are a very important part of LM business. And if MSFS is a booming success, and all of us flock to it, LM will be greatly affected, and their forums will fade. This will be provable too. We have to wait and see, but either way MS will have to appeal to us as their primary goal. Who knows maybe LM will make P3D v5 even more appealing to us than MSFS.

Please consider giving us flight simmers some more due credit.👍

[Greazer 1,332]

1 hour ago, pracines said:

Companies can do as they wish, but Lockheed Martin is still presently the king of homebased realistic flight sims, and to learn from their marketing/production is best.

P3d is Not a contender against XP because of it shockingly bad flight modeling and terrible graphics engine (based off bloated MS code from the 80 and 90's, DLL hell). XP graphics is by no means perfect but it's going through the Vulkan upgrade. The new MSFS is an attempt to knockout p3d and challenge XP down the road. Either way in 5 years from now it will be XP vs p3d or XP vs MSFS.

[pracines 823]

35 minutes ago, Greazer said:

P3d is Not a contender against XP because of it shockingly bad flight modeling and terrible graphics engine (based off bloated MS code from the 80 and 90's, DLL hell). 

The numbers don't lie.

When XP has addon developers like FSL or PMDG then it may come into the ring, but for now there is no contest.

If MSFS is a success, I see XP being in more trouble than P3D. I also see XP(12) losing to P3D(v5) (once again), if MSFS were not in the mix. 

But I don't think XP or P3D should be too much a part of this discussion, aside from how MSFS should do things similar or different from either.🙂

[vortex681 806]

2 hours ago, pracines said:

I just want to be sure you remember that P3D did not do any of those things (Xbox or  steam or anything else) and its more successful with lots more new users than all of them. LM did it the correct way, improve the realism, and work with the 3PPs. No need to try and mix in the gamers from steam and Xbox, because new flight simmers will find P3D (where there is a will, there is a way).

How do you know that P3D is more successful than ALL of the others? Remember also that we are not LM's primary focus with P3D - it's not a leisure product. My personal opinion is that most new P3D customers are just moving from other currently available flight sims. I'd be very surprised if more than a small percentage were coming from outside of the existing flight sim community.

2 hours ago, pracines said:

Gamers will NOT support a realistic flight sim, and a flight game will NOT be supported by flight simmers. Its really very simple math, and it is very true.

I agree that dedicated flight simmers will not be interested in a flight game, but there's just no evidence to suggest that gamers will not support a realistic flight sim. I've successfully introduced a number of gamers (sons of friends and family) to real flight sims. If gamers are prepared to invest time in complex space sims/games, I see no reason why they wouldn't do the same with a flight sim if it was appealing enough. All flight sim enthusiasts have to start somewhere and exposing gamers to something as high profile as MSFS in the XBox gaming library sounds like a great marketing idea to me and just the shot in the arm that's needed to get more people on board for the next generation of flight sims. We need new blood!

1 hour ago, pracines said:

And one (LM) could also conclude that without non military 3PP's, P3D would be far less appealing to even professional users. Just try and imagine P3D "default" being as successful. No FSUIPC/WIDEFS, no Orbx, no HiFi, no A2A, no PMDG, no RC/PATC, and on and on.

Do you seriously think that corporate and military users (in particular) rely solely on the likes of A2A, Orbx and the rest for their training? They develop what they need in-house (or have it developed for them). In general, unlike us, they're not worried that it doesn't look as good as the real world. For them it's much more about the training value than the graphics.

Edited July 7, 2019 by vortex681

[Murmur 3,944]

Sometimes, I wish that MFS will have a closed ecosystem, so that the obnoxious "We-the-serious-flight-simmers" will keep playing with their P3D and leave the rest of us moving forward with a modern, realistic flight simulator.

Edited July 7, 2019 by Murmur

[Pastaiolo 1,688]

10 hours ago, pracines said:

You make some good points about the survival of a flight simulator. I totally understand your points.

I just want to be sure you remember that P3D did not do any of those things (Xbox or  steam or anything else) and its more successful with lots more new users than all of them. LM did it the correct way, improve the realism, and work with the 3PPs. No need to try and mix in the gamers from steam and Xbox, because new flight simmers will find P3D (where there is a will, there is a way). If MSFS never was announced, P3D would remain long-term, and FSX has remained long-term. MSFS can to the exact same thing using the exact same formula.

I think we all can agree that the android thing is not going to help LR (we saw the FSEXPO presentation and the response), and unless or until Infinite Flight goes to the PC it will never be even a contender. Its possible that the new Fly Inside Flight simulator will blow past X-plane if LR keeps focusing too much on android.

