1 minute ago, jarmstro said:

Quite right. I for one applaud your standards. My only point is that it would seem that there are still developers who simply do not understand the scale of the market MSFS has to offer compared to XP. I would like to see your work in both sims.

Ok, at the risk of this thread going off topic, I'll indulge and assume you're asking a legitimate question and seeking a legitimate answer.

First of all, referencing an earlier post, I know Tom Kyler at IXEG, very well.  And he's not moving the 737 to MSFS at all (for the near or distant future at least).  

Making an add on for both sims is no easy task.  Different SDK's.  Different object animations.  Different textures.  And it's not a simple case of "porting" code.  It's, for the most part, a code re-write.  And I can say, with absolute 100% certainty, what I am working on now, as far as systems are concerned, can NOT be duplicated in MSFS.  The SDK simply does not allow for it.  I can point you to several streams of what is being done to it, if you wish.

It's obvious that the MSFS market is much bigger than the X-Plane market.  Any developer with an objective opinion will admit to that.  But I can bring a comparison to this.  Why don't Bing coders work for google?  Google is much bigger than Bing.  Why don't Apple engineers work for Microsoft?  Microsoft is more popular.  It's because they are making a good living, and they're happy...and comfortable...in the ecosystem they're already in.  X-Plane has given me a living for the past 12 years.  The TBM has been a phenomenal success.  Far exceeding my expectations.  Would it have made me more money in MSFS?  Sure.  But I've settled in nicely within the X-Plane community.  I'm not saying we'll NEVER make anything for MSFS, but for now, and the foreseeable future, it's all hands on the X-Plane deck.  

 

16 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Ok, at the risk of this thread going off topic, I'll indulge and assume you're asking a legitimate question and seeking a legitimate answer.

First of all, referencing an earlier post, I know Tom Kyler at IXEG, very well.  And he's not moving the 737 to MSFS at all (for the near or distant future at least).  

Making an add on for both sims is no easy task.  Different SDK's.  Different object animations.  Different textures.  And it's not a simple case of "porting" code.  It's, for the most part, a code re-write.  And I can say, with absolute 100% certainty, what I am working on now, as far as systems are concerned, can NOT be duplicated in MSFS.  The SDK simply does not allow for it.  I can point you to several streams of what is being done to it, if you wish.

It's obvious that the MSFS market is much bigger than the X-Plane market.  Any developer with an objective opinion will admit to that.  But I can bring a comparison to this.  Why don't Bing coders work for google?  Google is much bigger than Bing.  Why don't Apple engineers work for Microsoft?  Microsoft is more popular.  It's because they are making a good living, and they're happy...and comfortable...in the ecosystem they're already in.  X-Plane has given me a living for the past 12 years.  The TBM has been a phenomenal success.  Far exceeding my expectations.  Would it have made me more money in MSFS?  Sure.  But I've settled in nicely within the X-Plane community.  I'm not saying we'll NEVER make anything for MSFS, but for now, and the foreseeable future, it's all hands on the X-Plane deck.  

 

I am answered. Thank you.

With regard to the future of XP for what it's worth my own experience is this: I have probably spent something like £1000 on addons for XP. But I now find myself using XP less and less and am unlikely to spend any more money on it. I think there are a number of reasons why, (apart from the usual arguments about visuals which I do not think fully account for it).

1) The vibrancy of MSFS and the community surrounding it. It's moving. It's  improving. Every day there are new things to download and buy. It's an engrossing entertainment as well as just a simulator. It's never boring.

2) Uncertainty about XP12. For sure I now have bought lots of stuff that just isn't going to work in XP12. I am wary about spending any more money now only to find I can't use it in XP12. And for all we know XP12 could be released next month? LR are too tight lipped imo.

43 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

But I now find myself using XP less and less and am unlikely to spend any more money on it.

There will be an audience for both platforms, for very different reasons.  One thing I can say for certain is that this new version of MSFS has drawn in a whole new audience into the flight simming genre, many of which are exploring both X-Plane and MSFS.  Some people prefer what MSFS gives them.  Some people prefer what X-Plane gives them.  And it's not just the base platform.  It's also the add ons.  This is part of the reason my own standards are outrageously high.  (2+ years working on the same model, and I've only just started texturing the exterior)

43 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

1) The vibrancy of MSFS and the community surrounding it. It's moving. It's  improving. Every day there are new things to download and buy. It's an engrossing entertainment as well as just a simulator. It's never boring.

It's definitely never boring.  

