2 minutes ago, Pilotboy9 said:

The only thing I hope they keep is the compatibility of keeping third party add ons because it has cost the community a lot of money and without the capability I would stay with my current version of fsx

Hmmmm....I believe you just said that in your previous post!

6 minutes ago, Pilotboy9 said:

I really agree some people, like me, have spent lots of money on flight simulator x and in prepared3d but as im sure many would agree 3rd party add ons are very necessary to be transferable from their sim to this new simulator because it would be a huge waste of money from our behalf if the sim wasn’t capable of doing so and I would most probably stay in fsx steam addition. 

How will payware developers stay in business and thrive, if they can't charge money for new versions developed for the new flight sim platform? Transferring current addons seamlessly to the new sim would kill that market. 

Nobody will force you to move to the new platform, or force you to buy all of the new 3rd party payware developed for it.

I suspect many, like me, will take a cautious approach. If the new sim looks good, I might pick up just a few payware aircraft to start with. I'm certainly not expecting to recreate all the aircraft models I have in XP11 on day one. And if the weather modeling is decent, I won't need any weather addons. It's unlikely there will be that much payware to choose from anyway, in the first months or year after the sim is released.

3 hours ago, Pilotboy9 said:

I really agree some people, like me, have spent lots of money on flight simulator x and in prepared3d but as im sure many would agree 3rd party add ons are very necessary to be transferable from their sim to this new simulator because it would be a huge waste of money from our behalf if the sim wasn’t capable of doing so and I would most probably stay in fsx steam addition. 

How can the be a waste of money, if they have brought you enjoyment and fun? 

I'm sorry for saying this, but if you seriously think or expect, that all your previous addons, which you have used for FSX will simply transfer over into the new platform - either with free help from developers or with a seamless installation - then you really need to re-think and settle your demands and expectations. 

Honestly, isn't it a little unfair and disrespectful to expect that the developers should support this new platform out-of-box for free? 

Edited July 30, 20196 yr by Anders Bermann

34 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

How will payware developers stay in business and thrive, if they can't charge money for new versions developed for the new flight sim platform? Transferring current addons seamlessly to the new sim would kill that market.  

I don't mind developers charging the cost of conversion plus a reasonable mark-up for their profits. What the community objects to is being charged more than the original purchase price for a simple port of a product they already bought (I'm looking at you PMDG, A2A, CaptainSim) especially when it's under the guise of some self-imposed EULA restriction.

This blatant cashing in has left a bad taste in consumers mouths and it's why there's been some hostile attitudes towards payware developers in general within the MFS2020 threads.

ORBX are to be applauded for selling dual FSX and P3D licencing at one price, it's why I picked their scenery products over other devs because I knew I could move to P3D when it suited me without having to worry about compatibility or additional costs.

Edited July 30, 20196 yr by ckyliu

If anyone is even contemplating staying with something like “FSX steam edition“ at this point in time and moving forward, you really are not in the core of the market MS is targeting here. 

No offense whatsoever, but you could give me a copy of that software and I would simply delete it at this point. 

Edited July 30, 20196 yr by irrics

27 minutes ago, ckyliu said:

I don't mind developers charging the cost of conversion plus a reasonable mark-up for their profits. What the community objects to is being charged more than the original purchase price for a simple port of a product they already bought (I'm looking at you PMDG, A2A, CaptainSim) especially when it's under the guise of some self-imposed EULA restriction.

This blatant cashing in has left a bad taste in consumers mouths and it's why there's been some hostile attitudes towards payware developers in general within the MFS2020 threads.

I just don't understand the hostility when we are talking about a new flight simulator coming onto the market. This isn't being billed as an FSX update, after all.

And yes, I understand consumer attitudes from what may be small changes. Sometimes they're not that small though. Carenado got some hostile reactions in the XP world when they announced there would be no discount with their new XP11 aircraft for owners of existing XP10 models of the plane. This was because there were significant changes in the engine modeling from v10 to v11, and the required programming and internal testing hours had to be paid for. Some people didn't understand how much work was involved, or they did understand and just wanted a discount anyway. 

I don't know the situation with P3D, maybe there was price-gouging there, but sometimes consumers have unrealistic expectations too.

 

Quote

ORBX are to be applauded for selling dual FSX and P3D licencing at one price, it's why I picked their scenery products over other devs because I knew I could move to P3D when it suited me without having to worry about compatibility or additional costs.

Well, a scenery package doesn't involve the same software coding as aircraft models. If the underlying terrain mesh and scenery engine isn't very different between the two versions, it might be easy to offer dual licensing. 

I think all of this discussion is probably moot anyway, because I believe the chance for any backwards compatibility in the new MSFS is slim to none. Third party developers will need to do some work to move existing assets into the new sim, depending on how different it is. That work needs to be paid for with the new releases. Or else these companies will stick with the existing "ecosystem" of P3D and XP, which won't help MSFS be a success. 

