Hear me out … the concept I proposed many years ago to the “big 3” flight simulation entities (Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, Laminar).  Come up with a unified SDK that would allow aircraft, scenery, and airports to be produced ONCE (by a developer/modeler) but able to distribute their product to ALL platforms supporting the unified SDK.

This has many positives:

1.  Developer/Modeler only has to perform their scenery/aircraft/airports creation task once and only once

2.  Sales volume increases for the developer/modeler

3.  User’s preferred platform of choice will have the same proliferation of content as any other participating FS platform

4.  More content overall will be available (more choice)

5.  Growth in development community and release of more products in a shorter timeframe

The primary reason this doesn’t exist is due to capitalism and/or ego … fighting to dominate market share.  I’ve experienced where companies have been bought simply to kill them and remove the “competition” - a product or niche that will never see the light of day.  There is another way, join forces, share the knowledge, make it consistent, enjoy the rewards.

Please, don’t take this thread down the road of fear of communism and make it political, that IS NOT the intent.  Companies have shared knowledge and experience in the past, PCI specifications, x86 Instruction set, USB, compression algorithms, HDMI, video standards, audio standards, etc. … it is possible.  Communal sharing of ideas/technology is NOT a bad thing, in fact, it can be a very good thing especially for end users and/or consumers.

Corps/Businesses don’t have to be constantly “at war” with each other … there is another way that benefits ALL.  Yes, I know what’s coming for comments “pipe dream”, “because profit”, … hoping we can move on from this as it really is the best way forward.

 

 

46 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

....The primary reason this doesn’t exist is due to capitalism and/or ego … fighting to dominate market share.  I’ve experienced where companies have been bought simply to kill them and remove the “competition” - a product or niche that will never see the light of day......

This is probably a controversial opinion, but.......I think that Microsoft sold the licence for the FSX code to Dovetail Games to generate enough revenue to develop a true next generation flight simulator that would instantly make Dovetail's product irrelevant. I never saw the point to FlightSim World in the form that it was taking. It looked like "FSX with a bit of make up and lipstick", and not much else.

Coming from decades of software engineering, we have A LOT (and I do mean A LOT) of re-invention of the wheel code … I’ve worked on countless development platforms and frameworks and they all repeat functionality that already existed in another platform … just done differently and not necessarily any more or less efficient.

8900+ computer languages when we really maybe only need 2 or 3?  Then we have the proliferation of frameworks all doing much the same just in a slightly different way.

Not sure the selling of FSX to FSW would or could have provided sufficient funds to support the development of MSFS 2020 … but MSFS 2020 was definitely kept a secret and launched at a time that was intended to kill off other FS developments (timing was planned).

If all this experience and knowledge had been pooled together rather than against each other, I feel we would be a lot further along than we currently are in so many areas (not just with Flight Simulation).  MSFS 2024 is definitely progress with room to improve … some 21 years later!  Sure some of that is hardware catching up … but I think there are situations where capitalism is a double edged sword, some benefits and some pitfalls … as with all things in life, find the balance of coexistence.

Capitalism at its core is about doing what is in one's best interest.  It isn't a perfect system, as sometimes we should do things that are not in an individual or group's best interest but are in the best interest of society or a country at large, but overall it reflects human nature as we all usually do what is in our best interest.  Trying to change that human nature has always resulted in failure and misery for many.

What your asking 3 different companies to do is modify their sims so that a developer can make planes that will work in all three.  Now, that's great for the relatively few of us that enjoy this niche hobby, but it would cost the companies significant time and expense.  These companies are not charities and need to make money, so they have to weigh the cost and benefit of doing something like this, and they have likely determined that it's not worth it.  Also, they would have to practically develop a new simulator platform, which I for one think would be great, but would it benefit all three of those companies?

Moreover, we don't want to end up in a situation where one company, which could be a few companies that merge their flightsim departments, control the flightsim business, because then we would have a monopoly which is not a good thing.

I agree that in a utopian world we could have something like you're asking, where companies would sacrifice for the good of all, but we know that people aren't like this in reality.  People are generally selfish and care about making more money, period.

