Development of a next generation simulator

[Yardreamer]

Allow me to chime in.

 

1. It is a multi-million dollar, multi-year, medium sized team proposition; that limits who in our FS small industry can consider a Next-Gen PC simulator project

 

2. There is no better far-horizon, round-world 3D engine available worldwide, than the FSX-SP2 codeline; so that must be the basis of all development

 

3. Orbx and other FS developers have been looking into future paths for some time, but we don't talk about that publicly

 

4. Backward compatibility is not a driving factor; it's better to offer conversion tools than to hamstring a new simulator to old standards

 

5. Anyone investing in such a venture would be foolish to limit to PC only; it would also be ported PS4, Xbox One, Mac, Linux and other Intel-based platforms to capture the broadest market possible

 

6. Finally Orbx is more than willing to work with a well funded team who would want to try, but it has to convince us that it is a serious, well organised and well funded venture

 

In a nutshell, nothing like that is currently happening, as much as I would like it to.

Well Said

[macca22au]

JV:   P3D meets many of your criteria, as it preserves the FSX-SP2 codeline.

 

Surely now that Microsoft is no longer in the market-place, either LM,or a consortium involving them could buy the rights to set up a version that is full entertainment release.  

 

This would save re-inventing the wheel, particularly if v2.0 fits your approach.

[boleyd]

Let us await the release of Prepare3D version 2.0 . The diverse community can tthen judge if it is a strong improvement over FSX or not. Right now it is, to a degree, better than FSX but it also brings its own unique problems. . If Lockheed pulls P3D and makes it a high fee commercial product I would be surprised and disappointed. I seriously doubt that they would release version 2.0 under the same licensing and then later make a release that would be a high fee product. Let's see if Version 2.0 comes with a new license and a big price or if we get what we all hope for - the status quo.

 

In the meantime if P3D stopped being offered today I would continue using it instead of FSX (my copy is presently broken). I think that there is enough "stuff" such as Orbx that runs on it that I see it as an improved FSX with its own future despite any licensing changes by LM.

[jrrbolkin]

I never said collaboration = funding, merely pointed out that at least from JV's point of view there is a willingness on, at least His part (if a well funded team/organisation) got going with  the principle Idea of a new sim.

Again not putting words into someone else's mouth just found it encouraging that the Idea would be considered,

Its all a moot point, as we are pretty much aware that the likelihood of any new sim development is to say the least very very unlikely

We have P3d wich will be a variation on FSX and v2.0 will again hopefully show further improvement.Then a post yesterday showing that Aerofly intend to expand their current sim.

I feel we are stuck for the long term with just ad hoc patching of an old software engine and unless or until some company can find the funds and the formula to make an all singing and dancing multii-platform new engine that is where we shall remain.

That is not to dismiss the fabulous work Orbx do in at least massively improving what we have and with the soon to be Global I find great comfort that at least they are trying to move things forward.

[COBS]

We are building unreasonable and impossible expectations around P3D  V2 , when it is finally released ,

I suspect that it will be nit picked to death instead of being appreciated for the progressive improvements

that it brings to the fold.

Remember it is only V2 , after V2 comes V3 , and then V.... , and so on.

LM  are adding features , they are also making efforts to improve performance , we should be greatful 

that these improvements are being undertaken.

 

We should be very mindful that  P3D  remains an open platform , unlike Flight .

Any Flight Simulator can be a closed system at the sole discretion of it's creator , no freely available

SDKs  , thus no third party add ons .

 

The benefit of open platforms is a mass of add ons of all sorts , FTX , mesh ,REX , aircraft , repaints ,

new instruments and systems , ships , cars , etc , this all adds to the diversity available to us all.

Essentially an open platform adds hundred or thousands of developers to that platform , 

no company , no matter how large could afford to employ those type of numbers of staff.

These third party developers populate the platform with thousands of add ons  , now a

important aspect of the masses of add ons  is that to a degree it enforces backwards compatability ,

the company behind the platform relies heavily on those add ons to populate it's platform .

Just imagine how sterile the sim would be without what we currently have available.

