How Can Other Sims Compete With MSFS?

[SamYeager 244]

12 hours ago, stephenbgs said:

Could MS persuade ( Not enforce ) LM to axe or have tighter restrictions on the Academic version of P3d in return for some payback down the road such as exclusive rights to a professional MSFS. This would leave LM with P3D still existing from $200 up, with near term updates such as V5 coming from in house, while simultaneous development for a V6 or re brand being developed at MS 

Perhaps a more pertinent question is why should MS bother about LM and P3D? It's a fair bet that the most likely scenario is that most P3D users will stay with it for a few years anyway whilst the add-on market for MFS  ramps up although the uptake for the next version of P3D may be rather less than in the past. The presence of the "legacy" emulation in MFS may possibly speed up the migration depending on how well it works.

There seemed to be a lot of interest from Xbox users judging by a quick skim of the comments to the Xbox trailer so that may well be a lucrative source of new users.

Edited October 8, 2019 by SamYeager
Typo

[Reader 2,021]

14 minutes ago, SamYeager said:

Perhaps a more pertinent question is why should MS bother about LM and P3D?

I do wonder if MS will do anything about P3D... I can imagine MS doesn't want P3D to be in the way of MSFS sales. But I don't know anything about sales figures of P3D (Academic) or if MS still has a say in it all or not.

[bonchie 2,305]

2 hours ago, nas123 said:

I guess this will/could be the way forward to create Earth sceneries for other flightsims like XPLANE.

Austin just doesn't care about that stuff. 

He's said over and over that he's perfectly happy with his "plausible" world. 

[Casualcas 830]

I'm not so sure the word is compete, but coexist, due to the different market they are in.

[turnandbank 243]

5 hours ago, nas123 said:

7 hours ago, nickhod said:

I take back my comment that "Google would never license their photogrammetry data".

https://cloud.google.com/maps-platform/gaming/

Seems like they actively want to, but at a hefty price I would guess.

I guess this will/could be the way forward to create Earth sceneries for other flightsims like XPLANE.

If my personal experience using the Google Maps API is any indication, it will be a hefty price indeed. For years Google had a generous free level of API use and I was able to integrate much of their data into a website I run without cost. This year they started charging for the data at the rate that was going to cost me 20x my gross monthly revenue to continue using the API the way I had been. Their strategy seems to be to provide a service for free or at a low cost for years, until they almost have a monopoly on the content and data, most of which is user generated. They then take a sharp turn and charge a fortune for the data provided to them for free by their user base. I've noticed many websites and applications have switched to open source maps and map data since this change.

I may be wrong, but I doubt any of the current flight sims could afford to stream Google Maps imagery to their end users without passing on the cost via a hefty subscription. Microsoft has a clear advantage since they already have the imagery, data and cloud resources at their disposal.

[Casualcas 830]

Exactly what I was thinking. I knew about the api usage changes and stopped what I was working on. 

[HiFlyer 9,358]

1 hour ago, turnandbank said:

I may be wrong, but I doubt any of the current flight sims could afford to stream Google Maps imagery to their end users without passing on the cost via a hefty subscription. Microsoft has a clear advantage since they already have the imagery, data and cloud resources at their disposal.

Yet Flyinside seems to be streaming Bing data, and they are not a big company........

[Arthur42417 193]

On 10/7/2019 at 2:46 PM, irrics said:

In X-Plane, weather and ATC should have been dealt with many versions ago.  It’s always been baffling that Austin doesn’t care more about weather in particular.

I have very little faith in XP delivering the goods long term.  It all just takes too long with them.  It always has.

Anyhow, I’m off topic rambling about XP - wrong place for that.

Austin is too busy travelling and shopping.....he makes around $2million profit/sales a year i read in an article a few days ago🙄

Edited October 8, 2019 by Arthur42417

[turnandbank 243]

2 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Yet Flyinside seems to be streaming Bing data, and they are not a big company........

That is true. 

I do not know Bing's pricing for their map data and imagery, but it is probably less than Google. 

