3 hours ago, Aglos77 said:

I like all simulators, but I hardly invest any money in MFS because without offline mode it's a simulator with an expiration date.

The day Microsoft decides to shut down the sim, as it did with FSX and Flight, whether it's in 2024/2028 or 2032, you'll be able to see the torches from the moon.

At least with Falcon BMS, DCS, and X-Plane, I know that what I buy is mine.

I hope you know that all software has expiration dates. It could be due to server shutdown, hardware changes or even OS updates. But essentially once the developer ends support and moves on to the next version, you can consider it expired. Just like expired food, you can continue to use it. However, your life will become more difficult over time at which point you'll want to move on. You won't find many people flying MSFS 2002 or xplane 8 regardless of how much money they invested in them. Technology moves on.

3 hours ago, Aglos77 said:

At least with Falcon BMS, DCS, and X-Plane, I know that what I buy is mine.

In the digital era, you don't own anything. What you are paying for is a license to use the software. Can you sell your copy or give it to a friend? If your answer is no, then you don't own it. Check out the End User License Agreement (EULA), you can't. Especially now where the license is tied to your email or an account and you have to connect to authentication servers. It's not based on having the Disc you own in your drive anymore. This is why stores that sell used copies of games are going out of business. By the way, if you don't follow the EULA, your right to use a game can be revoked.

When I buy games that connect to online services, I know there is a limited lifespan. If I can get 10 years out of it, I'm really happy. By that time, I'll want the newest version with the updated tech anyway. 

I still do like games that can be played completely off though.

Edited January 19Jan 19 by brinx

2 hours ago, alanw2005 said:

Microsoft loves the annual pay model. It is great for cash flow.

And cash flow is what keeps software engineers paid … unless we’re retired and have no need for income (a couple more years for me), we tend to shy away from software engineering as charity work for entertainment (I know we’re so selfish) and do actual charity work that benefits humans like supplying meals, working a homeless kitchen, etc. etc. 

I do get it that some subscriptions are indeed of “low value” or even “no value” … but given the complexity of software engineering these days, it’s expensive to maintain development from a one time charge (that ultimately evolves into a new major version charge anyway) … just too uncertain and most of us with families need some level of income stability.

There certainly are some “shady” subscriptions models, like Amazon Prime where a new channels emerge that aren’t covered in the subscription simply to fund one new series, then the channel receives no more new content, but another new channel pops up HULU platinum Plus, HULU plus,  HULU gold, JIFU Jam ultimate … the game of adding “channels” so as to charge more rather than adding the content to the original subscription.

Topaz is another company that moved to “Shady” subscription model … I think they introduce 4 major versions (non really any different that prior) within a 2 year period and charged for each upgrade and now have fully moved to subscription only with vague commitments as to what is actually included in the subscription … reading the fine print (if you can find it) the subscription can be modified whenever the company wants. 

Heck Map Enhancement with Google Pro is a subscription to fill the XP globe with higher quality scenery on the fly.  RealTraffic (LiveTraffic) another subscription to get real world AI aircraft in a sim.  I consider these value subs as they do work and do improve my virtual flight sim experience.

So I do agree, there are some “value” subscriptions and some “no value” subscriptions.  I wouldn’t have a problem if LR moved to subscription IF it helped get more updates sooner.

 

Edited January 19Jan 19 by SayAgain

2 hours ago, Aglos77 said:

I'm now fully focused on DCS, deciding which module to learn.

I realize I misunderstood…

You have an A-10 HOTAS, but that’s not necessarily the one you’ve chosen. 

the tough part is there’s so many great ones from which to choose. 

IMHO the most well rounded, and therefore best bang for the buck, remains the Hornet (Jack of All Trades). 

The Tomcat is so aerodynamically complex to fly (a stick & rudder swing wing Carrier fighter !) that’s it’s extremely satisfying even if the nav & weapons systems are a bit limited

Phantom is crazy High Fidelity - and still improving! In many ways the Hornet of its day. Too bad it’s not boat-able…

At the end of the day, you’ll come out with a great bird no matter which one you choose. 🤙

They are both OK, but I recently uninstalled MSFS 2024 simply because I didn't spend much time in it over the last year. I am an airliner guy and to me there just wasn't enough motivation to use it. This was combined with PMDG taking their usual time, TFDI not making the MD-11 available until now, all of that. Why would I fly a janky MAX when the NG is so good in XP12? And to that end, AFL is working on their MAX... that will be the ultimate.