 

Cheers

Karol

[Yardreamer]

We are building unreasonable and impossible expectations around P3D  V2 , when it is finally released ,

I suspect that it will be nit picked to death instead of being appreciated for the progressive improvements

that it brings to the fold.

Remember it is only V2 , after V2 comes V3 , and then V.... , and so on.

LM  are adding features , they are also making efforts to improve performance , we should be greatful 

that these improvements are being undertaken.

 

We should be very mindful that  P3D  remains an open platform , unlike Flight .

Any Flight Simulator can be a closed system at the sole discretion of it's creator , no freely available

SDKs  , thus no third party add ons .

 

The benefit of open platforms is a mass of add ons of all sorts , FTX , mesh ,REX , aircraft , repaints ,

new instruments and systems , ships , cars , etc , this all adds to the diversity available to us all.

Essentially an open platform adds hundred or thousands of developers to that platform , 

no company , no matter how large could afford to employ those type of numbers of staff.

These third party developers populate the platform with thousands of add ons  , now a

important aspect of the masses of add ons  is that to a degree it enforces backwards compatability ,

the company behind the platform relies heavily on those add ons to populate it's platform .

Just imagine how sterile the sim would be without what we currently have available.

 

Cheers

Karol

Agree to most... The relatively easy SDK in MSFS is one major attraction to me. I fully enjoy the interaction with the environment especially with the ORBX improvements.

Dreamer

[jhuntphx]

We are building unreasonable and impossible expectations around P3D  V2 , when it is finally released ,

I suspect that it will be nit picked to death instead of being appreciated for the progressive improvements

that it brings to the fold.

 

You are most probably correct about that.

We all see the amazing possibilities that DX11 has to offer, but whether or not the sim can be coded to take full advantage of those possibilities is questionable.

I wish they could be more open about its progress.. but we home simmers are not their target market after-all.

[macca22au]

For a small market flightsimmers are highly demanding. Frankly I think we are lucky not to see the field abandoned, given the marginal profits involved. Indeed we are fortunate that a highly capitalised company like Lockheed Martin is improving the product as a spin-off of their commercial purpose (yadda yadda I know their EULA is limited). Meanwhile X-Plane, Aerofly FS, and maybe others are still pressing on. At the moment only LM seems prepared and funded to develop the MSFS platform.

FS development in all aspects is often a second income pursuit for the code builders, and many companies have entered the market, joined up or left. Left I think as much from exhaustion as anything else. Orbx has developed a business model that is proving successful, but regrettably showing variations between products given the different teams involved.

My thought is that we must trim our expectations. Kids and gamepads and boxes mean that the main consumer market is not in perfect scenery and fastidious aircraft but in quickie games.

[Andrew 737]

We are very fortunate with what we have considering the market is a small niche one.

The boundaries between simulation and reality are being blurred more and more all the time and our expectations (including mine) are probably too high. It's a wonder the Dev's (all the good Dev's) are not demotivated by the constant demand for more and more. We have a fantastic platform and wonderful add-ons, that I feel are really cost effective.

If Lockheed succeed with Prepar3d 2.0 then Brilliant, all the better for us, if not we still have a great platform to use and enjoy

I am learning to lower my expectations slowly!!

[DocBird]

Yes, you are right: The gamer are a relatively small market. But there are other markets too!

 

I think LM is smart! There will be a lot of demand from the commercial side in the coming years. Budgets will be lowered from year to year. More and more parts of education of pilots will be simulated and also more and more parts of pilot training will be replaced by simulation. Therefore they will be in a very good (unique) position to sell their product to military and other professional customers.

 

I wonder why EADS is not on the scene and developing a professional simulator. Today the border between professional simulation and “gaming†are transparent. And todays hardware can certainly handle challenging software and more and more home-user use semi-professional hardware (like yokes, multi-monitor-set-ups, etc.).

 

So why not develop something new for the “big-business†and for the gamers? Something that does not have the limitations of the FSX engine (flight-dynamics, water-dynamics, etc.)

 

BTW: The development costs that are too high for the FSX development companies to take are most likely peanuts for EADS…

[macca22au]

Well said.

For someone with really excess funds, it would be quite possible to buy and setup one of those 737NGX full (but not motion) simulators found in just about every big city.  

