FSX starting to look old

[pmb]

So P3D 2 will be able to be used for entertainment purposes?

 

You probably know, even if this were true and John knew it he never could tell it here. Regards, Michael

[John Venema]

I don't care about bush lawyers and their hangups over the Lockheed EULA. Fact is, tens of thousands of simulation users around the world are using the Academic version of P3D 1.x to learn how to fly, and we sell to that platform without fear of any legal reprisals. We don't get embroiled in legal soapboxing about that on these forums so don't go down that road.

 

The P3D dev team have Orbx regions and airports installed and use it for testing and appreciate our support and constant communication with them. That is what is important to our company and that is why we continue to be enthused about P3D 2.x

[domfliss]

I don't care about bush lawyers and their hangups over the Lockheed EULA. Fact is, tens of thousands of simulation users around the world are using the Academic version of P3D 1.x to learn how to fly, and we sell to that platform without fear of any legal reprisals. We don't get embroiled in legal soapboxing about that on these forums so don't go down that road.

 

The P3D dev team have Orbx regions and airports installed and use it for testing and appreciate our support and constant communication with them. That is what is important to our company and that is why we continue to be enthused about P3D 2.x

 

Oh, that is good news.

[Rob Newman]

I'm also looking forward to seeing what P3D version 2 is capable of... at this moment in time I have too many fsx addons that require P3D upgrade fees to make the jump to version 1.4 (for a slightly better experience) but if version 2 is as capable as the expectations, and the backwards compatibility with existing addons remains as stated, I may be tempted to migrate then...

[Andrew 737]

P3D 2.0 will knock it out of the ball park, trust me. We have a good future with a great dev team and a slow-but-steady approach to removing all the old warts from seven year old code and adding hooks to modern CPU/GPU hardware.

I sincerely Hope so. I have considered giving up the hobby a few times - bear in mind im around 80k in!!! Probably more

[SAM Hunter]

With age comes experience, FSX has some age to it and there where other flight sim programs out there but where are they? Lockheed Martin has P3D but its main purpose is to build weapons and may-be the stock holders will see that it is not worth investing any more capital into it and will cancel its further development. With the actions in the middle east winding down the military contracts will be cut so big weapons producers like Lockheed will start cutting back on all non-essential programs P3D falls into this category. Then there are other programs that came and went, still there is the classic FSX, with people and companies producing products to keep it viable. How do you react when you see a ’69 Mustang fast back in fully restored condition? Or a ‘57 Chevy Bel Air or better yet a 1943 North American P-51 Mustang? FSX is like one of these classics. Remember in the big picture FSX and us simmers are a small market it takes a dedicated group to grudge along with us to keep our hobby, passion, and entertainment living.

 

David...

[COBS]

The Lockheed Martin  P3D  is a Simulation platform , pure and simple.

Try reading up on it  , it represents a multi user Simulator that can be used by :

Airlines , flight schools , Airforces , Army , Navy  , submarines , mining exploration ,

geophysical surveys , research organisations , educational institutions , travel agents,

movie and documentary makers , air safety investigators , and of course us Simmers , etc.

 

Over the years it has been found that simulation rehersals are a major cost saving factor ,

Airlines are now totally dependant on them , as are the military , they no longer use sand boxes

with little models.

A large safety factor is derived from simulation that has resulted in the saving of countless lives

of fare paying passengers.

Modern aircraft both military and airline now cost  in the region of 50 to 200 million dollars each , and

all players are cognisant  that large scale simulation drastically reduces loss of aircraft.

 

Essentially P3D  will end up being the primary simulation platform , and possibly the only high capability

unit in the global market place.

 

Lockheed Martin are only too aware of the potential value that resides in P3D  for a ever expanding

simulation requirement in the future .

 

Simulations of one kind or another are now in use in a wide area of persuits , medicine , engineering ,

architecture , building , medicine development , the list is endless , but most importantly it provides

a pointer towards the future .

 

I think that it's safe to say that short of an asteroid hitting our planet the future of P3D is secure.

 

Cheers

Karol

[Dibidut]

+1, Well spoken Karol.

Best

Henrik

[Wolf2grey]

P3D 2.0 will knock it out of the ball park, trust me. We have a good future with a great dev team and a slow-but-steady approach to removing all the old warts from seven year old code and adding hooks to modern CPU/GPU hardware.

