What Could Kill FSX

[casey jones]

I am a big convert to FSX my PC runs it very smooth but I hope I will be able to voice my concern as to the future of FSX and would appreciate any feedback. My short time with FSX it appears unlike FS9 that there is more and more pay ware airplanes then freeware airplanes, then I find a lot of cross over FS9 airplanes that do not always work in FSX, FS9 has of course been out long before FSX and freeware planes continue to dominate the landscape of FS9....I do buy payware airplanes...I just wonder if payware planes continue to outspace the freeware planes and also that MS made it difficult to make new airplanes for FSX (I read this in a early review of FSX) this prevent FSX from expanding into the great sim it is. Thank You All for reading this.

Cheers

Casey

 

[heywooood]

in my mind the payware addons both enhance FS series and harm it

With the addons - FS enjoys broader appeal as well as the benefit of having an expandable product with limitless content provided by third party artisans that make for (over a period of time) an incomparably fantastic, realistic simulation....

However

this same 'feature' of the MSFS brand makes it harder for the users to accept new versions of flight sim and harder for M/S to develop them - because from our point of view we are spending a great deal of time and money on these 3rd party addons (as are the developers) and we don't want to see that money lost when the new version of FS is not backward compat. with the one we purchased the addons for....and when M/S tries to make the new versions backward compat. for our sake, they make a compromised product fraught with bugs and other 'issues'

its really a no win situation - either we can have this open architecture and pay a price for it...
or - the sim can be relatively closed with only MS approved addons allowed (hopefully with a price cap of some kind) thus reducing our loss between FS new versions

or - it can be completely closed - with MS then free to update the software as rapidly as they like

given that MS so far is not prone to rapid updates or addons or patches - I guess most of us would prefer that they just leave it as is - and we will continue to gamble on how long we get good use out of the addons we buy...but we shouldn't complain when MS decides to develop a new program and NOT make it backward compat. because all we are then asking for is a lesser product.

hopefully FSX taught us that we can keep our current products (like FS9'ers did) AND buy the new sim...just keep em separated

 

[falcon409]

Initially, when FSX was just out of the box, the number of Payware FSX aircraft could be counted on one hand, so there was very little choice except to either fly the default aircraft or port over your favorite FS9 aircraft. I found that GMax aircraft ported far better than aircraft made in FSDS. The modeling requirements for an FSX aircraft are quite different and so that also kept freeware developers from venturing into the FSX area since it was relatively new and changes were ongoing.

FS9 portovers were my mainstay for quite awhile as the default didn't appeal to me much really. . .I never fly Commercial Aircraft, the Cessna "high wings" are boring to me and I had better Military Aircraft than what was available in default so I had plenty of my favorite FS9 airplanes to fly until something started happening with FSX payware.

I think FSX has a nice mix now of freeware and payware to choose from although I tend to stay with freeware as the payware, for the most part, has gone way outside my financial standing. Every once in a while though, when something really special comes along, I'll suck it up and spend money I don't have to get it, but that's not very often any more.:salute:

 

[stiz]

and also that MS made it difficult to make new airplanes for FSX (I read this in a early review of FSX)

Its not any harder or easier, its just different, and most people either didnt want to re-learn or where more than happy in fs9 so stayed there.

 

[Snave]

I am a big convert to FSX my PC runs it very smooth but I hope I will be able to voice my concern as to the future of FSX and would appreciate any feedback. My short time with FSX it appears unlike FS9 that there is more and more pay ware airplanes then freeware airplanes, then I find a lot of cross over FS9 airplanes that do not always work in FSX, FS9 has of course been out long before FSX and freeware planes continue to dominate the landscape of FS9....I do buy payware airplanes...I just wonder if payware planes continue to outspace the freeware planes and also that MS made it difficult to make new airplanes for FSX (I read this in a early review of FSX) this prevent FSX from expanding into the great sim it is. Thank You All for reading this.