[Simnut]

We are very fortunate with what we have considering the market is a small niche one.

The boundaries between simulation and reality are being blurred more and more all the time and our expectations (including mine) are probably too high. It's a wonder the Dev's (all the good Dev's) are not demotivated by the constant demand for more and more. We have a fantastic platform and wonderful add-ons, that I feel are really cost effective.

If Lockheed succeed with Prepar3d 2.0 then Brilliant, all the better for us, if not we still have a great platform to use and enjoy

I am learning to lower my expectations slowly!!

 

 

I think this is the crucial thing around which the current troubles within our community revolve, expectations are not being met. After several years of better and better products coming to market, expectations are raised to a level which cannot be met by possible reality. Disappointment, disenfranchisement and bitterness follow as evidenced by comments in fora and on blogs across the scene. Those of us who can recognise this and adjust our expectations to a lower point will likely stay happy with what we've got whereas the rest will look for the brightest best new shiny thing.

I think at this stage we've all seen what's possible within the current framework and little revolutionary is likely to emerge. We, in my humble opinion, are on the crest of the wave that is FSX. I personally have finally stopped purchasing for the most part, new planes or sceneries etc. etc. for my install of FSX, which is now likely as good as it will get. In a way that's a relief because for years I've spent many thousands on hardware and software in my quest to get to this point. It's nice to have finally arrived!

Of course if I am joined in my realisation by others in time or already and those who feel disenfranchised wander elsewhere, that does not bode well for vendors in this shrinking marketplace who must be inclined towards profit taking while they can.

So what of the future? A new sim is unlikely to emerge, being too costly a proposition. So it's Prepar3d 2.0! Perhaps X-Plane 12 maybe, before the damage done to that franchise by the current implausible world is undone. I for one am happy with FSX as she stands and will likely stick to that for the forseeable future whilst keeping an interested eye on any developments. I wonder am I alone in that?

[Andrew 737]

I think this is the crucial thing around which the current troubles within our community revolve, expectations are not being met. After several years of better and better products coming to market, expectations are raised to a level which cannot be met by possible reality. Disappointment, disenfranchisement and bitterness follow as evidenced by comments in fora and on blogs across the scene. Those of us who can recognise this and adjust our expectations to a lower point will likely stay happy with what we've got whereas the rest will look for the brightest best new shiny thing.

I think at this stage we've all seen what's possible within the current framework and little revolutionary is likely to emerge. We, in my humble opinion, are on the crest of the wave that is FSX. I personally have finally stopped purchasing for the most part, new planes or sceneries etc. etc. for my install of FSX, which is now likely as good as it will get. In a way that's a relief because for years I've spent many thousands on hardware and software in my quest to get to this point. It's nice to have finally arrived!

Of course if I am joined in my realisation by others in time or already and those who feel disenfranchised wander elsewhere, that does not bode well for vendors in this shrinking marketplace who must be inclined towards profit taking while they can.

So what of the future? A new sim is unlikely to emerge, being too costly a proposition. So it's Prepar3d 2.0! Perhaps X-Plane 12 maybe, before the damage done to that franchise by the current implausible world is undone. I for one am happy with FSX as she stands and will likely stick to that for the forseeable future whilst keeping an interested eye on any developments. I wonder am I alone in that?

Valid post Simnut

[macca22au]

JV has alluded to discussions being held behind the scenes.  This means that some movement is occurring to which understandably we cannot be parties.  i hope those involved in these talks might look at the many well put views expressed in this very mature debate.  We are keen, we are customers, and we are long term users who give great life to any sim.  In fact we may be a small market but we are a deep one, with most commited simmers digging deep into their pockets.

 

I bet in this year sales of FTX Global and the about to be released PMDG 777 will exceed all estimates.  Proof that though few, we are heavy spenders, and over the long term.

 

Most importantly the level of technical understanding amongst users is very high, making knowledge porous, and all of us members of the same knowledge network.  We are not passive patients, but heavily involved players, so please use us.

[DocBird]

I bet in this year sales of FTX Global and the about to be released PMDG 777 will exceed all estimates.  Proof that though few, we are heavy spenders, and over the long term.