  I agree........But I admit I am really liking FSX now. With dev's like ORBX, REX, A2A, etc, etc, the evenlope is being pushed more and more now. Creekdog and I still remember playing a "wire frame" A10 Game in the late 80's and to see what FSX looks like NOW...............is AMAZING.....

 

I mean with the NIMROD on approach at Bella Coola, Creekdog pulling the Speed Brake, and bringing gear down and pulling flaps while I am trying to control the plane and NOT crash, is as white knuckle as it gets and a hellava ride......lol.........

[SAM Hunter]

The Lockheed Martin P3D is a Simulation platform , pure and simple.

Try reading up on it , it represents a multi user Simulator that can be used by :

Airlines , flight schools , Airforces , Army , Navy , submarines , mining exploration ,

geophysical surveys , research organisations , educational institutions , travel agents,

movie and documentary makers , air safety investigators , and of course us Simmers , etc.

Over the years it has been found that simulation rehersals are a major cost saving factor ,

Airlines are now totally dependant on them , as are the military , they no longer use sand boxes

with little models.

A large safety factor is derived from simulation that has resulted in the saving of countless lives

of fare paying passengers.

Modern aircraft both military and airline now cost in the region of 50 to 200 million dollars each , and

all players are cognisant that large scale simulation drastically reduces loss of aircraft.

Essentially P3D will end up being the primary simulation platform , and possibly the only high capability

unit in the global market place.

Lockheed Martin are only too aware of the potential value that resides in P3D for a ever expanding

simulation requirement in the future .

Simulations of one kind or another are now in use in a wide area of persuits , medicine , engineering ,

architecture , building , medicine development , the list is endless , but most importantly it provides

a pointer towards the future .

I think that it's safe to say that short of an asteroid hitting our planet the future of P3D is secure.

Cheers

Karol

True:

Everything you said is true, but my point is the parent company. Being a long time follower of Lockheed in a pinch they would cut these types of programs or sell them in order to save for a multi billion dollar program like the F35 JSF or there Submarine Division. Yet FSX is a standard civilian platform that can be purchased at any computer center or electronics store for around $29.00 USD, no license required. See below

http://www.deagel.com/corporation/Lockheed-Martin_e000000074.aspx

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/lockheed-expects-sequestration-to-take-825-million-toll-this-year/2013/04/23/e783ce7a-ac51-11e2-a8b9-2a63d75b5459_story.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/lockheed-martin-10000-job-cuts-2012-7

Quote from Bruce L. Tanner (Lockheed Martins CFO)

“We expect to see those impacts grow over the next three quarters,†Bruce L. Tanner, Lockheed’s chief financial officer, said in a call with reporters Tuesday. “While we’re pleased with where we are, we’re mindful that sequestration hasn’t really hit thus far.â€

The effect of sequestration has slowly begun to ripple throughout the defense industry. Contractors have complained that the cuts will force layoffs and ramped up efforts to expand into new markets.

For Lockheed, the world’s largest weapons maker, the early effect is expected to be mostly felt in its information systems and mission systems units. Information technology and training contracts (Progams, products like P3D) are easier and faster to cut than large weapons systems, such as Lockheed’s F-35 fighter jet or a combat ship.

But cuts to those programs could come later, company officials said.â€

So is FSX looking old? maybe.

Can you still get, Yes!

Will you be able to get in future? Yes!

Does it cost a lot? Not at first.

Do you have to worry if it will last? Been here for awhile not going anywhere.

Is Prepar3D worth the cost? Don’t know

Does it do more than FSX? Yes!

Will it survive? Unkown, but the price has been reduced you can get a academic license now for $49.95

"What’s next for Prepar3D?

Our development work is now directed to further amping up performance and adding weapons training for our military customers.

Performance – Feedback from developers and users in the community indicate that performance is a high priority. Prepar3D is well on a path to take advantage of modern day computing hardware, moving away from the tradition of being CPU bound. We are now updating our rendering system to support DirectX11 and development is progressing nicely. With DirectX11 support, Prepar3D can leverage features such as hardware instancing, shaders, GPU-based particle systems, tessellation and multi-threaded rendering. We’re excited about the future of Prepar3D’s new rendering capability and are eager to be able to release it to the community in 2013.

Weapons training – Prepar3D will soon offer weapons training to allow our core customers a training capability of weapon selection and target acquisition. It will also enable developers’ weapons add-ons to integrate with their Prepar3D-ready models. Developers and end users will be able to attach weapons to existing and user-created aircraft through configuration files and in-game user interfaces. Users will be able experience and learn weapon processes from all angles, including loading the munitions, acquiring the target and then experiencing the weapon collision and detonation results in real-time."

