It's true if we continue to want more and more complex scenery at 4K or more then storage sizes are going to be unimaginable! Surely if Microsoft are saying that there will be a streaming service then this will render companies like ORBX obsolete?! Soon the only way to create the visuals we want will need massive resourses that only the cloud can provide. Unless of course you want to buy your own super computer.

Just like others in this thread I really do not want backwards compatability. We need something revolutionary.

19 hours ago, irrics said:

I really hope the sim is groundbreaking in a way that Orbx stuff is *very* optional.

No offense to them, but I'm not interested in the realism of my scenery being tied to buying from them (or anyone like them).

To me the MSFS 2020 release will be a disappointment if somehow it's easily allowing old scenery and airports to work very quickly/easily without much change by an add-on dev.

I want a massive leap into the future here.

I really want to start over.  Yes, it may cost a few bucks (Euros, etc.) over time.  But, I want just the opposite of what an earlier post above said: revolution not evolution.  There is a time when you just can't keep the old car running and have to get something that is totally new.  If this is FSX with some new stuff, I'll be sticking with XP11 which continues its evolution on a regular basis.

@ricka47

Totally agree my friend.

MS - we want a clean, fresh, totally modern start from scratch here please!!

7 hours ago, rocketlaunch said:

Just like others in this thread I really do not want backwards compatability. We need something revolutionary.

Are you suggesting that everything in the FSX engine is rubbish and needs to bet gotten rid of, or should Microsoft abandon perfectly functional parts of the software simply for the sake of being different?

That doesn't make sense. The engine needs to change - if a new engine can support existing data formats, it should.

Cheers!

10 hours ago, domkle said:

- "Everything" is a big word. Terrain, aerodynamics, I/O, modeling; lighting and so on and so forth. In all human matters, revolutions generally go to an ugly end. Let's be careful in what we wish. At the end of the day, I want something I enjoy playing, not a monster of endless tweakings. That is what bothers me much more than to give up my addons.

How does that relate to what I was writing/expressing?! I never said/mentioned anything about 'endless tweaking'.

10 hours ago, domkle said:

 - I suppose that MS did its announcement after the architectural choices were already made the foundations laid out and that the building is already well advanced. Which makes our discussion a little theoretical (but interesting nonetheless).

Isn't all these discussions and threads about the upcoming FS2020 'theoretical'?

1 hour ago, Luke said:

Are you suggesting that everything in the FSX engine is rubbish and needs to bet gotten rid of

Umm, at this point yes.

2 hours ago, Luke said:

Are you suggesting that everything in the FSX engine is rubbish and needs to bet gotten rid of, or should Microsoft abandon perfectly functional parts of the software simply for the sake of being different?

In marketing terms, "for the sake of being different" is the whole ball game.

One of the reasons DTG's FSW failed is because it wasn't different enough from FSX. It failed to meet that company's hype about a "next generation" sim, because it very obviously was just window dressing over old FSX code. 

For the new MSFS to be successful, I think Microsoft has to be seen as stepping over the graves of MS Flight and FSW with a brand new product, even at the cost of some lost efficiency here and there in re-using old code and old data formats.

That isn't good news for 3rd party developers of course, because it could make it harder to adapt workflows. But I think it's necessary for MSFS to be a success.

P.S. I'm coming at this from a career (retired) in advertising, thinking about the marketing angles, and not just "what I want" in a new flight sim.

 

51 minutes ago, rocketlaunch said:

Umm, at this point yes.

I'm all for a new start here, but for me that doesn't mean to abandon everything of the past. If there are perfectly working elements that can actually be taken along and incorporated into the new, these shouldn't be wasted and tossed away, like Luke said, just for the sake of it all being new.

Disclaimer: I have no clue about game engines and software so I don't know how feasible this is, or if it is at all. However, if the new sim had a new engine that could still process some of the bits used in addons for the current offerings and the developers 'only' had to recompile and rework parts but could use others as they were which would spare them having to rebuild an addon entirely from scratch, why not? What's the bad in this?

If I wanted a different game, I would purchase a different game. FSX's limitations were 32bit and not utilizing multicore CPUs. I very much hope they keep a lot of how it was used and just expand on its capabilities while taking advantage of modern hardware. The reason I could not get into X-Plane was that it was too different from FSX.