Companies can do as they wish, but Lockheed Martin is still presently the king of homebased realistic flight sims, and to learn from their marketing/production is best.

Gamers will NOT support a realistic flight sim, and a flight game will NOT be supported by flight simmers. Its really very simple math, and it is very true.

 

The sole reason of P3D success is that Microsoft disappeared for years, P3D uses the same ESP engine used in FSX but it's an improved version, most addons could be ported over (and most bought back since it's "professional" and that justified certain developers to sell the same plane with almost the same features at a way higher price), and that people are keeping a blind eye to the "no entertainment use" part in the Eula. 

The problem with that is the stagnation it creates, both from a technology point of view and a mindset point of view in the developers and users both ("i have everything i need, why should i change?" "I have invested so much, why should i change?"  "i can port old addons with the other sim for a higher price, why should i change?").

FSEXPO reactions are not indicative of the market, and neither is Avsim for the most part since most people in here are clueless about other games and nowadays engine capabilities. The super professional simmers are usually close minded people who focused so much effort and money into a platform that they will only see that and even defend it as a way to justify their big investment in it. Hell, being aviation lovers i would expect most of us to use more than one simulator. Does it happen? I don't think so, not so much as i would expect.

If you have numbers of sales regarding P3D, please share them or avoid making claims you cannot back up with numbers.

At least for FSX-SE( 1.000.000 - 2.000.000 owners), Aerofly FS2 (20.000-50.000 owners), X-Plane 10 (50.000-100.000 owners), Xplane 11(200.000-500.000 owners)  and even Xplane 10 mobile edition (over 1.000.000 copies) there are numbers (Steam sales so without even considering those sim sold elsewhere as well) which can be brought into the conversation.

More over even FSX is a GAME we are all playing a game. You go play FSX vanilla and you tell me if that is a professional simulator. Or if P3D vanilla is a professional simulator. Or any other, really. No game is born a professional simulator, but most have certain features which are easier for new players and with addons other more complex features are introduced. This applies to all current simulators, even DCS has a "game mode" out there for new players and options to simplify the whole experience.

Gamers and "flight simmers" have been using the same GAMES since forever, the difference is the addons used and the behaviour of such people inside the same platform.

[ErichB 3,644]

3 hours ago, france89 said:

More over even FSX is a GAME we are all playing a game. You go play FSX vanilla and you tell me if that is a professional simulator. Or if P3D vanilla is a professional simulator. Or any other, really. No game is born a professional simulator, but most have certain features which are easier for new players and with addons other more complex features are introduced. This applies to all current simulators, even DCS has a "game mode" out there for new players and options to simplify the whole experience.

Gamers and "flight simmers" have been using the same GAMES since forever, the difference is the addons used and the behaviour of such people inside the same platform.

 A home based simulator, no matter what tag or label you choose to give to it, is only as good as the complexity and fidelity of the aircraft made for it by third parties -  and the availability of hardware add-ons to support the operation of those aircraft in the sim.  That assumes a highly accurate weather environment - or the ability to model a seasonal and weather environment accurately (by third parties)  

Every sim platform allows for scenery modelling - so that's not really a defining criteria. 

There is only one sim platform that currently provides all of the above - and I certainly hope when FS2020 releases, it'll be the second..

 

 

Edited July 8, 2019 by ErichB

[ricka47 611]

12 hours ago, Murmur said:

Sometimes, I wish that MFS will have a closed ecosystem, so that the obnoxious "We-the-serious-flight-simmers" will keep playing with their P3D and leave the rest of us moving forward with a modern, realistic flight simulator.

I tend to agree with this.  P3D and XP will still be there for those who like to spend their time with new addons (and then keeping them up-to-date and making them work with everything else) along with the endless tweaking to get one more FPS or fix something that doesn't work correctly.

Let's not worry about how we did it in the past and accept that there may be a better way to do things even if that involves things like subscriptions and streaming.  If Microsoft doesn't deliver the radical change that I'm looking for or if some don't want that much of a change, options are still available.

Edited July 8, 2019 by ricka47

[WarpD 824]

14 hours ago, pracines said:

And one (LM) could also conclude that without non military 3PP's, P3D would be far less appealing to even professional users. Just try and imagine P3D "default" being as successful. No FSUIPC/WIDEFS, no Orbx, no HiFi, no A2A, no PMDG, no RC/PATC, and on and on.

As one who is in the training industry... I'll be kind enough to let you know... uh... wrong.  Most trainers use default scenery as it's pretty much all that's needed.  Maybe a custom, updated airport added in, maybe some photoscenery if the area needed has a critical visual element that must be met.  Otherwise, nope... simple, default scenery.  No FSUIPC, no WideDefs, no Orbx, no... well, none of those things.  Also, the training industry is a bit larger than you appear to give it credit for.