Under review program cost and development team...

Hence subject to DOD spending cuts and termination...

[Ian Routley]

...... in a pinch they would cut these types of programs or sell them in order to save for a multi billion dollar program like the F35 JSF or there Submarine Division. Yet FSX is a standard civilian platform that can be purchased at any computer center or electronics store for around $29.00 USD, no license required. See below

 

Bear in mind, that without warning, and very soon after its release, Microsoft axed Flight!  (They also stopped development of FSX,   err  .... quite some time ago)

 

Your $29.00 FSX purchase, is in fact a license (that was the EULA bit you clicked on when you installed it!)  In comparison, $49.95 for a title in current development doesn't seem a bad deal.

 

In the current climate, large corporations can axe programs at will, and small companies can go under.  So, if we get paranoid not to use something because a company 'might' axe it due to financial pressure, then we would sit at home and twiddle our thumbs,.  You are still using FSX nearly 7 years after Microsoft 'axed' ACES.

 

" Despite those projections, Lock­heed reported that its first-quarter profit jumped nearly 14 percent to $761 million "

 

The bottom line .... is the bottom line.  A profitable simulator program is not going to be first on the chopping block.

 

In short, a huge potential market, requiring a relatively small very skilled team (cheaper than developing an airplane).  I would guess this is a low-cost, potentially high return aspect of LM's business.

[SAM Hunter]

Bear in mind, that without warning, and very soon after its release, Microsoft axed Flight!  (They also stopped development of FSX,   err  .... quite some time ago)

 

Your $29.00 FSX purchase, is in fact a license (that was the EULA bit you clicked on when you installed it!)  In comparison, $49.95 for a title in current development doesn't seem a bad deal.

 

In the current climate, large corporations can axe programs at will, and small companies can go under.  So, if we get paranoid not to use something because a company 'might' axe it due to financial pressure, then we would sit at home and twiddle our thumbs,.  You are still using FSX nearly 7 years after Microsoft 'axed' ACES.

 

" Despite those projections, Lock­heed reported that its first-quarter profit jumped nearly 14 percent to $761 million "

 

The bottom line .... is the bottom line.  A profitable simulator program is not going to be first on the chopping block.

 

In short, a huge potential market, requiring a relatively small very skilled team (cheaper than developing an airplane).  I would guess this is a low-cost, potentially high return aspect of LM's business.

This also true, I am not against P3D, I'm just stating the facts as presented by Lockheed Martin. 

 

David...

[Foxbat]

I don't get the speculation about P3D. It costs cheaper than most good addons. Yes LM may axe it. Yes they are fuzzy about academic use. Just fly it, or not.  I'll get P3D V2 if it is good, or I'll stick to FSX. What LM axes or not in the future...zzzzzzzz

[SAM Hunter]

I don't get the speculation about P3D. It costs cheaper than most good addons. Yes LM may axe it. Yes they are fuzzy about academic use. Just fly it, or not.  I'll get P3D V2 if it is good, or I'll stick to FSX. What LM axes or not in the future...zzzzzzzz

So will I, LM has improved the simulation world by leaps and bounds, all things start and end, and life to short to worry about these things... FSX still runs is easier to acess, and can be bought online or offline... The choice is up to you...

 

David...

[Dibidut]

Pleace take the Tinfoil hat off, we, the student flyers, is only the butter on that bread...Or ...??

I would like to know, how many "Acedemic" sim flyers there are...Globall....??

I have tryed to count, for instance  REX - enrolment , when it has been updated....There is many, many.

As Karol said, its  nesserity for LMs ,, it isent just pop and jazz for them, of course not.

Every Person who tryed there simulator will be influenced, and with that in mind, they (LM) will/could chance some

Politicians perspective.

I think its a really cheap promotion method, in the long runn....Dont you

 

Henrik

[Foxbat]

The other thing I would like to note in terms of looking dated is that I haven't see any unedited shots of any other sim (X-Plane, FLight etc) that look as good as FSX/P3D + addons.  Where we do see great looking terrain - its usually enviornments where there is no significant AI, ATC, dynamic enviornment - essentially the depth is missing or its just a rendering engine inisolation without any other processes.  Note not saying that FSX isn't dated but there's not much else around either. Finally, I think the enviornment textures (ground, sky, water etc) are good enough. The only thing I care about now is having realistic systems, FDE, engine modelling, VC etc.