8 hours ago, Torg Smith said:

If I wanted a different game, I would purchase a different game. FSX's limitations were 32bit and not utilizing multicore CPUs. I very much hope they keep a lot of how it was used and just expand on its capabilities while taking advantage of modern hardware. The reason I could not get into X-Plane was that it was too different from FSX.

If it`s just a 64bit FSX I don't need it I already have one.

PS a new sim upgrade addons 50 airports we will only charge you £10 for each airport, I have more than that near 100, and an FSX/P3D airport is not the same as a P3Dv4xx airport you pay again.

Edited July 29, 20196 yr by rjfry

19 minutes ago, rjfry said:

If it`s just a 64bit FSX I don't need it I already have one.

Exactly it is called P3D v4 right?

Don't get me wrong I have been a big fan of P3D (based on FSX) because apart from X-plane it is the best we have right now in terms of a civilian flight simulator. I have supported evey version of P3D since the beginning and have spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars with ORBX. P3D needs support in almost every respect by third party developers.

I dont want to spend a fortune on hardrives and ORBX scenery anymore!

 

14 hours ago, Paraffin said:

 

FSW failed for many reasons indeed and differentiation with old FSX was secondary IMHO.  In anycase, I am sure that MS will sell FS20 as the best thing since somebody invented flying sliced bread  ! Whatever its content. Let's remember the massive FSX TV campaign.  Evolution, revolution, shmevolution, people will buy it.

I am surprised that people come back to FSX when speaking of FS20. There were a FSX v3 (P3Dv1), a FS11 (p3Dv2/v3) and a FS12 (P3Dv4) since. The baseline is P3Dv4 not FSX. As far as we understand it, MS has a property right over any change made by DTG.  It may have the same on  LM work. 

3rd dev. having difficulties to adapt ?  Do not underestimate that making addons with the present SDK and the available motley set of tools requires to be smart and intellectually agile.They need to, LM has given us about 15 versions since v2 was released. And they are passionate in what they do. 

Edited July 29, 20196 yr by domkle

4 hours ago, rjfry said:

If it`s just a 64bit FSX I don't need it I already have one.

PS a new sim upgrade addons 50 airports we will only charge you £10 for each airport, I have more than that near 100, and an FSX/P3D airport is not the same as a P3Dv4xx airport you pay again.

I expect more functionality. 32bit and single core support has put limitations on what can be done with the sim. Getting 64bit, multicore support, and Direct X 12, will allow them to do so much more than they were able to do before. Those limitations in FSX required me to run with very limited AI, as I boosted all the other settings. As I said in another thread, changing all those things will basically be a rewrite of most the code.

I liked overall how the game played. I would like to see additional functionality added. If they start messing with the feel of the game, they risk putting out trash.

I would suggest that if a person won't need the new MSFS then they won't need the next version of P3D either.

If the new sim does in fact allow existing 3PP developers to improve and recompile their products into the new sim and the next version of P3D might do the same, then what is the difference and what is the reluctance/hatred towards the MS offering?

For me its the improvement that matters and, not being a programmer, Im hoping that MS simply finds a more efficient base data set (like XP with its everything baked in approach) combined with an updated compiling routine that allows modification of base data.  I think it was MS's previous approach that caused performance issues but I really dont know.  if they just provide tools that allow outside data to be compiled into a more efficient base data set (again - like XP) (in the offline version I guess...man am I speculating here or what??)

I can already see with my own eyes a TREMENDOUS amount of improvement in the base sim and Im sure Ill see more.  It looks good (the outlook)

PS: I'd bet its possible to write totally new code that produces a product that looks and acts exactly like FSX does. If they use some old code thats fine. if they use all new code thats fine. what difference does whats under the hood matter so long as its improved.

Edited July 29, 20196 yr by sightseer

If MSFS 2020 will have a DIY way to do third party add-ons, I really hope MS makes add-on installations and the file structure for it far more simplistic.

That is one great strength of XP.  It's so nice to so easily be able to backup or reinstall scenery, plugins, aircraft and other tweaks.

FSX/P3D can literally bring your spirit and soul crashing down with the mere thought of having to "reinstall everything".

I've personally deleted them both and just quit when facing that prospect in the past.