Proposal of a change in the FS Business model

[ce_zeta]

I was writing a post about the rumours of the FS license sell and came to my mind an idea about the FS -World business model.
We flight a sim released in 2006.

8 years ago...We live a golden age in terms of quality and quantity of addons...But...How far we can still enjoy this golden age? We are going to fly FSX in 2020?

Ok. We can check the alternatives:

1. Lockheed-Martin P3D
2. Laminar Reseach X-Plane
3. FlightGear
4. Misterious buyer of FS license?

The first alternative is a commercial development, not focused in entertainment. It's the better option...The natural successor but...Not a stable platform for entertainment use...Maybe, one Day LM retire the academic license.

The second candidate...It is the eternal promise. A flight Simulator is too complex and one company need huge resources to develop a good flight simulator (simmilar to FSX) in a reasonable time frame.

The third option is a good potential base. An open Source simulator which have a very interesting and modern features. But his development is very slow due to lack of resources.

And of course, at this time, we have the option of the misterious buyer.... Maybe this misterious buyer have a nice development plan. I hope so.

But If this buyer do the same than Microsoft when released FLIGHT? We are lost in this scenario.

I do not understand why....Flight Sim community and FS addon industry do not copy the successful business model of Linux (and his kernel) when Microsoft close ACES studio in 2009.


I am not a programmer (Surely, it is the reason because i do not undestand why). but we have an open Source Flight Simulator, 'Flight Gear'. With the talent of many of us, we can convert FlightGear in the core, in the backbone of the XXI century flight simulation.

How? With a model of development same than Linux and his kernel.


We, the simmers, can add, manipulate the code in order to add to the sim (core) new features.

Advantages?

• Flexibility,
• High customization
• no monopoly (not depend from business decisions of a big company).
• strong development
• innovation
• cheap
• better quality (no limited by the skills of the employees of one company).
• Resources (now, only very big companies have resources to build a sim from scratch in reasonable time frame).
• Multi platform.
• Wide market.

Disadvantages:

• Effort.
• Initial Investment (to evolutionate FlightGear code)
• Learn new code in order to expand and modify.

A free simulator? where is the money?
Using Open Source FlightGear as a base of development is neccesary be Open Source, its an advantage in order to reduce development times and costs.


The Simulator will be a free base simulator (core of the system).

Free simulator core= more potential customer (I think this is the Freemium business model).
Addon developers can make money same as now with FS (modules of weather and combat, aircrafts, sceneries, AI traffic...)

Who develop the code?
All people who have the neccessary skills. In the professional way...Universities, Aerospace Agencies, Addon developers, Aircraft companies, aviation companies...In the same way that actually FlightGear is developed. Supported in infrastructure by E-shops and Flight sim communities.


Starting with the FlightGear 3.2 or above we can develop with more resources than one company in less time.

The freedom to develop is huge. We can develop in order to be more simmilar to FSX in several parameters to reduce development cost of addons.

You want to use Outerra?...With this model of business, Outerra can develop and sell an Outerra module which works in this future simulator.

An open development should not be bad when Wikipedia is the most powerful and complete encyclopedia in the history. And Linux is used in millions of devices.

We only need an alliance between the major players of FS community. Starting with users, Addons developers, webs and later, we can catch the attention of the big players.



Now I think is very useful the following document from The Free Software foundation about Kernel development. Who writes Linux (pdf). The key for a succesful development are the big players....About this, in the document you can read:


WHY COMPANIES SUPPORT LINUX KERNEL DEVELOPMENT
The list of companies participating in Linux kernel development includes many of the most
successful technology firms in existence. None of these companies are supporting Linux
development as an act of charity; in each case, these companies find that improving the kernel helps them to be more competitive in their markets.



At least it is a plan B in case of the Misterious buyer have same plans that Microsoft and his FLIGHT.

 

[Firekitten]

The recently sold license was for Flight. not FSX, so its not relevant anyway. It was murky at first... we weren't sure. Turns out it won't effect us at all.

 

[ce_zeta]

buff. If the worst scenario will be real....We can do?

I think that my proposal is not unreal. It is based in proven and sucessful business models (Kernel of Linux, Ubuntu, Freemium model...).

More opinions?

 

[Bjoern]

FlightGear is not a viable option for a replacement for MSFS as there is no clear development direction, no deadlines for feature implementation,constant evolution and way too many bugs to count. But that's okay as it's very open and free. For the reasons above, it isn't attractive for the average MSFS user who is very slow to adapt to change or any payware company who requires a stable platform to fend off customer complaints.