[Dibidut]

Personly, without reading all in this treed, i would say :

There have never been another programm (beside some  OSs) so consistency, its unike any other

Games/Programs/What ever...and it will/would never " be old" to me... i think.

 

FSX FOR EVER? : something isent compatible  And thats thats.!!!....Why choose..??  Use them boath!!  

Best

Henrik

[birdguy]

Maybe this is what you guys are looking for. My new picture. 'Bob' looking out from the monitor at the real world.

Noel

[Guest]

Well, I'm quite satisfied with FSX as it is.  It is a bit sensitive and will occasionally stop for no apparent reason, but on the whole, it supports the sceneries and aircraft we have available to us with the exception of space flight but, what the hell, that's impossible to prove interesting in a simulator anyway. 

 

The only thing I still can't get my head round is why Microsoft made the scenery focus by steps rather than rolling out like FS9 used to.  It made it less realistic in my opinion.  Otherwise its fine and many people in spite of the proliference of more powerful computers,  still have trouble working it at its maximum settings which, I think,  demonstrates its longevity.

 

To be honest.  I don't want change.  It would not only cost a fortune but would lead to the discontinuance of development of sceneries etc., for what we have now.

 

John

[birdguy]

I don't think a new simulator would mean people would stop producing for FSX John. You can find a lot of new scenery and aircraft for FS2004 in flightsim.com scenery library. Even some new stuff for FS2002.

California Classics has just released a new set of sceneries for Europe circa 1962 and they keep adding to and improving the propliners of the era. I spend almost as much time with FS2004 flying DC-3s and Connies around the world as I do flying Orbx. While we are waiting for FTX Global California Classics already has the world covered with detailed airports on every continent except South America. The scenery isn't as eye catching as Orbx, but for those who like golden age of aviation when propliners were in their heyday it is just as popular as Orbx is for us.

Even though a lot of new train simulators have come out the decade old MS Train Simulator still has a very strong following and new scenery and rolling stock appears on trainsim.com every day.

Of course there are those who are always looking for the newest thing to come on the market but quality products will always stand the test of time.

It's not age that determines the popularity of a simulator, it's the following it develops. And as long as it remains popular and interesting there will be add-ons produced by talented people.

Noel

[domfliss]

It's great that FSX has so much choice when it comes to add-ons; it's surely one reason for it's longevity and I dare say will keep it going for some time to come.

 

One area where I think FSX is really starting to show it's age though, is in terms of lighting.  Compared to modern sims, the lighting is pretty basic.  For example; Orbx England has great textures and trees, but the shadows of the trees are static; merely painted on to the texture, which (in my opinion) spoils the illusion of different times of day.  If you've never used a simulator which has this feature, you no doubt wouldn't miss it; but if you have, then it's one of the first things you notice.

 

Building lighting is missing too.  When the sun goes down, I don't really see much in the way of shadows which is a shame because it would again add that little bit more realism.  

 

Maybe P3D 2.0 will bring moving shadows to building and trees of existing Orbx sceneries; who knows.

 

FSX has a lot going for it, and I use it daily and enjoy it, but time is a ticking I think, LOL.

 

I still have my copy of my original FS95 complete with packaging, but I keep it safe in a drawer; I don't use it like my classic 1986 M5.  

 

Unlike driving motoring classics at the weekend, computer graphics just look dated and don't make you really go wow; unless it's for nostalgic purposes

[moonman]

Very interesting points here!

 

Now:

FSX is a software and was so from day one - and as a software it might require some dedicated overhaul from time to time keep on running properly in a "software environment" which is constantly changing and progressing (no matter if we now may like all the new stuff or not, ... but that's just a matter of fact).

 

FSX is capable of a many things, it for sure is the prime flightsimplatform currently available - and yet:

Just because other platforms are not that convinicing, does that now mean that FSX can and should not become better - or:

Why not asking and demanding for an overhaul of it?

 

Let's look at FSX as it is currently and we will quickly note that it could be far, far better - i dare saying that we all agree on that?!

Again - i am not saying that there is a better alternative around, not saying that FSX is bad at all - but why not - just pragmatically asking:

What can be done better - and i am - as i assume all of us here - very sure, that there is a lot that can be done better, if FSX would and could only use current hard- and software properly.