The community better decide which way its going to go.  I find it completely bizarre to be demanding compatibility, yet the demands of 'What We Want" thread are mostly not conducive to bringing in the old.  You want big progress, big changes, yet keep the old planes, old scenery.  Just doesnt make sense.  In the same breath, the biggest demand is performance.  yet port the old stuff over.  Its one big vicious circle, and fight simulation will never truly progress unless you eventually ditch your current setup.  Its a hard pill to swallow, but if you dont like it, then you stick with the current and never expect big changes. 

My guess is , if this new sim has a new engine, new ways of dealing with scenery, rewrites AI, has fantastic visuals, great flight dynamics model, and excellent 3PD support, eventually the many that refuse to move, will move in the name of performance, and increased realism. And if you really love this hobby, you want progress and come to terms that some things will just have to be repurchased. No hobby is cheap. Especially if you want the latest greatest improvements. 

Again. The MDL and BGL files we use for scenery are simply data. If they are available in the new sim, that data will be rendered by the new sim as 'new' scenery and aircraft. They will look different if the 'core' or engine of the new sim is different regarding behavior or rendering.

The resistance to being able to reuse favorite sceneries is totally wrong. Likely, the only thing needed to be updated would be assets that use a DLL, or FSUIPC or Simconnect. And Simconnect might even be available. Why toss out vectors, terrain, object geometry (or aircraft) if they function well in FSX or P3D? The core controls the rendering and behavior of the data. The data does not control the core.

As far as developers go, backward compatibility will not hurt their sales.

A new sim that totally rejects older addon content would severely limit the number of people buying the new sim. The lack of customers would be a disaster to 3rd party developers buying into a totally new development cycle and tooling. Freeware development stops. Availability of addons and the number of sales of those addons would plummet. And Dos Equis fails like Flight due to lack of addons.

With backward compatibility of data, sales of already developed addons would continue, and new techniques and tools can be introduced to take advantage of the rendering and behaviors of the new core elements, allowing the introduction of new aircraft and scenery elements. More simmers would be lured to the new sim, and sales would thrive. No bankruptcies with this scenario, and we all get a successful, new sim. And freeware development can launch into the new sim with gusto.

Throwing out perfectly usable planes and sceneries is a dumb idea. 

Edited July 30, 20196 yr by rhumbaflappy

Go for performance, breathtaking new visuals and a fully modern start MS.

Dump everything old if you have to.

We want a new base of "amazing" to build on for the next decade plus.  

Please do whatever it takes and don't worry about the past!!

 

3 minutes ago, rhumbaflappy said:

A new sim that totally rejects older addon content would severely limit the number of people buying the new sim.

It's impossible to say that.

It may impact those still using P3D or (gasp) FSX - but for the entire rest of the market, especially on the growth side of people not even currently in the FS space, it won't matter one iota.

If they're pouring resources into this, MS are likely interested in growing and expanding the market (especially with consoles in the mix), not capturing whatever is left from the past.

Edited July 30, 20196 yr by irrics

1 minute ago, irrics said:

It may impact those still using P3D or (gasp) FSX - but for the entire rest of the market, especially on the growth side of people not even currently in the FS space, it won't matter one iota.

FSX still has the lion's share of new sales for both addons and for sales of the sim itself. Far better than P3D. And P3D would not even be discussed here at AVSIM if it had no inclusion of content from FSX. It would only have a market of about 1000 customers. There's a good reason Lockheed Martin doesn't check to see if it's endusers are actually enrolled in flight school before they allow a license. Most here at AVSIM and the other forums are FSX users. No need to gasp.

 

And the market for the new sim is the FSX enduser.

5 hours ago, rhumbaflappy said:

Again. The MDL and BGL files we use for scenery are simply data.

So I personally want a new code. Especially because I want more power. FSX is from the last millennium and I want to get away from it. And if they rebuild it and everything is better, then all will switch to the new MSFS.I have no doubt about that!

Edited July 30, 20196 yr by n4gix
REMOVED EXCESSIVE QUOTE!!! Please stop quoting the entire post you are replying to!

2 minutes ago, rhumbaflappy said:

And the market for the new sim is the FSX enduser.

Completely disagree as I would suspect MS would since they're mentioning and designing to thoughtfully bring this to the new Xbox.

 

2 minutes ago, rhumbaflappy said:

FSX still has the lion's share of new sales for both addons and for sales of the sim itself.

Do you feel that MS cares about how add-on sales are doing for FSX?

Edited July 30, 20196 yr by irrics

And to all the compatibility want. Then wait another two years and then you will have what you have always dreamed of. But what's new in the long run is better than gnawing on old bones.

1 hour ago, ckyliu said:

I don't mind developers charging the cost of conversion plus a reasonable mark-up for their profits.  

It is not only the cost of the conversion or profit. LM releases several updates for each of its products. The developers have to do their own updates to follow suit which can be delicate for overtweaked aircraft like A2A, PMDG etc. and disrupt the workflow on ongoing projects.  They have to factor the cost in. 

Then there is an inexorable trend toward higher prices in any case. We, the market, demand more and more sophistication, aircraft or sceneries cannot be done but by teams of several specialists (in-house or often subcontracted). There are exceptions to the rule of course but less and less.  And these specialists don't work for free.