I reinstalled FS2024 fresh after having experienced again that "97% Loading" that never ends quirk...

I was already using mostly default FS 2024. Default ATC, default AI Traffic, default weather, and just a few addon airliners.

This turn around I decided (again...) to stay with pure default install until it goes SU3 final and then the addon makers have to support it and release the necessary updates for their products.

Been playing with the default A32N, which is really enjoyable, and intend to proceed with the 321, then the A310, the 787, the default 737 MAX, maybe a turboprop ( the Kingair from FS 2020 with the mods kindly suggested by Bert et al...) and I thought about MS's business model for a future version of this sim, and decided to share my thoughts with you 🙂

I am going to look "radical", "extremist", maybe, but that's very honestly what I think right now after being an MSFS user since FS2, an avid simmer since FS4...

.) MSFS's business model must change into a "closed development" environment, no external addons other than some sort of "invited projects" that last for a period under which, in cooperation with the MSFS "studios" a given addon or addons are developed with a chosen developer and offered **only** through the Marketplace;

.) Any freeware contributions, being it scenery, aircraft, services, systems,...,  must be submitted for approval to a proper "Gateway", evaluated by the apparently HUGE team that is now ASOBO + MS and eventually offered through the same Marketplace for free;

In such a model an announcement of the type:

"We are going to partner with <Company> for our next airliner project, which will start <date> and will move into beta phase for any interested users to participate estimated <date>. We plan for a release around <date>, through the Marketplace, ..... "

Such projects, carefully developed in close cooperation between the MS/ASOBO/.. and the developer teams would be tested internally for any integration problems, allowing for any necessary code adaptations from either the software house or the MS team, and expectedly have a much better integration and full compatibility, while at the same time allow for internal development of the platform, making it progress along the version life time.

A huge project like MSFS can't, IMHO, survive *only* from the # of copies of the base platform in it's different versions, specially if users and external developers want it to keep going, and the number of jobs paid by MS / ASOBO / whoever have to be maintained. In such a model the external developers / sellers market grows in sales and can keep alive while the core of the sim converges towards stagnation 😕

What do you think? Maybe too much caffein in my morning coffee or the effects of my COVID? 🤪

Edited July 19, 2025Jul 19 by jcomm

Although I do follow your logic, I feel it would be a very harmful development for addon creators and therefor the whole community. Let's say MS/Asobo would decide to go your route, I would leave MSFS 2024 and go back to MSFS and X-Plane. I wouldn't want to miss the huge number of available addons.

26 minutes ago, jcomm said:

What do you think? Maybe too much caffein in my morning coffee or the effects of my COVID? 🤪

I think you're forgetting that the base sales of the sim are not what is driving this thing forward.  Although most people here and on other forums have purchased the software outright Microsoft's business model basically allows everyone - should they wish - to 'rent' the sim through Xbox gamepass.

What is providing the income is that thirty per cent of the cut that Microsoft makes on the store purchases. These are not micro transactions either. The store is the cash cow that keeps driving this thing forward.  Despite all the 'hardcore' guys bemoaning the shortcomings of the store the majority of purchases for MSFS are made through the store. Take PMDG; they've stated a little under half their sales are to Xbox users.  Their aircraft are consistently in the stores best seller charts. A sixty euro purchase of a 737 or 777 through the store?  Kerching! Microsoft gets twenty euros.    

Without addon airports or aircraft, there would be no incentive for me to purchase the base simulator. I do not use any default airports, just like I never used any default airports or scenery in P3D. Only default airports/aircraft with the quality of current addon payware airports/aircraft would make me think again.

Edited July 19, 2025Jul 19 by Christopher Low

I also mostly use MSFS 2024 in its "vanilla" state.

Scenery addons? Not needed. Default looks pretty darn good.

Addon airports? Mostly not needed. Either "handcrafted" default or the many "payware" quality airports over at flightsim.to. 

External ATC? Nope. Default ATC for a bit of aural immersion. 

Navigraph? Nope. Not needed. I use the in-built, WT-curated flight planner and the Lido charts. 

"Study level" airliners? Nope. Don't fly those anymore.

Jalopy rust bucket "study level" planes with a million dials to turn and switches to throw? Don't have time for those anymore.

Overpriced plasticky hardware? Nope. My Logitech joystick and Thrustmaster rudder pedals are doing a fine job. 

100% of my flying is with the default biz jets, mostly the Citation Longitude and the default Asobo vision jet. 

This way I keep my addons to a minimum and don't have any of the problems that folks with oversized addon folders have. 

Default MSFS 2024 + an ultrawidescreen monitor running at a 1440p resolution is the gift that keeps on giving. 