 

Maybe it should not be so much about questioning FSX, but its engine and code, that - let's face it - simply starts to struggle, when a certain amount of scenery, detailed weather, AI traffic or detailed airplane comes into action.

And i am not talking about "all sliders maxed out"!

 

To be convincing a sim needs a certain level of features to appear realistic.

And if they don't - well then this sim, is just not that useful.

 

As pictures often tell more than a 1000 words, and to just keep it simple ...

I, as a flightsimmer, don't want this to happen anymore:

Two shots captured during a recent flight into ORBX Melbourne in the evening.

My setting were:

 

Autogen: Dense

NO AI car traffic turned on

Weather in use: OPUS and REX textures

NO tweaks at my fsx.cfg: Only HIGHMEMFIX=1 and TEXTURE RES.=4096

Plane: PMDG NGX

AI traffic (air): GA: 15%, Airliners 20%

 

So: I am - again - not talking about "all maxed out" ... and yet:

Look for Yourself what i experienced during the transition from evening to night while on approach over Melbourne...

And i don't think i am aksing for to much to keep FTX Day/Night set to Night for keeping some immersion vital (refering to the FPS impact lightpoles may have at densely populated urban areas)

 

 

 

I had good luck and after two minutes or so, the sim continued to run properly again - so i assume it was mainly the loading of the "night-textures" which caused the issue ...

But i  mean - even then:

Isn't it somewhat ironic that something like the transition between various daytimes may cause something like that in a flightsim(!) ...

So - again - just pragmatically spoken:

 

I don't think it is asked for to much to demand a simplatform which does not only offer the potential to add superb 3rd party add-ons to it, but also to be able to handle and run them properly then!

I know my system specs may not be the super best, but they are sure not that bad either...

And the thing is:

Even a "super overclocked" PC with all the best hard- and software gets down to its knees in some areas with FSX, just because FSX is not capable of using what current soft- and hardware may have to offer.

 

So my hopes now - pragmatically - go out to P3D Version 2.

I am also not that much asking for "backward-compatibility" if it should require to again make compromises regarding the potential of an engine which could otherwise use current soft- and hardware properly.

I in fact would rather ask to "upgrade" current add-ons to run on ths next "new" platform. Even if it would require some spendings from my side - but i think the "cost-benefit" factor will be a good one.

 

And again - i am not yet talking about "eyecandy-features" here.

But even if so - i don't think it is wrong to ask for things like dynamic shadowing and lighting or stuff like cloudshadows and all that - simply because:

This is 2013 by now - and it is an almost standard graphic feature nowadays - nothing magical or technically demanding!

Sure i could say:

A flightsim is a flightsim and does not need any of that at all ... but then - let's face it:

If it was all for "flightsim-purposes" only and exclusively, then even FS 98 or so may still be sufficient - BUT(!):

If it is about immersion and about trying to "replicate reality" within the borders of a virtual environment as good as anyhow possible, then i think that it definitely requires that "little something more special" to be convincing!

 

And i also think that in our current "real" world, were people grow up with super digital cameras, high graphic games an movies, even the most rational pilot aspirant in the future may be a bit "surprised" to only have a sim available then, which actually uses an engine that is already seven years old by now ... so, i think that - besides all of ours and my personal thoughts and wishes, it may also be appropiate to keep at least some "possible future" for flightsimming in mind, when talking and discussing about the topic:"FSX start to look old".

... but then:

Who knows, what he future holds for us anyways

[domfliss]

From the LM forums regarding 64bit:

 

http://www.prepar3d.com/forum-5/?mingleforumaction=viewtopic&t=2870.0#postid-12476

[Ken Terry]

I started with FSX out of the box on a weak laptop and was immediately fascinated by being able to fly anywhere in the world.

A few years later and many thousands of dollars invested (see my signature) I am still every day carried away by the current detail of - Scenery e.g. ORBX Stewart, Virtual cockpits e.g. PMDG 737 NGX, Sound packs e.g. TSS and Weather e.g. Opus and REX.

FSX may be "old technology" but all the add-ons and enhancements do one hell of a good job of flight simulation for me.

Regards

Ken

[OmniAtlas]

HDR in xplane 10 along with dynamic lighting is amazing.

It is too bad the scenery and aircraft options available is terrible. Clouds also could be improved compared to Rex with opus.

Here is hoping P3D is a miracle child....no news from LM and we are in 6 months into 2013....what's going on there?