 

Most importantly the level of technical understanding amongst users is very high, making knowledge porous, and all of us members of the same knowledge network.  We are not passive patients, but heavily involved players, so please use us.

 

That’s true Macca22au! That’s so true! But I think that is also what limits the market too much.

 

Only the hardcore simmers have that high level of technical understanding. They certainly have deep pockets and are more than loyal customers. But they are not enough!

 

And that is where a new platform comes onto the scene. It would be required to be easy to use. Like in an app-store you need add-ons that install them self without manual help of copying and/or editing files. That is good enough for us but not good enough for the next generation or beginners!

[John Venema]

It would only take the merging of a few relatively small companies with Orbx to have a team that can build the entire world like one FTX region within the space of 12-18 months with a choice of FSX or P3D1-2 to run it on. The pieces are there right now to do it, but making it happen would take money we don't have right now.

This new platform would standardise on a mesh resolution, vector data, textures, landclass and lighting. All the problems of compatibility would be easily solved because everyone including third party developers would know the parameters of this combined dataset which would come with a published SDK. We would in effect, be creating a whole new top layer of FSX/P3D.

I just need about 5 million dollars and it could be done.

In the meantime, we achieve it over a longer period by making little pieces and separate layers at a time

[macca22au]

Just keep on negotiating, JV, that would be a huge leap forward. Global textures with your new Open LC must take you close to achieving this objective. But if it was possible to go to full-fat region style development it would be quite a sim. More strength to your arm. If it is still to be layered onto the ESP then the bush-lawyers amongst our community would be watching like hawks.

[moonman]

It would only take the merging of a few relatively small companies with Orbx to have a team that can build the entire world like one FTX region within the space of 12-18 months with a choice of FSX or P3D1-2 to run it on. The pieces are there right now to do it, but making it happen would take money we don't have right now.

This new platform would standardise on a mesh resolution, vector data, textures, landclass and lighting. All the problems of compatibility would be easily solved because everyone including third party developers would know the parameters of this combined dataset which would come with a published SDK. We would in effect, be creating a whole new top layer of FSX/P3D.

I just need about 5 million dollars and it could be done.

In the meantime, we achieve it over a longer period by making little pieces and separate layers at a time

 

Sounds very interesting John.

I really have to win in the lottery now and invest into ORBX then.

Going to build an absolutely new and reliable flightsim-platfrom open to all 3rd party devs out there.

Okay: Some money i'll put aside and some i will spend elsewhere .. but (okay, i better wake up now again and stop dreaming )

... What about a growdfunding project?

Okay ... i know, i know: Better really wake up now - it's all not that easy - but how i sometimes wished it was!

Anyways:

Thank You very much for these interesting info here John!

[DocBird]

It would only take the merging of a few relatively small companies with Orbx to have a team that can build the entire world like one FTX region within the space of 12-18 months with a choice of FSX or P3D1-2 to run it on. The pieces are there right now to do it, but making it happen would take money we don't have right now.

This new platform would standardise on a mesh resolution, vector data, textures, landclass and lighting. All the problems of compatibility would be easily solved because everyone including third party developers would know the parameters of this combined dataset which would come with a published SDK. We would in effect, be creating a whole new top layer of FSX/P3D.

I just need about 5 million dollars and it could be done.

In the meantime, we achieve it over a longer period by making little pieces and separate layers at a time

 

Five million and the world would look like a ORBX-Region? … Where is my wallet? LoL

 

Why not starting a Joint-Venture (“JV") instead of buying the other companies? The partners could hold shares in the JV and develop the new top layer alongside. And I mean that LM should contribute a large credit to that JV for keeping their platform alive (to say the least)! They certainly have the money.

 

Or: Why not “simply†agreeing to a harmonized technical standard for scenery add-ons. Once done so any developer could go back to his place and work on his project.

 

On the other hand: That would not solve the existing issues of the old engine (no effective use of multi-core CPU or modern GPU, flight dynamic and hydrodynamic issues, 32bit restrictions, etc.).

[moonman]

Five million and the world would look like a ORBX-Region? … Where is my wallet? LoL

 

Why not starting a Joint-Venture (“JV") instead of buying the other companies? The partners could hold shares in the JV and develop the new top layer alongside. And I mean that LM should contribute a large credit to that JV for keeping their platform alive (to say the least)! They certainly have the money.