MSFS is the person who was around for a while, loved by many, went on vacation, went to a day spa, and came back looking very different.  That is the appeal to many.  It's an old toy that has been shined up, had some restoration done, and presented to the MSFS community from years ago.  With that, comes a whole freeware and payware community eager to add their own little touches to their shiny new toy.

43 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

2) Uncertainty about XP12. For sure I now have bought lots of stuff that just isn't going to work in XP12. I am wary about spending any more money now only to find I can't use it in XP12. And for all we know XP12 could be released next month? LR are too tight lipped imo.

No one said you have to turn your back on X-Plane.  You can go on an indefinite X-Plane hiatus, and enjoy MSFS for as long as you want.  If you want to try out the XP12 demo, easy download.  

That's what I've always encouraged.  Choice.  We're all free to choose.

 

Edited March 22, 20215 yr by GoranM

3 hours ago, GoranM said:

Some developers are in it purely for the dollars, and are happy with a "Buy an existing model off the shelf and cobble roughly together a cockpit using nothing but default assets and whack it out!" reputation.

I think on MFS there is still a really good market for people who make aircraft no matter how bad or good it is. The reason is simply a lack of competition as opposed to scenery and it's of course much more difficult. With scenery, there are literally hundreds of new developers appearing every month (not even including the freeware) that the marketplace has become saturated and nobody pays attention when a new airport comes unless it's one of the big few players. I find it pretty amazing that people are churning out airports/scenery products that use only default assets and google earth models and charging the same money as somebody who has custom modelled everything by hand. 

In regards to developing, a few developers I have spoken to continue creating products for X-Plane 11 or P3D because it's what they are passionate about and enjoy. Rather than churning out generic products for a sim with a potentially bigger market that they don't like or have any interest in, they continue to do what they enjoy and have passion for. I guess this is probably the case with @GoranM and a few others who enjoy the platform itself and still believe it has potential. Also, the competition running over to the better-looking sim, it's much easier to stand out 

 

 

6 hours ago, mSparks said:

It doesn't matter how good XP11 or 12 looks or flies to these ppl, virtually non of them will ever even try it, let alone put the effort in required to make it a half decent sim. 

This statement is very important.  XPlane can no longer skirt through and survive as it's done in the past without serious development.  Gone are the days of buying regional scenery for limited areas and only focusing on one aspect of simming while other areas are far behind the competition.  Good or bad the base sim will have to rise to a new level of detail.  Microsoft has indeed changed the game here.  You can have the best flight dynamics in the world but if you don't have a good looking presentation out the box your product will get regulated to 'Flight Gear' status.  There will always be a few die hard fans of XPlane but that won't be enough to survive. Big money will go to those making add-ons for the most accessible option to users meaning out the box the sim has to be on par with FS2020 after that everything else is on the table.  The only one that can stop this train is Microsoft which they have done in the past (game versus sim labeling of the software, instantly dropping all development like we saw with FSX, desire to offer dumbed down options with XBOX in mind like we saw with FLIGHT, etc) thereby allowing XPlane to survive for so many years. 

And around and round we go again.  

1 hour ago, Dillon said:

XPlane can no longer skirt through and survive as it's done in the past without serious development.

Why?  It has done for almost 30 years.

1 hour ago, Dillon said:

Good or bad the base sim will have to rise to a new level of detail.

Why will it HAVE to?  It's survived this long with Microsoft being the more popular choice.

1 hour ago, Dillon said:

You can have the best flight dynamics in the world but if you don't have a good looking presentation out the box your product will get regulated to 'Flight Gear' status.

How does THIS make sense?  Either look as good as MSFS or be cast to Flight Gear status. (?????)

1 hour ago, Dillon said:

There will always be a few die hard fans of XPlane but that won't be enough to survive.

And there will always be a few die hard MSFS fans, like you.

1 hour ago, Dillon said:

Big money will go to those making add-ons for the most accessible option to users meaning out the box the sim has to be on par with FS2020 after that everything else is on the table.

I've been making a living from x-Plane add ons when FSX and P3D were the big new sims.  