[Guest]

Not a lot I shouldn't wonder.

 

I'm not sure its really caught on for many simmers.

 

John

[FleetingThought]

I don't care about bush lawyers and their hangups over the Lockheed EULA. Fact is, tens of thousands of simulation users around the world are using the Academic version of P3D 1.x to learn how to fly, and we sell to that platform without fear of any legal reprisals. We don't get embroiled in legal soapboxing about that on these forums so don't go down that road.

The P3D dev team have Orbx regions and airports installed and use it for testing and appreciate our support and constant communication with them. That is what is important to our company and that is why we continue to be enthused about P3D 2.x

I am glad to hear of this interaction, as -- despite all the technical debates -- what it ultimately boils down to is, are the people on the programming team any good, or not?

Sounds like they're good. Sounds like they are approaching 2.0 seriously and methodically.

This is what made FSX in the first place, sustained, rigorous, deliberate development.

If P3D can literally knock FSX's socks off....sold, as that is no mean feat.

FSX is unassailably at the pinnacle of this genre's development, with its ability to juggle so many different, detailed and reasonably accurate systems simultaneously.

Anything that can top that, especially by building upon it, will simply have no competition.

Glad to see there will be a good reason to upgrade to a new PC in a few years. May I dare to predict that if P3D 2.0 ends up being that good, it will turn the PC into the future platform of choice?

[alan2]

I am glad to hear of this interaction, as -- despite all the technical debates -- what it ultimately boils down to is, are the people on the programming team any good, or not?

Sounds like they're good. Sounds like they are approaching 2.0 seriously and methodically.

 

 

With respect friend, your talking about Lockheed Martin and their simulator . Who do you think they will get on the job for military standards work , some kids in the bedroom ?

[birdguy]

I think alan2 is right. Follow the money. Do we simmers have it or do the people who buy and use Predators have it?

Noel

[DocBird]

I think alan2 is right. Follow the money. Do we simmers have it or do the people who buy and use Predators have it?

Noel

 

But wouldn’t that mean that all (or at least some) major add-on developers sit together and agree to one new state-of-the-art-platform and then throw some money or talents or rights in the hat and let someone develop a new future-proof-platform (“FS2020†– 64bit modern code for multi-cores, multi graphic cards, multi monitors and multiple computers/tablets/phones over a network) for the private and commercial use and for the gamers who just want to have some fun with great gameplay. Setting up an app-store where commercial developer sell their stuff (maybe under a little fee for the store) while freeware developers share it for free should be possible and would generate some return for the members of the initial group.

 

And a good app-store could install new business models such as pay as you fly! I (personally) would love to fly to more airports then I have installed. From most airports I am bored after some days. I would be happy to pay one Euro for a day of use of an Airport instead of 25 Euro! So I would spend the same money on much more different aiports.

[brian747]

> "....models such as pay as you fly! .... I would be happy to pay one Euro for a day of use of an Airport instead of 25 Euro!"

 

Interesting. However, I take the opposite point of view: if ever that scenario was introduced I would abandon flight simming completely. (It appears that those who purchased Microsoft Flight felt a similar disinclination to keep paying out in order to fly).

 

Like most people here, I have paid a small amount for FSX followed by a huge subsequent amount for hardware and additional software (including some from Orbx) â€” but I would prefer that scenario to one in which I was dependent upon "the cloud" with concomitant payments each time. I'm also unsure of the impact of such measures on the income of the developers on whom we have all come to depend.

 

Cheers,

 

Brian

[pmb]

Fully agreed Brian, I avoided all cloud goodies until now and will not accept them for Flightsim addons. Regards, Michael

[alan2]

I am the same . This year I have money next year I might not . I buy once and thats it . Stand alone and independant , very reliable . I have that now and I wont be going backwards to such a system if it were to come about .

[cwam]

It IS good to hear that JV has such confidence in P3D v2 - it gives us a bit of hope that there is something that will follow up on FSX's many strengths.

 

As I was reading through this it really got me thinking about how unlucky the ACES team were in one sense (well, given they were shut down, unlucky in more than one sense I suppose!).  What I mean is this:  One of the things FSX was severely criticized for at the time was that contemporary high spec machines couldn't run it at full capacity - it was capable of doing so much more than the hardware available at the time could manage.

 

But there is a reason why it is still here 7 years later - developers are pushing the FSX engine the ACES team came up with to nearer and nearer its full potential - a potential they deliberately built into it.