I might take a look at the upcoming Citation X to see whether it adds a bit more than just piggybacking on WT's default avionics. 

 

Edited July 19, 2025Jul 19 by Ricardo41

14 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

Mostly not needed

It is very hard to find a default airport without taxiway lights splattered all over the place. One of those things that moved over from MSFS... I only fly to airports for which I have an addon.

To be fair, quite a few payware airports have taxiway lights "splattered all over the place" 

I don't say there wouldn't be addons but rather that those that originated from external sources would be called "projects" and have their development tightly related to MSFS own dev team.

This would guarantee better integration and avoid many bugs at release time.

Say dev QNEH want's to develop a Tu-144 with all the bells and whisttles... They would start a project with MSFS and both cooperate closely. Eventual changes / updates to the base platform would originate from the specific requirements of the new model, and contribute to further enhance it's base capabilities, etc...

Sales exclusively through the marketplace.

 

Edited July 19, 2025Jul 19 by jcomm

I understand and share the desire for guaranteed 100% compatibility - but I don't think it's realistic to achieve in this way.

The amount of testing required would mean a very significant amount of work. I can't see how Microsoft would simply be willing to bear this cost themselves. For payware products, the cost would get passed on to the customer. For freeware products - well, the developer would have to pay for the testing if they wanted to see their addon being made available for MSFS. Of course, realistically, just about no one would be willing or able to do this, so freeware would simply not exist any more.

I think the end result would be a sim with a reduced, more expensive payware offering and just about no freeware at all. Maybe everything would be 100% compatible - but would that be worth it? All of this assumes that Microsoft / Asobo would actually be able to achieve this level of compatibility and quality. Based on the regressions that we've seen again and again with aircraft and scenery included in MSFS itself, I'm sceptical they would actually be able to achieve this goal anyway.

Edited July 19, 2025Jul 19 by martinboehme

What made flight simulation great?  It wasn't by regulating add-ons.  It was the opposite.   

2 hours ago, jcomm said:

I don't say there wouldn't be addons but rather that those that originated from external sources would be called "projects" and have their development tightly related to MSFS own dev team.

This would guarantee better integration and avoid many bugs at release time.

We already have these sorts of "projects"...e.g. the iniBuilds A310.  That experience strongly refutes the proposition that integration would somehow be better and bugs would be avoided.  The integration, in practice hasn't been better, and there were more bugs than what you'd see circling a streetlight on a hot summer night--and the bugs on those "projects" took much longer than what I consider normal to iron out. 

 

12 hours ago, jcomm said:

What do you think? Maybe too much caffein in my morning coffee or the effects of my COVID?

Sounds too close to the old MS Flight. That would kill the franchise.

(I can't believe that was more than 10 years ago).

Edited July 19, 2025Jul 19 by Luis Hernandez

Yes, MS FLIGHT always comes to my mind too ... and it's because I am actually enjoying FS 2024, surely more than I did FS 2020, that I sometimes start thinking about a more robust business model that could keep the sim going on and getting actively developed for as long as it would be possible.

13 hours ago, jcomm said:

What do you think? Maybe too much caffein in my morning coffee

Yup... the current model allows lots of addons to flourish and is providing the many addon planes and airports that we all love..

🙂

8 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

Yup... the current model allows lots of addons to flourish and is providing the many addon planes and airports that we all love..

🙂

Yes, but is MS getting the necessary income from it? 

External devs get their sales, and I guess some have been able to sell good deals of merchandise, but the core platform on which it all relies is it selling enough? The xBox income is residual I guess...

And yet we users and the developers expect it to keep growing and fixing bugs but also getting more content and features.

But, as DD_Arthur mentioned above, a closed model didn't work that well with MS FLIGHT, so my idea isn't the most sound  either 😕 although I am basing my opinion of some of the default aircraft which, for most users, are good enough to play being a pilot for a couple of hours - that's how I use flightsims ... and believe most others do.

If such "Projects" could bring in the major developers to work closely with the internal team, contributing to a product with less bugs and limitations at release time and probably giving insight on some important areas of flight simulation, including aerodynamics, systems, weather, ATC, Traffic, Scenery, ... to the core team where I believe most elements are programmers, and have no RL involvement in aviation or even particular interest in it, then the whole constellation orbiting around the core sim and the core itself would profit from it.

I'm only interested in continuing to be able to enjoy FS 2024, because although there surely are aspects I can say aren't correctly modeled / perfect as I always dream a flightsim would one day be, truth is it's the flightsim I actually get more often and more effectively  the greatest fun and good moments off these days, and I want it to keep that way, and even get even better.