I've been very critical of our society's obsession with profits and money especially in certain sectors, but unfortunately it simply reflects the reality that most people in that society are selfish.

Dave

 

 

3 hours ago, dave2013 said:

 Ripped

I agree that in a utopian world we could have something like you're asking, where companies would sacrifice for the good of all, but we know that people aren't like this in reality.  People are generally selfish and care about making more money, period.

I've been very critical of our society's obsession with profits and money especially in certain sectors, but unfortunately it simply reflects the reality that most people in that society are selfish.

Dave

 

 

  It actually reflects that most people are not socialists comrade...."Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their use for the purpose of obtaining profit"....Wiki

Honestly, I couldn’t care less. What looks the best, what flies the best and what is CLOSEST to the plane being depicted gets my money. If I have to buy a new sim for all these, I’ll do it. 
 

I’ve had a couple of bourbons when writing this. Take that into consideration! 😘😊

6 hours ago, SayAgain said:

Hear me out … the concept I proposed many years ago to the “big 3” flight simulation entities (Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, Laminar).  Come up with a unified SDK that would allow aircraft, scenery, and airports to be produced ONCE (by a developer/modeler) but able to distribute their product to ALL platforms supporting the unified SDK.

This has many positives:

1.  Developer/Modeler only has to perform their scenery/aircraft/airports creation task once and only once

2.  Sales volume increases for the developer/modeler

3.  User’s preferred platform of choice will have the same proliferation of content as any other participating FS platform

4.  More content overall will be available (more choice)

5.  Growth in development community and release of more products in a shorter timeframe

The primary reason this doesn’t exist is due to capitalism and/or ego … fighting to dominate market share.  I’ve experienced where companies have been bought simply to kill them and remove the “competition” - a product or niche that will never see the light of day.  There is another way, join forces, share the knowledge, make it consistent, enjoy the rewards.

Please, don’t take this thread down the road of fear of communism and make it political, that IS NOT the intent.  Companies have shared knowledge and experience in the past, PCI specifications, x86 Instruction set, USB, compression algorithms, HDMI, video standards, audio standards, etc. … it is possible.  Communal sharing of ideas/technology is NOT a bad thing, in fact, it can be a very good thing especially for end users and/or consumers.

Corps/Businesses don’t have to be constantly “at war” with each other … there is another way that benefits ALL.  Yes, I know what’s coming for comments “pipe dream”, “because profit”, … hoping we can move on from this as it really is the best way forward.

 

 

Competition improves the product. This is the very essence of Darwinism. New and better things (species in Darwinism) come from competition forcing the less able out of the picture and rewarding that which is better. Things get become much greater over time continually. 

2 hours ago, ahsmatt7 said:

I’ve had a couple of bourbons when writing this. Take that into consideration! 😘😊

I hope you brought enough for everyone, Matt!  PLEASE tell me you brought enough for everyone. I think we're gonna need it for this.

If someone has to make a store run, could I request cognac instead?  Haven't had any in years.

Hook

2 hours ago, ahsmatt7 said:

I’ve had a couple of bourbons when writing this. Take that into consideration! 😘😊

It is Friday After Work where I live (we beat you to it). We just started our Friday Beers 🍻

BACK ON TOPIC

Even in the Star Trek Universe the path to a Cashless Society was a difficult one, until then we are divided by Consumerism, Patents, Copyrights, Trade Marks, Protectionism.

If it is great!!! Support it with your wallet, if it is not, support it with no access to your wallet. We haven't figured out another way.... (yet) 🥷

Edited August 1, 2025Aug 1 by Matthew Kane

I can't see how Microsoft selling off it's interest to Dovetail Games or Lockheed Martin was anything other than shifting an unwanted asset.

I also don't think Microsoft timed the development or release of MSFS 2020 to kill off any competition. Compared to the scale of the effort being made by Asobo, Xplane is basically a cottage industry. This idea of competition between the two only exists between a comparative handful of users who frequent flightsim forums. The vast majority of MSFS customers are simply unaware of this.