Bringing in paid developers would help, but I doubt that anyone is insane enough to actually pay one to work him-/herself into the core code.
One reason is that it would require coordinated work with the other core developers, who mainly do it for fun and would really not like to be pushed around by a mercenary from the outside.
Another would be that the person paying for development would not see results for a long time and thus might lose interest. (Remember that most commercial software is coded first before it's sold and basically drains money from the publisher until that point.)
Third, the code itself is in an apparently catastropic state in some parts and even the current core developers have difficulties improving upon it.

FG is, however, a nice alternative to MSFS, especially in terms of flight dynamics. It also does some things way better than its commercial brethren (mostly in the shader department).

One thing where a bit of monetary input will be highly appreciated by the FG company, however, is - and will be - compiling and hosting their world wide scenery. Version 2.0 of it currently weighs in at 100 GB of terrain data compiled from Open Street Map and CORINE sources and there are features in development regarding placing individual buildings with OSM data, implementing powerlines, moving car traffic and whatnot. Getting this into the whole worldwide scenery will require quite a bit of computing power and bandwidth.
They also have their own version of TileProxy as an alternative.

If soemone wants to get away from Windows, looks for a simulator with a future, prefers to spend his money on PC hardware instead of payware add-ons and has a bit of knowledge about the inner workings of a simulator, FlightGear will be the way to go.


For everyone else, there's P3D, X-Plane and whatever Flight! is going to become.



P.S:
The Linux kernel is an entirely different animal in terms of purpose and it makes sense for companies to contribute to development. Especially since it avoids MS's horrendous licensing fees and the Windows philosophy and now basically powers all Apple products and Android phones.

 

[ce_zeta]

FlightGear is not a viable option for a replacement for MSFS as there is no clear development direction, no deadlines for feature implementation,constant evolution and way too many bugs to count. But that's okay as it's very open and free. For the reasons above, it isn't attractive for the average MSFS user who is very slow to adapt to change or any payware company who requires a stable platform to fend off customer complaints.

Bringing in paid developers would help, but I doubt that anyone is insane enough to actually pay one to work him-/herself into the core code.
One reason is that it would require coordinated work with the other core developers, who mainly do it for fun and would really not like to be pushed around by a mercenary from the outside.
Another would be that the person paying for development would not see results for a long time and thus might lose interest. (Remember that most commercial software is coded first before it's sold and basically drains money from the publisher until that point.)
Third, the code itself is in an apparently catastropic state in some parts and even the current core developers have difficulties improving upon it.

Thank you for share your opinion, Bjoern.

I am not saying that actual Flightgear...I say....use FlightGear as a base (maybe integrating with the actual team or making a fork). With a clear roadmap to develop a real substitute for FS (developing some features same as FSX...for example the UI in order to have an easy adaptation from FSX).

About not see results in a time ...In business is called an investment. It is not easy...but in a long-term is the best choice for the industry in my humble opinion.

 

[Double J]

The recently sold license was for Flight. not FSX, so its not relevant anyway. It was murky at first... we weren't sure. Turns out it won't effect us at all.

it was? You must be the only person in the world that can verify that, have you got a link?

 

[Hughes-MDflyer4]

it was? You must be the only person in the world that can verify that, have you got a link?

simFlight posted an article about it, but who knows if it has any truth to it. If it did happen, then that'd be fantastic, too. The internal (Microsoft Studios) SDK for Flight would just need to be documented and a SimConnect-like API developed, and developers could do the rest. Why waste years bringing the FSX engine into the modern age when Flight is already there? It's a great graphics engine, but it just needs to be opened up to show its full potential.

 

[Bjoern]

I am not saying that actual Flightgear...I say....use FlightGear as a base (maybe integrating with the actual team or making a fork). With a clear roadmap to develop a real substitute for FS (developing some features same as FSX...for example the UI in order to have an easy adaptation from FSX).

FSX is flawed in various respects (including UI) and repeating the same errors would be plain dumb.

Make it something new and make it different, as long as it's better.

Why waste years bringing the FSX engine into the modern age when Flight is already there? It's a great graphics engine, but it just needs to be opened up to show its full potential.

Flight! was just a souped up FSX engine anyway, so what was great about it?

(If you say "performance" consider that you neither had lots of traffic nor a huge scenery to play around in.)

 

[Double J]

simFlight posted an article about it, but who knows if it has any truth to it. If it did happen, then that'd be fantastic, too. The internal (Microsoft Studios) SDK for Flight would just need to be documented and a SimConnect-like API developed, and developers could do the rest. Why waste years bringing the FSX engine into the modern age when Flight is already there? It's a great graphics engine, but it just needs to be opened up to show its full potential.

I read the articles and the rumor threads but I didn't see any "official" announcements. I agree it would be a lot easier to resurrect Flight than have to go all the way back to FSX. Of course Flight has so many haters that completely missed it's potential they would mock any attempts of restarting it.