 

Or: Why not “simply†agreeing to a harmonized technical standard for scenery add-ons. Once done so any developer could go back to his place and work on his project.

 

On the other hand: That would not solve the existing issues of the old engine (no effective use of multi-core CPU or modern GPU, flight dynamic and hydrodynamic issues, 32bit restrictions, etc.).

Hi Till!

 

[...]

On the other hand: That would not solve the existing issues of the old engine (no effective use of multi-core CPU or modern GPU, flight dynamic and hydrodynamic issues, 32bit restrictions, etc.).

[...]

 

I (and i am sure many more as well) also consider this to be the most important "issue" which definitely needs to be adressed - the sooner the better!

But ... and as we know:

This "issue" is most likely the hardest, probably most challenging and probably most demanding one to be adressed!

Anyways:

I try to remain confident and i'd definitely support any cooperation of various developers!

And i also firmly believe that by the end of the day such a cooperation has a very good chance to turn into a sustainable and reasonable win-win situation for all parties: Developers and customers alike!

But:

Let's see what the future of flightsimming will be holding for us!

[Simnut]

At the risk of repeating something I've said before; there is currently a 64bit simulator on the market that in all honesty, lacks only one thing. That one thing makes the best true simulator out there into an also ran for recreational simmers. It lacks convincing scenery! If it did not lack convincing scenery it would have everything a simmer could want and would come to the fore overnight as the go to product for anyone with an interest in flight simulation going forward. It's multi-platform, tablet ready and only needs some Orbx love to shine.

Surely it makes commercial sense to cultivate all the possibilities out there for a company whose market is widely acknowledged to be in decline? Surely one or two people could be found to begin looking into these possibilities, lest they should prove to not be so difficult to realise and opportunity be lost?

[DocBird]

At the risk of repeating something I've said before; there is currently a 64bit simulator on the market that in all honesty, lacks only one thing. That one thing makes the best true simulator out there into an also ran for recreational simmers. It lacks convincing scenery! If it did not lack convincing scenery it would have everything a simmer could want and would come to the fore overnight as the go to product for anyone with an interest in flight simulation going forward. It's multi-platform, tablet ready and only needs some Orbx love to shine.

Surely it makes commercial sense to cultivate all the possibilities out there for a company whose market is widely acknowledged to be in decline? Surely one or two people could be found to begin looking into these possibilities, lest they should prove to not be so difficult to realise and opportunity be lost?

 

Simnut, with all due respect: We should not start the discussion of FSX/P3D vs. XP here again. This forum is not the place to do so.

[Simnut]

With the utmost respect in reply Sir, I made no comparison between simulators at all. Had I done so, would not the forum entitled "General Discussion" be the appropriate place to so do? "General Discussion" seems to me to imply a rather wide ranging scope in topic.

 

I do not mean to be flippant Sir but I fail to see how my posting as it stands was in any way inappropriate within the context of a discussion regarding the potential for a next generation simulator. Surely all potential possibilities should be open to discussion with due respect for opinion. 

[DocBird]

I generally agree with that but what I have seen so far is that ever comparison or even discussion about FSX/P3D and XP 10 is after a minute not more rational but a rather religious issue. FSX/P3D has its strength and weaknesses and so does XP10. So this thread is about the next generation ahead.

 

And btw: As XP 10 is already around it can hardly be the “next†generation.  

[macca22au]

I don't think it unreasonable to suggest X-plane as a platform for the future.  I note that many more commercial add-ons are on the market for it.  It does have many characteristics that simmers might wish for.

 

In saying this I have it, but don't use it.  For one reason, not only the scenery but also the setup arrangement deters me, but for another I have a massive investment in FSX/P3D that I simply do not want to lose ...  unless P3D v2.0 restricts backward compatibility - which most of us hope won't be the case.

 

Also there is a reality check.  Just how good must good be. My computer has power, it runs P3D smoothly, modern scenery like ftx is increasingly realistic, there are great airports, UTX and France VFR is excellent terrain, Aerosoft and others make great regional add-ons, Global is outstanding and modern aircraft add-ons are now breath-taking in their accuracy and attention to visual detail.  About all that needs to be done is to be able to get mesh add-ons that correct the woeful airport elevations in the base ESP.