As for non-military.  You'd be surprised how much non-military is used by the military. LOL

[pracines 823]

13 hours ago, Murmur said:

Sometimes, I wish that MFS will have a closed ecosystem, so that the obnoxious "We-the-serious-flight-simmers" will keep playing with their P3D and leave the rest of us moving forward with a modern, realistic flight simulator.

Well we know for sure that there are at least 9 people (the above and the ones who agree by their likes/upvotes) here at Avsim who are still angry at the fact that DTG FSW died....yes died, yea really moving forward. There is always the Holiday Flight Sim 😂 available to them...complete with a closed eco system and $6.49 on sale🤣 

We serious flight simmers want a modern realistic flight sim too, but if you want "closed" you invite total and complete failure.

MSFS will have to please the serious flight simmer, no matter how much that angers the dabbler/gamer (non-serious) "tiny group". Anybody who disagrees with this is plain wrong, and its been proven for many years. We need to trust that a flight sim which pleases the serious crowd, will remain strong, so that the newcomers can even have a chance to buy it. We are already here FIRST to be able to support it. The eventual newcomer may still be learning how to read or is still learning what they desire in life. A similar principle: "put your breathing mask on first, then assist others".  

I really thought the death of FSW would put this kind of debate to rest - some just don't agree with proven plain truth or common sense.🤷‍♂️

3 hours ago, WarpD said:

As one who is in the training industry... I'll be kind enough to let you know... uh... wrong.  Most trainers use default scenery as it's pretty much all that's needed.  Maybe a custom, updated airport added in, maybe some photoscenery if the area needed has a critical visual element that must be met.  Otherwise, nope... simple, default scenery.  No FSUIPC, no WideDefs, no Orbx, no... well, none of those things.  Also, the training industry is a bit larger than you appear to give it credit for.

As for non-military.  You'd be surprised how much non-military is used by the military. LOL

Why would your "counter"-point allow for a custom this or that which must be met, when I specifically said default (NO ADDONS)? Does this make you or me correct? ... be honest. 

You possibly perceived me speaking of the training industry when I said professional users. In context, I see the training industry grouped with serious flight simmers (same license fee) to a certain degree, and "professional" PLUS users as primarily Military. However, if MSFS becomes the go to sim for homebased serious flight simmers, it will affect P3D sales greatly. Now that does not mean to imply that the training industry for P3D is small, no. But it does mean LM will eventually lose most if not all the add-on developers it gained from us (FSX/ESP). But even so, one must ask; are all them training facilities going to move to V5 and 6, so much that it would be cost effective for most of our developers to keep developing for "simconnect" (or other), too? I mean your point about scenery not being so important n all. Training facilities will remain with their V4 simconnect custom add-ons that must be met. Will LM P3D staff simply answer forum posts for generations? Hypothetically, we will have moved on to MSFS, with Carenado and Milviz and the rest. Training facilities wont even need a V5, "since they don't need add-ons or anything else".

Of course LM could go full time marketing toward flight schools, universities, airports, and airlines. But considering everything, there must be plenty of big picture reasons why they attend FSEXPO along with training industry EXPO's.

If they have not already, LM is likely developing a "plan b c d e", with this new news of MSFS, and I truly wish LM well. No matter what, flight simmers are going to go with the most realistic flight sim.

As for surprising me, you are unable to surprise me, no matter what facts you present, because I think we are on the same page more than not.

[sightseer 895]

serious flight simmers don't fly ultralights.  I think thats what you are actually trying to say.

Two arguments I see:

One:  "It has to be complex in order for it to be considered flying" --  I find this sad.  I have great fun flying an ultralight.  I have also had great fun following the procedures to start and program and fly my ifly 737 from place to place.  I want both in my sim.

 

Two:  "only third party developers can do anything right".  The same people who panned FSW were the same people who praised A2A and Just Flight which is really odd because both were instrumental(to my knowledge) in creating planes for FSW.  Its like saying Julia Child is a great chef unless she joins Microsoft and then her cooking MUST be replaced.

 

its just odd.  and I really don't think they plan on locking out third party plane makers and I definitely agree that all planes available (everything available) should be more realistic and not less.  In my opinion its one thing that makes racing sims popular...they are complicated and difficult.  People get bored when everything is too easy.  But if a given plane is in fact easier and it exists then it should be that way in a sim. not to the exclusion of better but in addition to.  

Edited July 8, 2019 by sightseer