Lockheed Martin are in a completely different sphere of simulation. Any product that required the user to pretend to be a schoolboy to gain access to it isn't really a 'game' and like it or not the flight simming we do is a form of gaming.

However,  as to the premise of this thread; aren't Lockheed Martin attempting something along these lines?

They've announced their next simulation product is going to be based on the Unreal engine.

This allows them access to that huge pool of talent that are familiar with this widely used product no? No more need to recruit and train people up to use a bespoke, obscure engine developed exclusively for one product?

OK... let's see if we can write this to make it less blatantly in-your-face political.

Quote

Does Capitalism impact the flight simmer’s choices?

How about, "Does competition impact the flight simmer's choices?"
 

15 hours ago, SayAgain said:

The primary reason this doesn’t exist is due to capitalism and/or ego … fighting to dominate market share.

Again, "due to competition..."
 

15 hours ago, SayAgain said:

Please, don’t take this thread down the road of fear of communism and make it political, that IS NOT the intent.

This sentence needs to be removed entirely.  It adds nothing and implies some pretty awful things.

I mean... "fear of communism"?  Something is very wrong here.

As for the idea put forth.  I remember reading about a kid who wrote to "The Navy" during World War 2.  "I know how to sink submarines!  Just boil the water around them and when they come to the surface to cool off they'll be easy to sink."

Hook

3 hours ago, LHookins said:

As for the idea put forth.  I remember reading about a kid...

I probably need to say this.

If someone doesn't have a technical background, or doesn't think about it very hard, a universal SDK might seem like a good idea.

Someone with an extensive technical background is going to see the problems.  And they are legion.

If you read that proposal and thought to yourself, "Gee, that would be a great idea," that doesn't reflect in any way on you.  But someone with a lot of technical or business background is likely to be horrified.

How much of it is already implemented?  I used FSX aircraft in P3D.  I used one of those aircraft in MS2020, but with missing features.  If you wanted to use those same aircraft in XPlane you'll need to petition the owner for massive changes, which he will never make.

Lots of people complain about "backward compatibility" because they want a lot of new features that didn't previously exist.  A frozen SDK, even if it gets updated, will limit the ability to do new and improved features.

So, yeah, it might be an interesting idea, but you aren't likely to ever see it in practice.

Hook

I am no aircraft/scenery developer, but a unified SDK seems like it would be very complex, especially for aircraft.  Look how much time it is taking to move planes from 2020 to 2024.  We were promised everything would be compatible, and obviously that hasn't even gone smoothly.  

I dabbled slightly in scenery development in FSX, and from what I know, even that is different from 2020/24.  

I'm just guessing based on really limited knowledge, but to me it just seems like it would be really costly to do.  

5 hours ago, LHookins said:

But someone with a lot of technical or business background is likely to be horrified.

40+ years of Technical and business background in very small startups to very large corporations … the wheel has been re-invented so many times is beyond the point of efficiency and certainly doesn’t make for cheaper consumer products.. It’s exactly my 40+ years of real world experience as to why I bring this up … because I gone thru some many technologies that do more or less the same with slight twist (be it from SQL servers, to code frameworks, to UI controls).. Having 8900+ programming language isn’t good for anyone, not a PM, not funding source, not developer pools, nobody benefits and everyone specializes … this is bad and VERY costly.. It’s the syntax parser world gone mad into what really boils down to binary.

22 hours ago, dave2013 said:

because then we would have a monopoly which is not a good thing.

That’s a sweeping statement, there are situations where a monopoly is a good thing (like power delivery to homes and businesses) and there are situations where a monopoly is not a good thing (say a GPU or CPU).  

If I move to another home just 2 blocks away, I have to register for a different waste management company, go thru the process of stopping service, give garbage cans back, establish a new service, getting new cans (which for the most part look exactly like my old garbage cans), and have a different pickup schedule and recycle schedule, etc. … that’s not efficient for me, just a waste of time and money.  The service and prices are almost identical … heck in some case they go to the same waste site.