With respect to my own use of Google APIs, I found other sources for my website with a much higher free tier and far lower cost above it. Google's data tends to be more accurate and up-to-date than other sources, as their near monopoly in search makes it essential for businesses and organizations to provide with up-to-date data and their massive user base provides millions of updates, reviews and photos. They used to share this data much more freely, but now it is expensive. I doubt the average user knows Google is charging other businesses to use the photos and reviews they provide Google with for free.

Having said that, if Google is willing to work with a competing simulator platform by providing data and imagery at a price that allows for a positive return for both parties, who knows what could develop. Either way, Microsoft has a big head start with rendering the world in the sim this way. It clearly takes more than just data and images to do this. There are many issues to overcome, such as color correction, cloud removal and and filling in areas with poor or no images, not to mention efficient compression, streaming and caching. If you look at the thread that compares screenshots from MSFS with the raw satellite images, you can see how much MSFS / Asobo have done to improve the overall look.

[nickhod 425]

3 hours ago, turnandbank said:

That is true. 

I do not know Bing's pricing for their map data and imagery, but it is probably less than Google. 

FlyInside just streams directly from the Bing image servers. Doing that avoids any API usage fee.

It's totally against Bing Maps API T&Cs, but they've got away with it so far.

There's no way a company could allow unlimited streaming of high-res satellite imagery (Bing or Google) and not charge for it monthly if they themselves were being billed.

[Noooch 1,084]

How could they compete? I honnestly don t know, maybe on other aspects but they will have to be reeealy creative. 

I mean in term of weather or aerodynamics what can they do more ? Simulate 10000 surfaces per aircraft ? This makes no sense. As for the scenery, Microsoft has to run 20000 computers to accuratly calculate the position of every tree on the planet, the shape and colors of each rooftop on the planet... Good luck with that.

[Christopher Low 5,352]

How effectively other sims are able to compete with the new Microsoft Flight Simulator (MFS) depends on how much the latter offers on release day. Only time will tell if features like AI planes and ATC make it into the release version. Even if they do, what about "study level" aircraft? These take time to develop to a high level of fidelity, and we have absolutely no idea if the major players in that department have even signed up yet.

[Noooch 1,084]

2 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

How effectively other sims are able to compete with the new Microsoft Flight Simulator (MFS) depends on how much the latter offers on release day. Only time will tell if features like AI planes and ATC make it into the release version. Even if they do, what about "study level" aircraft? These take time to develop to a high level of fidelity, and we have absolutely no idea if the major players in that department have even signed up yet.

AI and ATC will be present, on release or shortly After. It simply can t be otherwise am I wrong?

They said they have reached every single 3rd party developper, why wouldn t they be part of it ? 

If they are already working on the new sim as suggested by the head of MSFS, I am pretty sure we will not be waiting that much for the first study level aircrafts.

Speaking of that, have you seen the quality of the default ones? Is it really not enough?

[Reader 2,021]

7 minutes ago, Noooch said:

I am pretty sure we will not be waiting that much for the first study level aircrafts.

Speaking of that, have you seen the quality of the default ones? Is it really not enough?

We have seen nothing yet when it comes to system depth. The planes in the various video's LOOK good, so no problems there when it comes to quality, but we have no clue yet how deep the systems are and if they come close to study level or not. They seem to have working systems but that's all we know. So in that regard there is nothing that can be said about the quality at this moment. I personally do think that at least the GA will be close to study level (as far as possible with GA) but I have no clue how deep for instance the Airbus will be simulated. No one knows right now if it will be enough.

[vortex681 806]

On 10/7/2019 at 4:48 PM, nickhod said:

P3D: I can see Lockheed axing it and licensing MSFS. They're not an entertainment company, they're a defence company. It's developed as tool to train pilots and MSFS will eventually be a better tool to train pilots.

...

Deadstick: I think it'll still do well due to its narrow focus as more of a fun game rather than a full blown simulator.

P3D - the commercial/defence sector isn't usually too worried about graphics, it's all about content. Plus, there tends to be a lot of inertia in those markets and they prefer to stick with what they know as it's quicker to develop new content in a familiar environment.

Deadstick - it's going to have a very restricted, procedural world with only bush flying. Why would anyone buy this if the new sim could do everything just as well (if not better, in many cases) and also lets you operate anywhere in the real world with the option of using different types of aircraft?