8 minutes ago, BostonJeremy77 said:

They are both OK, but I recently uninstalled MSFS 2024 simply because I didn't spend much time in it over the last year. I am an airliner guy and to me there just wasn't enough motivation to use it. This was combined with PMDG taking their usual time, TFDI not making the MD-11 available until now, all of that. Why would I fly a janky MAX when the NG is so good in XP12? And to that end, AFL is working on their MAX... that will be the ultimate.

Zibomod 738 is great. But so is the iFy 737 Max. 

4 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Me doy cuenta que entendí mal…

Tienes un A-10 HOTAS, pero no es necesariamente el que has elegido. 

Lo difícil es que hay muchos excelentes entre los que elegir. 

En mi humilde opinión, el modelo más completo y, por lo tanto, el que ofrece la mejor relación calidad-precio, sigue siendo el Hornet (el todoterreno). 

El Tomcat es tan complejo aerodinámicamente para volar (¡un caza portaaviones con alas oscilantes y control de timón y palanca de mando!) que es extremadamente satisfactorio incluso si los sistemas de navegación y armas son un poco limitados.

El Phantom es una auténtica Alta Fidelidad, ¡y sigue mejorando! En muchos sentidos, el Hornet de su época. Lástima que no sea apto para embarcaciones...

Al final del día, obtendrás un gran pájaro sin importar cuál elijas. 🤙

I have been collecting aircraft over the years; I am a “Diogenes” of simulation. F18, F16, JF17, A10, F14, Viggen, Mig29A, F1 (my favorite when they finish the radar), C101...  

 

6 hours ago, brinx said:

having the Disc you own in your drive anymore

xp12 still does. I'll be surprised if 13 offers dvds though.

1 hour ago, Aglos77 said:

I have been collecting aircraft over the years; I am a “Diogenes” of simulation. F18, F16, JF17, A10, F14, Viggen, Mig29A, F1 (my favorite when they finish the radar), C101...  

 

Great choices there - the C101 has been one of my favored trainers for quite awhile 👍

On 1/19/2026 at 7:41 PM, UrgentSiesta said:

I guess one could argue that traveling with a controller allows sim use, but I’ve never gotten to the point where I enjoy using them for “serious” simulation (except for front-seating the AH-64 Apache in DCS 😎, but that’s not flying, anyway…). 

IL2 is also playable with mouse/keyboard or controller, and is a great experience in energy management and aircraft handling. 

Fixed wing in XP on a laptop with a controller* (plus some script magic for triple bindings) and head tracking works surprisingly well, but helicopters are death traps because the input range of a thumbstick is really tiny.

 

*Inspired by this DCS video, funnily enough: 

 

22 hours ago, DeltaWho said:

Maya (our in house cloud-spotter) loves flightgear

I know. Mostly because of its MD-11.

Edited January 20Jan 20 by Bjoern

On 1/20/2026 at 7:57 PM, Bjoern said:

but helicopters are death traps because the input range of a thumbstick is really tiny.

 

Edited January 25Jan 25 by mSparks

I fly 450 RC helis. Helis are flying rocks. Too many ******* nuts on these things. Flyimg in a real heli scares me.

4 hours ago, alanw2005 said:

I fly 450 RC helis. Helis are flying rocks. Too many ******* nuts on these things. Flyimg in a real heli scares me.

I restrict the stunt flying with the 450 and 750 helis to the simulators (RealFlight RC and Aerofly RC).
Several years back in Brooklyn (NYC), a guy took his own head off with one of these when he lost control. 

6 hours ago, alanw2005 said:

Flyimg in a real heli scares me.

They’re pretty safe 9.8 incidents per 100,000 hours vs. 7.28 incidents for fixed wing … love’m … and you can get to places you couldn’t in fixed wing.

They do vibrate like hell on startup … gonna assume instruments need more frequent replacement.

22 hours ago, mSparks said:

 

Don’t just barge in here with facts and stuff…!!!! 😁👍

5 hours ago, brinx said:

I restrict the stunt flying with the 450 and 750 helis to the simulators (RealFlight RC and Aerofly RC).
Several years back in Brooklyn (NYC), a guy took his own head off with one of these when he lost control. 

Ive been seeing some truly massive RC aircraft on YT. like approaching the size of a manned aircraft….!

And I’m presuming they don’t have the built in SAS that the quadcopter drones do…?

They’d do some serious damage if crashed into the wrong thing. 

at what point is it “too big”, I wonder?