But to be clear, I wasn’t suggesting a “monopoly” at all … a unified SDK has nothing to do with monopoly and everything to do with developers and modelers not having to re-invent the wheel over and over and over again.

18 hours ago, ahsmatt7 said:

If I have to buy a new sim for all these, I’ll do it.

So spend more money that you wouldn’t have to if the SDK was unified?  And you have to learn the quirks of a new platform just for one aircraft?  How is that good for you?

2 hours ago, kerosene31 said:

but a unified SDK seems like it would be very complex

Not really, if you’ve worked with event processing for the various platforms they are all very similar with perhaps a different enumeration.  3D modeling for a PBR pipeline is easy to be consistent and you’ll fine many of the 3D modelers working on the various platforms have a very similar approach and skillset and using similar texture sources, normals, maps, diffuse, specular, etc. etc. … the 3D primitives and their textures can be exported into a various different formats.  Texture compression can easily be agreed on in a unified SDK.

5 hours ago, LHookins said:

A frozen SDK, even if it gets updated, will limit the ability to do new and improved features.

The SDK isn’t frozen, it’s iterative … much like when one creates a web API from which many external sources may use … you provide compatibility or you create a new API (this is essentially what LM/P3D with their PDK).  In fact, this is likely to introduce fewer breaking changes as the API offers more robust support.  This is common in the API world of web development, can’t just make breaking changes to an API many rely on, you go thru iterations and you give the API life span (termination date for support, again very common) so transition from old API to new API happens over time.

 

1 hour ago, SayAgain said:

40+ years of Technical and business background in very small startups to very large corporations … the wheel has been re-invented so many times is beyond the point of efficiency and certainly doesn’t make for cheaper consumer products.. It’s exactly my 40+ years of real world experience as to why I bring this up … because I gone thru some many technologies that do more or less the same with slight twist (be it from SQL servers, to code frameworks, to UI controls).. Having 8900+ programming language isn’t good for anyone, not a PM, not funding source, not developer pools, nobody benefits and everyone specializes … this is bad and VERY costly.. It’s the syntax parser world gone mad into what really boils down to binary.

That’s a sweeping statement, there are situations where a monopoly is a good thing (like power delivery to homes and businesses) and there are situations where a monopoly is not a good thing (say a GPU or CPU).  

If I move to another home just 2 blocks away, I have to register for a different waste management company, go thru the process of stopping service, give garbage cans back, establish a new service, getting new cans (which for the most part look exactly like my old garbage cans), and have a different pickup schedule and recycle schedule, etc. … that’s not efficient for me, just a waste of time and money.  The service and prices are almost identical … heck in some case they go to the same waste site.

But to be clear, I wasn’t suggesting a “monopoly” at all … a unified SDK has nothing to do with monopoly and everything to do with developers and modelers not having to re-invent the wheel over and over and over again.

So spend more money that you wouldn’t have to if the SDK was unified?  And you have to learn the quirks of a new platform just for one aircraft?  How is that good for you?

Not really, if you’ve worked with event processing for the various platforms they are all very similar with perhaps a different enumeration.  3D modeling for a PBR pipeline is easy to be consistent and you’ll fine many of the 3D modelers working on the various platforms have a very similar approach and skillset and using similar texture sources, normals, maps, diffuse, specular, etc. etc. … the 3D primitives and their textures can be exported into a various different formats.  Texture compression can easily be agreed on in a unified SDK.

The SDK isn’t frozen, it’s iterative … much like when one creates a web API from which many external sources may use … you provide compatibility or you create a new API (this is essentially what LM/P3D with their PDK).  In fact, this is likely to introduce fewer breaking changes as the API offers more robust support.  This is common in the API world of web development, can’t just make breaking changes to an API many rely on, you go thru iterations and you give the API life span (termination date for support, again very common) so transition from old API to new API happens over time.

 

Oh I never said that a unified plan like the one you suggest is a bad one. It would be great. I just don’t trust humans in this hobby to ever work together to do what’s best for the community in THIS WAY.