 

I've seen comments like yours for years.  How about we just enjoy what we want to enjoy without all the "this sim will die if it doesn't pick up their game"

57 minutes ago, GoranM said:

I've seen comments like yours for years.  How about we just enjoy what we want to enjoy without all the "this sim will die if it doesn't pick up their game"

The problem is the game has changed and the old model no longer applies.  In the past all our options were at least in the same generation as far as visuals/features.  All options had the expectation of needing to buy offerings like Orbx and other world scenery to enhance the product (outside of aircraft).  That cost is cut to zero for the most part meaning hundreds of dollars in savings to the end user.  Now you have one sim on a whole other level than the competition concerning this one aspect which is a huge selling point for many.  Second is the embrace of the freeware third party community.  I never thought I'd see something like this so quickly for a new platform that requires new development techniques.  Third Microsoft for years wanted a cut of the community's profits which was scoffed during the FLIGHT era. Now that they offer a sim with Azur cloud scenery for the whole planet people are jumping on it, it's been embraced by add-on developers (both XPlane and legacy FS developers), and thus the Microsoft Market Place is accepted thriving.  Forth is all you get for the initial cost of the sim especially if your a game pass member.  Finally fifth is the developers are communicating with the community on a monthly bases.  No longer the hidden in the shadows approach.  This goes along way in customer support even if the patches break as much as they fix.

So if we go by your comparison over the last '30 years' the competition would have had to have all that I mentioned above because that was the case.  All options offered similar things including areas like support.  XPlane 11, P3D, and FSX: SE all are the same generation.  You generally are going to get a similar look, know your going to have to invest a similar amount in add-ons, and know you'll have comparable pluses and minuses in whatever you choose.  We never had a sim that was two or three generations ahead of competing products.  Even with it's faults it is still a generation or two ahead.  So if you think your going to make the same profit you did in the past or at least have your profits comparable to those producing for MSFS good luck to you.  That will be something to see.  It would be best to say your sticking with XPlane because you love that platform and know it.  Now that I think about it Aerofly FS is more in line with MSFS than all of our other options at this point. That product was already going towards what MSFS ultimately achieved.  

2 hours ago, GoranM said:

Why?  It has done for almost 30 years.

XP succeeded because it was competing with sims that were older, slower and/or uglier. MSFS is none of those things. It's actually positioned like XP was when it took on FSX. The difference is that back then, MS had lost interest in FSX. Today MS is using its entire corporate infrastructure to support MSFS, mostly because of the importance of the app to Xbox. When a company as big and powerful as MS makes a decision to push a product or service, only similarly positioned companies can effectively compete. The only other alternative is to produce a competing product that is substantially better, such as Apple did with the iPhone and Tesla did with its electric cars.

Take for example, LM and P3d. LM is a corporate behemoth but P3d5 is not a core product like the F35. LM is content to sell P3d to a limited market. If LM was really serious about competing with MSFS, it would partner with Google to stream scenery. But it really isn't serious. That decision by LM benefits XP as XP will eventually be the only competition for MSFS.

Of course, the situation could change and MS could abandon MSFS just like it did before with FSX and Flight. But MSFS has been a success, so I dont see it being sent to the orphanage in the near term. 

2 hours ago, GoranM said:

How does THIS make sense?

It the advanced Microsoft product logic that is impossible to argue with by its virtue of being so illogical.

Basic format goes something along the lines of

Unless the superior product becomes even more superior soon Microsofts inferior product will become superior therefore Microsofts inferior product is currently superior to the superior product.

Edited March 22, 20215 yr by mSparks

2 minutes ago, mSparks said:

It the advanced Microsoft product logic that is impossible to argue with by its virtue of being so illogical.

You might want to append the following: "live long and prosper" 😂

3 minutes ago, RXP said:

You might want to append the following: "live long and prosper" 😂

Is more modern.

2 hours ago, Dillon said:

The problem is the game has changed and the old model no longer applies.  In the past all our options were at least in the same generation as far as visuals/features.  All options had the expectation of needing to buy offerings like Orbx and other world scenery to enhance the product (outside of aircraft).  That cost is cut to zero for the most part meaning hundreds of dollars in savings to the end user.  Now you have one sim on a whole other level than the competition concerning this one aspect which is a huge selling point for many.  Second is the embrace of the freeware third party community.  I never thought I'd see something like this so quickly for a new platform that requires new development techniques.  Third Microsoft for years wanted a cut of the community's profits which was scoffed during the FLIGHT era. Now that they offer a sim with Azur cloud scenery for the whole planet people are jumping on it, it's been embraced by add-on developers (both XPlane and legacy FS developers), and thus the Microsoft Market Place is accepted thriving.  Forth is all you get for the initial cost of the sim especially if your a game pass member.  Finally fifth is the developers are communicating with the community on a monthly bases.  No longer the hidden in the shadows approach.  This goes along way in customer support even if the patches break as much as they fix.