 

But my cup runneth over, and I get hours of great simming, and I know there is more improvement to come.  Open LC is in my sights.

 

On the other hand I agree with DocBird, sadly much of the debate, especially around P3D and FSX has attained a religious ferocity worthy of the most intense fundamentalist beliefs.

[Simnut]

I do see the point with regard to the usual standard of debate degenerating somewhat. This seems to be an internet wide problem which is interesting in itself from a sociological perspective but that's a subject for another day. It was not my intent to once again tread that path. I too have much invested in FSX and though I don't use them on a regular basis, I own P3d and have had every version of X-Plane since 7. I am not overly invested emotionally in any of them and as such I was attempting to make a reasoned appraisal of what's on offer from all. Perhaps I did not express myself well enough or simply failed in my attempt.

Were someone to combine the essential characteristics of X-Plane with the scenery produced by Orbx, then I personally would consider that the ideal combination to make a good simulator into a great simulator. It is my opinion that that simulator would become widely adopted and carry us all, or at least me, forward with renewed enthusiasm. As an aside it would create new revenue streams for developers also. Win win. Just a personal opinion.

[AndreaD]

I second that.  Orbx is one of the things that are missing in XP. The others are some liners (the 777 is not satisfactory to me) and something like REX about the weather.

[cabnz]

If ORBX ever decided to release all there products for X-Plane 10 (which I think there have stated that they won't do (at this stage anyway)) I would buy them all over again for X-plane.

 

I know there would be a cost is reprogramming them for x-plane but I agree that opening the ORBX products for more platforms would be great for the flightsim community. As I said, I for one would re-purchase them all over again for x-plane.

[Simnut]

I am aware that at this stage I'm pushing the point so I'll make these my last words on the matter. I do not have the wherewithal to research the market in order to ascertain the level of potential interest in a course of action such as I have briefly suggested above. One of the best things about this particular forum is that it is monitored by some of those in the industry who do. It is those people I ask to keep an open mind, open enough to perhaps consider commissioning some tentative market research. Open enough should that research prove encouraging, to consider reaching out to others in the industry, those with whom collaboration on such a project could promise a commercial dividend.

In this industry, I am nobody. Just another fool with an opinion. You Sirs, are not! You could make it happen!

[macca22au]

A sensible conclusion and modest wish.  Please the Gods that be, do take notice that we are willing customers for the 'ultimate'

 sim;  

 

which means an upgradable, improvable, fully maintained platform, richly add-onable(sic) and with lots of room for the freeware makers who strive so hard, as well as the tweakers, advisers and computer handypersons!

[moonman]

A sensible conclusion and modest wish.  Please the Gods that be, do take notice that we are willing customers for the 'ultimate'

 sim;  

 

which means an upgradable, improvable, fully maintained platform, richly add-onable(sic) and with lots of room for the freeware makers who strive so hard, as well as the tweakers, advisers and computer handypersons!

+100000000000000000000000000!

So: Where to start?

Cheers, Christoph

[DocBird]

At the risk of repeating something I've said before; there is currently a 64bit simulator on the market that in all honesty, lacks only one thing. That one thing makes the best true simulator out there into an also ran for recreational simmers. It lacks convincing scenery! If it did not lack convincing scenery it would have everything a simmer could want and would come to the fore overnight as the go to product for anyone with an interest in flight simulation going forward. It's multi-platform, tablet ready and only needs some Orbx love to shine.

Surely it makes commercial sense to cultivate all the possibilities out there for a company whose market is widely acknowledged to be in decline? Surely one or two people could be found to begin looking into these possibilities, lest they should prove to not be so difficult to realise and opportunity be lost?

 

So maybe you have foreseen it, Simnut:

 

Has JV just announced to announce FTXG for X-plane?   Well, I doubt that but we will see ...

[AndreaD]

Just my 2 cents anout the religion war between X-Plane and FSX/P3D.

