5 minutes ago, mSparks said:

about 2% of those who bought it since 2014

https://steamcharts.com/app/292180

Thats exactly my point tho

11.60, add the lighting, and in the process fix the cloud lighting, SSAO and shadows - get something highly competitive in ~6 months

or

wait to add everything in XP12, and have nothing competitive with XP11 for the time it takes to get a new major version stable (at least 3 years, generally more)

Lol  steam only ? 

also you have to understand the reason that XP10 was used is not just entirely due to XP11 not being stable, XP11 was running fine ,  many addons were also not, this is with any software that has a new version , .   So no point in your statement.  

I say drop XP11 , bring in XP12 , this is also from a psychological point of view. I am not waiting 4-5 years for it and then wait again for XP13 4-5 , dude I had better retire from this flight simming 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, FlyBaby said:

especially if XP12 falls short of any requested / anticipated features on day 1.

It will fall short. They always do. Its the nature of software.

The problem for flight sim is it needs to be solid, and run solid for hours and hours on end to be usable - that's one of the reasons it is so hard to get right. only takes one or two CTDs on final after a 12 hours flight for people to throw in the towel.

Edited June 28, 20214 yr by mSparks

3 minutes ago, FlyBaby said:

Agreed, but I think the best offering is commitment to frequent development.

Exactly, I think that the community now realizes this, which is why engagement and frequent / future development is much more important than what is released on day 1.

When DTG released TSW2, they also released a general roadmap / timeline for when things would be added / included, one being the longstanding support for the RailDriver controller. "Major" quarterly / monthly updates are becoming the norm these days...

I think that LR will need to assure folks that it will be committed to frequent development, especially if XP12 falls short of any requested / anticipated features on day 1.

Yep they need to tidy up a bit and keep the development more interesting.

5 minutes ago, HumptyDumpty said:

Lol  steam only ? 

no, but its enough to assume its representative 

200 users per day at the peak, 5 a day now -> 2.5%

Never enough to care one way or the other.

6 minutes ago, HumptyDumpty said:

I say drop XP11 , bring in XP12

Why? How is it good for anyone when, in your own words

25 minutes ago, HumptyDumpty said:

no one will wait that long for a product just to be stable

13 minutes ago, mSparks said:

no, but its enough to assume its representative 

200 users per day at the peak, 5 a day now -> 2.5%

Never enough to care one way or the other.

Why? How is it good for anyone when, in your own words

No it's not. I think you should search some and post ?

You are just trying to prove you are correct and X-plane is the best , now now ain't you !   

As I said it's due to many reasons not just that XP11 was not stable , XP11 was running fine.  All those  that i know never looked back to XP10.

  How is it good for all to stick to XP11 for the next few years, looking at the same 2016 visuals , don't you think 8 years is just too much looking at that same washed out  no lighted no clouded sim ?  As i said you are most welcome to be with it , I am sure 85% simmers would not. and that 85% users would now matter to LR.

Edited June 28, 20214 yr by HumptyDumpty

5 minutes ago, HumptyDumpty said:

You are just trying to prove you are correct and X-plane is the best , now now ain't you ! 

I would like XPlane to continue its growth, and from everything I know and have seen, a full new version now - especially with the general history of new version of flight sims - P3D, DCS, MSFS  - would not be the best option to achieve that.

Its also just not true that this page:

https://developer.x-plane.com/2021/06/crash-fixing-airports-photometric-lighting/

In any way makes it clear that the new lighting is not coming to XP11

Quote

I know this kills, but it’s too soon to talk about release dates. I can say a little bit about what you’re seeing in the video though.

Means they dont know, could be a month, could be a year

The reason they don't know - imho - is because its not been decided.

Could be next month in XP11

or in some amount of years in XP12/XPNG/XP whatever naming they choose.

 

15 minutes ago, mSparks said:

I would like XPlane to continue its growth, and from everything I know and have seen, a full new version now - especially with the general history of new version of flight sims - P3D, DCS, MSFS  - would not be the best option to achieve that.

Its also just not true that this page:

https://developer.x-plane.com/2021/06/crash-fixing-airports-photometric-lighting/

In any way makes it clear that the new lighting is not coming to XP11

 

 

Same here , would want to see it continue to grow , but i can say that most of us prefer not waiting years for a stable  version of XP12 , did ppl wait for a msfs stable version ? does it even have a stable version ? 

And why would it not be the best option ? 

Yes it does not state that it will or not be a part of XP11, from a business point of view it would not be profitable by introducing the new stuff in an already ending cycle of the product.   A new product is a curiosity, most will buy it.  Most are waiting for a new XP 

 

19 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Means they dont know, could be a month, could be a year

The reason they don't know - imho - is because its not been decided.

You seem to enjoy conjuring up predictions that you are then so certain off and you will defend them ad nauseum, even (or especially!)  if everyone else says it is total balony.

Remember what you did over on the MSFS forum about a year ago? You claiming all those outrageous things, how MSFS would be a subscription model for sure, and so on, none of them ever even came close to happening and it went round and round for page after page. You can´t even go there anymore because people will find and quote all the nonsense you claimed back then.

X-Plane 11 was stable (as consumer software is stable) from the first day it was released (declared final). All final versions always were. It was usable from day 1 and just because there is a guy in a cabin in the woods that still runs XP8 does not mean that people are still waiting for XP11 to become "bug free" before they move to it.

Every change of version has always been like that. Work stopped on the old version for a while before the new version reached public beta, and no old version was ever worked on after the new version was released.

X-Plane 11 is fine within the limitations of consumer software (i.e. it has an acceptable number of flaws) - and whoever wants to can run it for years to come - but will have to live with its current flaws and limitations.