 

[Double J]

Flight! was just a souped up FSX engine anyway, so what was great about it?

(If you say "performance" consider that you neither had lots of traffic nor a huge scenery to play around in.)

Souped up and free of 3rd parties. If someone restarted Flight they could write new terms for 3rd party participation. Could you imagine the mess of dealing with the current agreements.


As for performance it's still far superior than FSX no stutter what so ever even with a full screen of on line flyers. Weather shadows, seasons, frozen water, icebergs ,wind with swaying trees and wind noise in the cockpit.

 

[mmann]

I am one of those who have never tried Flight. I have (and use) both FS2004 and FSX and I have tried FlightGear; but I must admit that Flight has never appealed to me in the slightest.

 

[Double J]

If you never tried it how would you know? My first FS was Flight 700 hrs later I bought FSX (April 2013)...1200 hrs later I still use both.

 

[Wizard]

Intersting thread. That said - FSX is getting rather long in the tooth - being as old as it is. As a developer, I started work on Naval Engagement! for X-Plane - but never finished it. As I recall there were some things about X-Plane that were great - but FSX seems to have latched on to the community and not let go. Naval Engagement! has consumed about 7,000 of my hours - and it is just an add-on. Of course, probably better than 3/4 of the time has been spent trying to figure out how to overcome FSX problems or flaws (or even how certain SimConnect functions work). Even so, a flight sim is a huge undertaking, and even though I'd love to do it as a job, there is no way I could do it for free. Quite frankly, I don't know how Austin (Meyers?) of X-Plane has done it. Kudos to him!

There used to be so many flight sims out there and they've all just died. I still maintain, the old Flight Unlimited was the best ever - the graphics were smooth, the ATC was accurate (even if she did sometimes take a round about route), and they eventually got most of the west coast USA done. Nonetheless - I tried FG a year or so ago, and while I was intrigued by it - there was no way the general public could use it. Even I became frustrated with it's interface. So there would be an awful lot of work to do. Not impossible, but far more than even a small group of developers could tackle.

 

[ce_zeta]

FSX is flawed in various respects (including UI) and repeating the same errors would be plain dumb.

Make it something new and make it different, as long as it's better.

Why do you mention the errors and not the success?
About the UI. I think that is good. But keep in mind that All can be improved (ISO 9001).
It is good because this UI have a clear 4 steps path to fly. And of course we do not need adapt to a big change in this part.

 

[Wizard]

Most of the problems I see with the FSX UI is that it is quite obvious that different (groups of) people wrote different sections of it and no one checked to make sure that it was consistent throughout the program. But the UI is the easy part. We would need some real experts in many areas to be able to make this work. In the past I have worked with source code provided from vendors. I'd rather not have the source code. What they teach kids these days in programming classes is absurd. Code should be self explanatory, not written in heiroglyphics. Trying to figure out what someone else wrote is darn near impossible - especially when variables are named liked awin23. I can imagine how impossible M$ source code would be to interpret especially as they've kept legacy code in it from several versions back.

While I wouldn't mind helping out a bit - I really think you need a paid staff and some serious money to even get FG user friendly. But before we do that, I think we need to survey the community and find out if we could convince the FS9/FSX crowd to make the move once it was ready. I suspect that the only way this community is going to switch to another flight sim is if fs9/fsx no longer runs on a future version of windblows.

 

[Bjoern]

Souped up and free of 3rd parties. If someone restarted Flight they could write new terms for 3rd party participation. Could you imagine the mess of dealing with the current agreements.

You've got a point there.

As for performance it's still far superior than FSX no stutter what so ever even with a full screen of on line flyers. Weather shadows, seasons, frozen water, icebergs ,wind with swaying trees and wind noise in the cockpit.

For GA flyers, yes. I'm personally missing the airline related features in that list.

I'm not a fan of general aviation sims and 3rd party (payware) DLC, but I'm pretty sure there's much more of a market for that (especially for beginners) than the hardcore airline simulation stuff.
It's also easier to get something up and running faster because it doesn't involve the complex airliner-centric stuff.

Why do you mention the errors and not the success?
About the UI. I think that is good. But keep in mind that All can be improved (ISO 9001).
It is good because this UI have a clear 4 steps path to fly. And of course we do not need adapt to a big change in this part.