 

I have both, and participate in communities of both parties and I noticed that a lot of people (who obviously don't know what they are talking about) repeat that since XP is based on finite elements analysis of the interaction between air and airplane and FSX is based instead on some "scalar based" simulation engine which says what will happen based on present situation and a few parameters, XP's models are obviously far better that FSX.

 

Well, I work in Mathematics and do models for a living. I say: NOT NECESSARILY. That's it. This is the plain truth: there is no mathematical proof or reason that things should be that way. And everyone can verify that there are good, bad and awful flight models in XP and good, bad and awful flight models in FSX. 

 

That said, all other things are fairly subjective: some will love XP's scenery, others will hate it. Some will trade XP's smoothness for FSX's tubeliners. Everything is fair, but please do not say that there are mathematical reasons to prefer XP.

[cwam]

WARNING! This started off as a short reply and turned into an essay - read on at your peril!

 

 

I have been doing my best to follow this topic; I am not a very technical person when it comes to the internal working of FSX and flight sims in general.  I am not sure if I am following this properly but what it seems people are saying is that the fundamental FSX engine is the only way ahead - we can put stuff on top of it to make it look nicer but underneath it is the same code.

 

I suppose the issue for me when it comes to FSX is not so much what it can do. I have no real problem with the level of detail/realism in FSX as it stands.  I am not a RW pilot so I can't tell if a flight model is realistic or not.  ORBX have shown just how far things can be pushed on the scenic side; companies like PMDG have shown how far things can be pushed for aircraft modelling.

 

The problem is that it does not and (if I understand things properly) cannot take advantage of the latest processors and it is processor power that makes most difference to my experience as a user - it doesn't matter how faithful the aircraft is or how beautiful the scenery looks if I can only get single-figure FPS!  And the fact is that to use the most detailed scenery with the most complex aircraft takes a lot of PC power, and the problem is that the industry switched from the ever-faster-cpu-clock route to the multi-processor-cpu route at the worst possible time as far as FSX is concerned.

 

When I first bought FS2004, I couldn't dream of running it with everything maxed out and with complex aircraft.  But through time I upgraded my PC and now FS2004 runs like a dream on my PC.  I just can't see the same thing happening for FSX because it doesn't take advantage of multi-processor cpus and it is not 64-bit, and it doesn't take advantage of GPUs linked together.

 

What I had hoped for from P3D 2.0 (or later) versions is that it would address those kinds of issues, but from what people seem to be saying here it not only won't, it can't - it would be just too costly.

 

That got me thinking more generally about this hobby:

 

I used to own an Amiga; I loved it and stuck with it, resisting the route of the PC for many years because I hoped that one day someone would realise the potential in the Amiga, take it up again and really put some new life into it.  But it was never going to happen; the home computer industry moved in a different direction and the PC became king.

 

I can't help feeling that I am seeing the same thing happen with Flight Simming.  FSX and flight Sims in general seem to me now to be in the place where the Amiga was then - something that was OK for a while but the industry is moving in a different direction.  The very fact that Microsoft gave up on Flight Simulator is in itself an indicator of the way things have changed for this particular hobby.

 

I have eventually come to the conclusion that although MS got lots of things wrong, and Flight was a blatant attempt to cash in on all that lovely third party developer money MS wanted, the fact is that MS was the flight simming community's best friend!  For a long number of years we got a new simulator on a regular basis and it was improving every time.  I wonder if it was secretly a favourite of Bill Gates and while he was there they kept on producing a new one, whether it was very commercially viable or not!  Who will produce the next one for us now?  As JV has pointed out, it would take millions; MS has that kind of money if it wanted to invest it; very few other companies have and I can't see any of them wanting to invest it

 

P3D/LM are not doing it really; gradual improvements to the same basic engine is OK, but doesn't anyone remember the palpable excitement in the community when a new version of MSFS was due?  We got huge steps forward with many releases - a weather engine; water landings; ATC, etc.  Sometimes there were big steps which were then followed by small improvements, and then another big step, but you could always tell the difference - FS98 was not the same as FS2002 which was not the same as FSX - and I am only skipping one version in between each of these.