Laminar Research needs income to survive, they don´t extort money from third party devs for selling add-ons in a "marketplace". This income they get by selling new major versions.

If you want your bugs to get fixed in XP11 or new features added...tough.

1 hour ago, Janov said:

You claiming all those outrageous things, how MSFS would be a subscription model for sure,

Yeah, right definitely got that one wrong - it must just be they just haven't gotten round to deleting this from the FAQ yet.

https://flightsimulator.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/4402318233874-Microsoft-Flight-Simulator-Xbox-FAQ

Quote

Microsoft Flight Simulator is included in Xbox Game Pass for PC as part of the $9.99 monthly subscription to the service.

 

1 hour ago, Janov said:

X-Plane 11 was stable (as consumer software is stable) from the first day it was released (declared final).

yeah, 100% stable and ready day one, that's why we are on a thread talking about the latest bug fix release for a product released 5 years ago.

1 hour ago, Janov said:

Laminar Research needs income to survive

yep

And you have yet to xplane why that income would be higher by leaving users thinking the next version will be left in the same state as this version. why you think that is a good idea, or why it will work differently for LR than it has been for microsoft, lockheed martin or eagle dynamics.

Cos I got news for you,despite Flybabs and Asobos claims to the contrary, new users stopped flooding to MSFS the month it released.

Instead you just blindly hand wave that we should all just wait and unknown amount of time for LR to release something with similar stability to XP11.01 or MSFS in August 2020 or P3D in April 14, 2020.. 

Why would users to come from anywhere for another one of those and what is going to attract existing XP11 users? A new number?

1 hour ago, Janov said:

If you want your bugs to get fixed in XP11 or new features added...tough.

Not interested in new features, I just want the existing features to be in a usable, bug free state before they start adding more. That's hardly an outrageous request, in many jurisdictions its a legal requirement under various sale of goods acts (not that most 3PD XP developers ever gave a ___ about them).

Edited June 28, 20214 yr by mSparks

Sure. Whatever 👍

19 minutes ago, Janov said:

Sure. Whatever 👍

And anyway, its not a prediction. I hope they fix the lighting in XP11, the new lighting seems like a good way to do that soon, you may well be right that they choose not to, and we are left with xp11 with broken lighting while we wait not even LR can say for how long for a new major version of XP to drop and be more usable than XP11

Whoopie.

" be careful what you wish for - it might just come true."

Edited June 28, 20214 yr by mSparks

1 hour ago, HumptyDumpty said:

How is it good for all to stick to XP11 for the next few years, looking at the same 2016 visuals , don't you think 8 years is just too much looking at that same washed out  no lighted no clouded sim ?  As i said you are most welcome to be with it , I am sure 85% simmers would not. and that 85% users would now matter to LR.

Make it 99% of users eheh.

Unless of course LR completely fails to deliver the "unofficially promised" improvements in lighting, visuals, weather, etc. But in the current landscape, that would mean returning to single figures in market share.

 

4 hours ago, Janov said:

Remember what you did over on the MSFS forum about a year ago? You claiming all those outrageous things, how MSFS would be a subscription model for sure, and so on, none of them ever even came close to happening and it went round and round for page after page.

 

3 hours ago, mSparks said:

Yeah, right definitely got that one wrong - it must just be they just haven't gotten round to deleting this from the FAQ yet.

I believed and also supported the idea that MSFS would charge a subscription for all users to pay for the streaming content, I also believe (if the store should fail) that MSFS can charge a subscription for what they may call high fidelity scenery, particularly when they stop the free world updates.

Users can get the regular (current) content for free, or pay a surcharge for the enhanced scenery. Time will tell, but with 20 new products hitting the marketplace each week, there may be enough funding there already.

 

4 hours ago, Janov said:

Laminar Research needs income to survive, they don´t extort money from third party devs for selling add-ons in a "marketplace". This income they get by selling new major versions.

So this would mean that both Google and Apple "extort" money from the Devs putting apps on mobile devices, and even the Org store.

One of Austin's biggest issues is that he can't raise money beyond the initial sale to fund frequent major development (quarterly / monthly etc.). Some on this forum even suggested that he uses mobile revenue to fund the stagnant development for the desktop application.

Many Sim Devs raise money through addon residuals, in app purchases etc to fund "frequent" development. Austin should have had the vision to offer a one stop shop for "his" sim. Imagine if he had the "store" revenue of the ORG and X-Aviation.

6 hours ago, Janov said:

Laminar Research needs income to survive, they don´t extort money from third party devs for selling add-ons in a "marketplace".

But just about every developer has money 'extorted' from them from some sort of marketplace or another? X-Aviation and the Org store for instance. Surely it would be far better for us all if the commission went to LR instead? I think they've missed a trick by not having an in-game marketplace. Its far more convenient for the consumer. It can also offer some sort of guarantee that the addon will actually work.

Edited June 29, 20214 yr by jarmstro

X-Aviation does not extort money from developers.  I know publishers who charge upwards of 60% commission.  THAT is extortion.  XA doesn't even come close to that.  X-plane.org charges slightly more than XA, but still nowhere near 60%.  Even OrbX charge lower than most.

LR would be better off focusing on X-Plane, instead of adding 3rd party add ons to the mix in some market place.  They don't have the expenses that Microsoft now have (7+ years worth of Asobo salary, promotional expenses, server downloads for scenery as well as extra overheads).  Also, an in game market place is no guarantee that add ons will continue to work.  As soon as 3rd party plugins come into the mix, that's when things go awry, and it would be a logistical nightmare for LR to ensure 3rd party code remains compatible with X-Plane.  

LR have been profitable for 20+ years without having a marketplace.  It's a formula that has worked, and there is no need to reinvent the wheel.