So if we go by your comparison over the last '30 years' the competition would have had to have all that I mentioned above because that was the case.  All options offered similar things including areas like support.  XPlane 11, P3D, and FSX: SE all are the same generation.  You generally are going to get a similar look, know your going to have to invest a similar amount in add-ons, and know you'll have comparable pluses and minuses in whatever you choose.  We never had a sim that was two or three generations ahead of competing products.  Even with it's faults it is still a generation or two ahead.  So if you think your going to make the same profit you did in the past or at least have your profits comparable to those producing for MSFS good luck to you.  That will be something to see.  It would be best to say your sticking with XPlane because you love that platform and know it.  Now that I think about it Aerofly FS is more in line with MSFS than all of our other options at this point. That product was already going towards what MSFS ultimately achieved.  

Regardless of what comes out from ANY flight sim developers, there will ALWAYS be a choice.  Just because one is better than the other, for YOU, doesn't mean everyone agrees with you.  If that was the case, we would all have 1 brand of...everything.

1 hour ago, jabloomf1230 said:

XP succeeded because it was competing with sims that were older, slower and/or uglier. MSFS is none of those things.

 XP succeeded because it had a market.  It was touted as having the better flight model, and it was used by people who didn't care about scenery.  (Yes, X-Plane's scenery back then was pretty bad).

1 hour ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Today MS is using its entire corporate infrastructure to support MSFS, mostly because of the importance of the app to Xbox. 

Microsoft has a budget for MSFS.  Just like it has a budget for everything else.  Any 1st year business intern would know that you don't just keep dumping truckloads of money into something to keep it going unless it yields a positive return.  If MSFS doesn't get that return, rest assured they will pull the plug faster than you can say "Boeing".

1 hour ago, jabloomf1230 said:

When a company as big and powerful as MS makes a decision to push a product or service, only similarly positioned companies can effectively compete.

They pushed the flight sim franchise for 2 decades, and LR kept on making different versions of X-Plane.  A company a fraction of the size of Microsoft was competing against them in the flight sim market...successfully.

1 hour ago, jabloomf1230 said:

The only other alternative is to produce a competing product that is substantially better, such as Apple did with the iPhone and Tesla did with its electric cars.

So you're saying Android is destined for failure?  Gas powered cars are doomed?  

1 hour ago, jabloomf1230 said:

If LM was really serious about competing with MSFS, it would partner with Google to stream scenery. But it really isn't serious.

It doesn't work like that.  Microsoft didn't partner with Bing.  They OWN Bing.  Streamed photogrammetry is 1 part of a complex equation.  Azure is another.  And I'm still convinced that the MSFS users are one giant beta team for Azure.  

1 hour ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Of course, the situation could change and MS could abandon MSFS just like it did before with FSX and Flight. But MSFS has been a success, so I dont see it being sent to the orphanage in the near term. 

I wouldn't call it a success yet.  It's sold 2-3 million copies, sure.  But Asobo have been working on it for 7 years...coming on 8 years.  Microsoft paid them for those years, and it wouldn't have been cheap.  They need to recoup 7.5 years worth of Asobo wages and overheads before they can just break even.  Now with Working Title being brought in, that budget has just increased.

Edited March 22, 20215 yr by GoranM

If xp11 was such a wonderful platform to work with why company like PMDG just abandon their first project before it was even finish. Now I understand that relationship between developer and LR can be different from one to another but what happen ? What about Majestic Software, FSLabs, Leonardo ? none of these guys ever decided to bring their great aircraft to XP11. 

I personally invested a lot of HDD space and addons to try to make XP11 more modern. I found it very difficult to go back nowadays because of the scenery in MSFS. The only reason is still install is that I have a few friend that love XP11 and I get to fly with them at time. I XP12 improved on the visual, I would certainly give it a try. People think you have to be either for or against something. We can't be love both? 

19 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

why company like PMDG just abandon their first project

Because they are waaay to expensive to compete with better for free and equal for half the price.

I'd say 99% of the reason they are so slow releasing their 737 for MSFS is they will immediately be compared to zibo mod and have their entire portfolio demolished.

Edited March 22, 20215 yr by mSparks

Just now, mSparks said:

Because they are waay to expensive to compete with better for free

that is just ridiculous statement. I love the Zibo Mod but it's not the 737NGX quality.  To be honest, a lot of good XP11 aircraft are not cheap either. The iniSimulator A300 is close to 97USD.  Anything FF is 79 USD.