 

Even MS Flight; the business model was all wrong, clearly designed to milk the customers by cutting us off from third party developers in an attempt to force us to buy from MS, and doomed to fail for that reason alone; but the actual simulation itself seemed to be another step forward - it certainly looked better than FSX from the screenshots and videos I saw at the time. A gradual improvement maybe, but an improvement all the same.  In my way of thinking the gradual improvement releases were what helped to fund the next big improvement.

 

Unless and until someone steps in to do what MS once did, I think FSX is as far as this hobby is going to go; that is not  a disaster - again, ORBX and PMDG (to name just two) are showing just how much MS put into FSX.  But from here on out you can't help but get the feeling that there are no more big jumps forward left.

 

I mean absolutely no disrespect to ORBX when I say this: what they are doing now is getting the full potential out of what MS put in there in the first place.  That is why you can't get ORBX products for FS2004 - it just can't be done, it has to be FSX; but there won't be an FSXI and that means that we won't get to see what ORBX and others would have done with that version, or any other version.  What we have now, it seems, is the best it is ever going to be; and that is just sad.

 

Would be very happy for people to tell me I have got it wrong!!!!

 

 

[ETOPS3 TTV]

I am a long time FS user and short time XP user. Actually XP user is a bit of stretch... I have tampered with XP. I just wish XP and FSX would get together and reproduce the next generation of Flight Sim for everyone to enjoy...! Why not get together and develop something that will take us well into the future. A platform that is dynamic and forever evolving.... One day I hope this will come true...!

[ecgallagher]

Bill Gates - once again the richest American @ 72 billion. We somehow need to get Bill to put the team back together and finance the next gen flt sim.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

[spirit_66]

Bill Gates - once again the richest American @ 72 billion. We somehow need to get Bill to put the team back together and finance the next gen flt sim.

 

Daydreaming!!??

Spirit

[jcmmg]

Bill Gates - once again the richest American @ 72 billion. We somehow need to get Bill to put the team back together and finance the next gen flt sim.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

I think this is the best idea I read about! XD

Remember this is a FSX community, which means that we are not only customers, but also all developers (charismatic or not, genius or hard workers, popular and unpopular, individual or small companies), distributors, hardware/cockpit builders, publications and advertisement, to name a few.

We all are coming around a piece of software that has proven to be adaptable enough to survive all these years. That has also captivated not only the old experienced people but also the youngsters or even the professional airliner (even though is their guilty secret), air dispatcher, air controller and so on.

For me its enchanting effect is based on my fascination in aviation and the idea to fly

The only thing needed to have an “FSX Evolutionâ€, is to make all these stake holders to push in the same direction at least for a couple of years, then current FSX limitation will be overcome, because we all know what we want, just we need to materialised.

It won’t come cheap; every stockholder will feel the impact of this evolution.

It will require that customers realise that evolution implies no backward capabilities.

It will require developer’s and hardware designers to achieve an agreement toward a common point, hence learning curve and commitment (translated as investment). Also to keep in mind that customers are spoiled children! We don’t care about technicalities; we only care about result XD

It will require support from distributors and publications to make aware the consumers about the changes and encourage them for their active participation.

It will require time for adaptation!

What is missing in this formula is the trigger, or the actions needed to launch this evolution.

For me could be as evident as: Customers getting frustrated because they can't use their favorite airplane in their favorite scenery due to OOMs’ or whatever reason. As a consequence sales come down, affecting developers, distributors, and all. At this point employees and employers will start to feel the pressure, and the self-preservation instinct will kick off.

There is no better encouragement for evolution than self-preservation instinct, the instinct to trigger a dialogue to pursuit a common objective.

 

I hope we as a community can avoid the traumatic experience...

[B777LR]

Not sure if it had been mentioned but Robert from PMDG stated in a speech earlier this year or end of last year that this OOM/4GB FSX limit we all suffer from would in 5 years be a thing of the past. He spoke in a way that he knows of something in the works but would not elaborate.

Sent from Samsung Galaxy Note 2

[Andrew 737]

Not sure if it had been mentioned but Robert from PMDG stated in a speech earlier this year or end of last year that this OOM/4GB FSX limit we all suffer from would in 5 years be a thing of the past. He spoke in a way that he knows of something in the works but would not elaborate.

Sent from Samsung Galaxy Note 2

They are developing for Xplane - maybe that's it?