Okay, I can't cover this up anymore...
I don't want another FSX-alike simulator. Not now, not ever. P3D is okay, but it should stop right there.
If someone wants to make a FlightGear fork, or spice up FlightGear in general, fine.
But as soon as it's getting any more similar to FSX, chances are that payware and its associated attitude floats over into FG's domain. Making payware is one thing, buying payware is another, but thinking payware is the exact attitude that is ruining MSFS and P3D. It's not really evident here or maybe on Flightsim, as there are still people around appreciating some good, free stuff. But in other parts of the MSFS community, I suspect that most of the posts were written by credit cards with internet access with horizons as narrow as the pouch in the wallet where they're sitting in.
And it's disgusting me to no end. Call it jealousy, because after all, I'm just a loser student with minimum income who can't even afford a rent increase, but I really suspect that, as soon as you have enough money to liberally buy virtual stuff, some MSFS users feel entitled to switch off their brain and slobber along like a braindead junkie.
Sure, money is the quickest and easiest form to show some appreciation (as evidenced by strippers, hookers and the so-called "smelly grand aunt mafia"), but like a fashionable drug problem, it tends to get out of hand really fast with a negative effect on bystanders (I suppose I mean freeware people by that).
X-Plane seems to be going down the same path, fast. Flight!2? Probably worse. Payware everywhere.

I don't want that in FG. Not now, not ever. I'd rather have it lag behind 20 years in terms of features and whatnot, but keep the peace than having to deal with what I see day after day in some MSFS forums.

If I didn't feel like having unfinished business with FSX, I would have long gone over there. Integration would be a bit harder, but they appreciate every contributor.

That's it.
If anyone feels stepped on: I don't know...punch me? Punch the wall? Punch a kitten? Angry five mile run?


(A nice tidbit: A complainer on the FG forums recently got collectively shot down by some of the developers. It took a few pages of discussions, but he caved in in the end. He. Caved. In. No bans, no locked threads. Awesome. The power of an environment without credit cards.)

 

[Wizard]

Mmmmm - maybe we should run a poll - something like if M$ windows version 9 were to come out and it could run only 64 bit programs thus removing FS9/FSX from any possibility of running what alternative flight sim program would you move to?

X-Plane
Flight Gear
something else - what?

I have thoroughly enjoyed creating Naval Engagement! (which is free as in beer) and working with truly dedicated folks. It's kept me actively thinking and I don't mind porting it to some other flight sim, but I don't want to do it if no one is going to use it.

Some day the juggernaut of FS9/X will come to a complete halt - do we support one of the 2 still existing flight sims now - or do we hope something better comes along?

 

[roger-wilco-66]

[...]

But as soon as it's getting any more similar to FSX, chances are that payware and its associated attitude floats over into FG's domain. Making payware is one thing, buying payware is another, but thinking payware is the exact attitude that is ruining MSFS and P3D.

[...]

"Ruining FSX / P3D" ??

I think this is a blatant misconception. Where's the exact threat, where are the thrilling consequences? We have more freeware than ever for FSX / P3D, in a quality that surpasses many payware products that were released a few years ago. We have strong FS communities. And a lot of people who are willing to spend a lot of time - often part time - to work on their projects. I'm one of those and have no idea where that ruining aspect hides.

Regarding payware, in my opinion the continuing effort of all the payware developers to raise the bar and deliver outstanding products can not be appreciated enough. I absolutely see no harm in buying a FS related product from a company that sells it for a few dollars after having invested thousands to create it. The only ruining aspect that comes to my mind here is that some people think that everything has to be freeware. And those who go and pirate payware products. Things like that hurt the customers as well as payware devs.

If one does not like payware, for whatever reason, he is completely free not to buy it. FSX or P3D runs fine without it, and even more so with the excellent freeware on hand. Almost forever.



Cheers,
Mark

 

[zswobbie1]

Mmmmm - maybe we should run a poll - something like if M$ windows version 9 were to come out and it could run only 64 bit programs thus removing FS9/FSX from any possibility of running what alternative flight sim program would you move to?


OMG... NO! For G--ds sake, Pleeze not another ridiculous poll.. next there will be yet another pointless petition.

We have enough to keep us busy, thanks to the freeware & payware developers for P3D, FSX (the 'Vista'of flight gaming) & STILL FS9.

Thanks to Microsoft & LM that have given us the basic engine, & it is the developers that make the sim to be whatever we want it to be!
Do we need MS any more? Of course not! LM? a big YES, for they are updating P3D on an ongoing basis that the DEVELOPERS are making good use of to give us a better sand box to play in?

Flight? Do we need it? - Whatever for? Are we going to see developers writing for Flight if & when it is opened up? I think not. (obviously not, as their investment will be for an established market,not for a game that has already crashed & burned.

 

[mmann]

Do we need MS any more? Of course not! LM? a big YES

As a person who flies for entertainment; I would say a big yes to MS and a gigantic NO to LM.

Which just goes to show that the flight simulation world is comprised of people whose ideas and needs are very diverse; which is absolutely great in my opinion!