 

But here is the unlucky part - hardware design went in a different direction than they anticipated, going down the multi-cpu route rather than the ever-higher clock rate route. That meant that the hardware was never truly capable of running FSX to its full extent.  The patches helped to make it more multi-cpu aware but from what I read (and my PC is too old for any of this to be from personal experience!) the biggest problem is that the FSX engine cannot be used to fully utilise the high-end hardware set-ups of today's PCs.

 

But imagine if that had NOT happened - either ACES spotted the multi-cpu trend and went for that OR hardware went down the route of 10GHz CPUs - then FSX would be even more amazing today than it currently is,

 

As far as I can see, the thing that so many people criticized FSX for at the time is the main reason we are all able to get so much out of it after so many years - it's potential to do so much more.

 

Yes, I know there are other problems as well - Direct X previews and stutters etc - I am all too familiar with these issues!  With hindsight it is obvious that MS couldn't see why ORBX and others should get all that lovely money people were spending on enhancing their product when MS wanted it for themselves - thus shut down the current team and start over with a new financial model. (How anyone there thought that would work...)  And so ACES never had any realistic opportunity of sorting out the problems with FSX or developing it to take into account the new hardware setups.  IF LM are able to do any of these things with P3D v2, that can only be good news.

 

[COBS]

That multi - cpu  trend was known of long before FSX was released  even in the common market place .

The insiders talk to each other about both software and hardware trend long before  we do.

This insider knowledge is kept under confidentiality clauses and agreements that are legally binding.

Aces chose on purpose to ignore multi -cpu , additionally they made FSX CPU reliant a , which

seems to ignore GPU's , hence we have a platform that chokes .

Why they did that is anyone's guess , I suspect that Microsoft refused to allocate sufficient resources

to the FSX development.

 

I'm just very pleased that Lockheed Martin have and are addressing all of these aspects with their P3D.

 

The trouble with Microsoft is their marketing cycles , they rush a product out the door to get the sales ,

then with time the sales dry up .

Then they generate a new version to generate new sales.

As a marketing philosophy that's fine .

 

However the Flight Simulator has become one hell of a complex piece of software that requires a long

and difficult gestation period to develop upgrades to , I think Microsoft realised that the Flight simulator

had become too complex  and resource intensive to develope new versions that could fit into their

marketing cycle philosophy.

 

Fortunately Lockheed Martin P3D have a different philosophy , they want a platform that to the greatest

degree possible remains backward compatible while improving it's caabilities and performance.

Microsoft had to change each new version of the flight simulator just enough to force the customer

to buy the new version .

Lockheed Martin cannot under any circumstances afford to offend or alienate their major customers .

the military , government departments and some of the largest companies in the world , these

customers will be spending massive amounts of money on both custom software , and hardware

 and infrastructure to run with P3D .

They will not tolerate 5 year marketing cycles that obsolete all that expenditure and effort ,

they would take an extremely dim view of Lockheed Martin  if compatability was ever breeched.

 

That aspect works rather wonderfully in our favor.

 

Cheers

Karol

[FleetingThought]

It's interesting, thinking about the marketing and financial constraints on long-time-frame development: look at this even with Windows 8/8.1, MS has now moved to a faster release cycle, probably at (hopefully at) lower price points, along with trying to make their software more competitively priced by sending it to the Cloud (Office365).

 

It's not just marketing.  Same thing happened to the games industry, going at one stage from investing $400 million into the development of Bioware's The Old Republic (massive, failed MMO for Electronic Arts), to Zynga's churn-out-the-same-tiny-slot-machine-game-on-Facebook-30-times-a-year.

 

The longer-term, and larger-scale, the development cycle, the more risk.  With the evolution and changes in hardware architecture design, platform preferences, even usage preferences (desktop/living room/mobile/bed-bathroom <g>), by the time you release something Big, the market may have changed fundamentally from under you.

 

And, at the time FS2006 was being readied for release, the market at the time said (World of Warcraft, Blizzard in general): don't cut off legacy hardware, or you shrink your market to a tiny hardcore that will not be sufficient to pay for the long-term, large-scale development.

 

So, financial and market issues basically crippled the directions FSX could go at the point it was going; it _could_ have gone multi-cpu/GPU, but at the time, that would have potentially only been for a tiny segment of the market, at the expense of losing the comparably large "legacy" PC market.

 

These are not easy choices to work through.  You always risk, with long-term development, designing for an audience that is dead and gone by the time you release; it's a constant anxiety, and you have to be checking and reading the tea leaves frequently to see whether you're going to be in trouble or not.  And, if direction changes radically, given what you've sunk into your development, often there's little/nothing you can do to re-architect fast enough to avoid a crisis.

 

So, at a lot of levels, yes, MS and even the ACES Studio failed; on the other hand, hindsight is always 20/20, and it's all too easily to look back and play shoulda/coulda/woulda on the dev team, and the MS management, that made the decisions six years ago.

[COBS]

It's not a matter of hindsight , they well and truely knew at the time of development .

The owner of a computer shop that I frequent , commented that high quality games that 

utilised multi core were on the market long before FSX release , he was amazed that

it was not included  in FSX  , also his comments about the speed and performance of

the initial  FSX release can't be printed on these pages.

 

You will recall that JV made reference to P3D V2.0 long ago and that he was not at liberty to divulge 

what he knew about it due to confidentiality agreements,

As I said above these companies talk to each other about development years before we 

become aware of them  , they have to co ordinate to ensure that various software and hardware

work harmoniously together .

Your graphics card  that can take advantage of software and visa versa does not arrive by

some miracle at an opportune time , these companies minimise risks by communicating and

knowing in detail what developments are and when those developments will hit the market.

It's all about information intelligence , not tea leaves , there is far too much at stake to

allow ignorance to set in .

Either they remain full bottle regards whats going on , or they go the way of all

dinosaurs.

 

Cheers

Karol

[birdguy]

My two cents worth on why FSX and other flight simulators are not attractive to many of today's kids,  It's not exciting enough. 

 

You take off from an airport, fly over some nice scenery and look at the panel instruments, and then land at another airport.  One or two of us have touched on the boredom of doing this routinely.

 

No attention getting whiz-bang special effects.  Nobody to shoot.  No car chases.  No explosions or fires.  No scantily clad chicks loaded down with M-60 machine guns and bandoliers of ammunition hanging from their necks.  P3D and FSX can't compete with that in today's gaming market.

 

FSX is not a game.  It's a pastime for we pilots, ex-pilots, and wish we had been pilots who fly vicariously through our simulators.

 

Several years ago I thought FS2004 would be great tool for teaching school children geography.  I approached the principle of a local school about setting up a trial.  He came to my house and looked at it and said right off, "It's just not exciting enough to hold their interest."

 

FSX is a dinosaur's toy.  Sure, there are some youngsters who have an interest it, but not enough to make a customer base. 

 

I think flight simulation as a hobby will die with my generation and the one following mine.  Most Xers have neither the time nor the patience for it.

 

Noel

[macca22au]

Right and wrong.   Flightsimming without weapons and dogfights, competitions, winners and all is dull to most kids.   MS found when they dropped FSX for FLIGHT that even that game version is too uninteresting to the kids in the slick first person shooter world.

 

FSX is old, because it is no longer being upgraded and updated.  It is an orphan.

 

Prepar3D is the same engine, therefore is still pretty conventional.  But it is being upgraded and the version 2.0 when it comes out should be a step much further.  However before I am flamed or drowned from the foaming mouths of the passionate, to use P3D does require you to consider the EULA both for it and any addon.

 

However the so-called entertainment market will become increasingly intertwined with the professional simulation world, and we will become increasingly dependent on this market to keep the base sim updated.  There are interesting times ahead for sure, and we are not the marketeers target group lets face it.

 

One unknown however is the recruitment rate to flight simulation.  I don't think it ever was a large number even before iPads and iPhones, and maybe it is still holding up as new entrants start buying.  The people who would really have done the market research, the base sim publishers and the add-on makers .. and I suspect they will never advertise sale numbers and trends to the world.

[COBS]

  No explosions or fires.  No scantily clad chicks 

 

What  !   .............  you don't have them ? 

Am I the only one that does ?

 

Well my simulator does have  bombs , explosions , missiles , flares , and guns  ,

because that is my choice  .

 

The problem with many kids today is that they have been over indulged , and over exposed .

Nothing impresses them , they have no passions , and often they get bored with any activity 

that lasts longer than half an hour.

A ten minute attention span at work !

So often I have heard their universal war cry  ,  " I'm bored " .

It goes without saying that the above does not apply to all kids , often there are fantastic ones

amongst them .

 

Cheers

Karol