Cheers

Casey

Dunno where you've been but there is no `future` to FSX, only the `now`.

And for now the development frequency may have slowed, but the results are stupendous. Bill Lyons work, Ant's freeware Tiggie and the payware Tecnam, and a myriad of other projects whcih are either already here, or coming soon tell me that the `now` still has plenty of time to run.

Quite why there is this expectation for compatibility between sims is beyond me.. My old BMW 1100GS shares almost no commonality in parts with the new latest R1200GS so new parts had to be developed for it.

It's called `progress` and as the very best payware and freeware products show in FSX, it means improvements are always preferable to the status quo, which is really little more than going backwards by standing still.

 

[empeck]

From my point of view making planes for FSX isn't harder. Market slightly changed, that's the problem. Quality of aircrafts raised a lot, making one plane take much more time, and most freeware developers just given up. Many of those who stayed are still making planes for FS9. I really doubt that any simulator will see as many aircrafts and sceneries as FS9.

 

[stansdds]

As I see it, the problem with FSX is that MS did not fully finish it before disbanding the ACES team. Now, MS is developing a new flight sim, so FSX is what it is, bugs and all. It remains to be seen if MS's new flight sim will be FS 11 or if it will be something different, maybe online only or a console game. If it turns out to be FS 11, I expect development of aircraft and scenery for FSX will die much faster than for FS9, which is still getting new add-ons.

 

[hey_moe]

I like FSX, but is a hog when it comes to memory and your processor...lol.I think DX10 for FSX was a huge flop. The payware scenery add ons seem to work fine on my system and it also adds nice candy eye. But when flying in and around a airport, the FPS sure seem to take a bite out of the FPS. I have always felt MS could have done a better job with the hardware usage and scenery. When it first came out the huge amount of tweaking was unreal. To see some of the other games on the market and see the trees and water compared to the trees and water in MS leaves much to desire.

 

[Bjoern]

...and also that MS made it difficult to make new airplanes for FSX (I read this in a early review of FSX)

I want poke whoever spread that rumor in the eye right now.

Where FS9 offered n possibilities for developers to render their stuff into the sim FSX offers n². Other than that I don't see much difference in the whole "get a FS9 source file into FSX" process, apart from the forced use of the Animation Manager, Attachtool and new syntaxes in the Modeldef.xml as well as new materials (which basically work just fine with standard settings).

Granted, I've only started developing with FSX but I've found it way, way less difficult and scary than usually regarded.

With SP2 FSX really turned into a rock steady sim (as long as you don't have any faulty add-ons which crash the sim).

So, to all you still hesitant devs...
"What better place than here?
What better time than now?
(Only hell can stop us now!)"



(The only real danger to FSX I see is FlightGear. Dang good for a hobby project and by far away from its fullest potential!)

 

[Helldiver]

Living on Social Security and not having a raise in pay in the past three years makes you look at FSX with jaundiced eyes. I just don't have the extra funds to spend on my hobby.
First off, compared to FS9, there are not as many aircraft being built, either freeware or payware. Freeware is few and far between and thank you Tim.
In payware their asking exorbitant prices with $35 bucks seems to be the norm. A couple of them and you have the price of FSX with Acceleration. In my case it was a present from a generous brother. So when it gets over $15 bucks for payware, I have to look at them from afar. Eventually the builders will find their being priced out of their market and the payware models will dry up.
I believe that I'm talking for a lot of retirees who love their hobby.

 

[bazzar]

Unfortunately, Helldiver, it's a vicious circle. To enable devs to build cheaper models, the market needs to be much bigger to create volume. To create volume we need more hobbyists but the hobbyists have less money these days. And around you go.

Most modelers are working at around a 1 or 2 dollars an hour if you try to put a rate on the work. It is really only those that can afford to maintain "hobby businesses", work in other forms of computer entertainment or have other means of support that can build for this game. A sad state of affairs but this flight sim business is nowhere close to the main computer games industry when it comes to remuneration for work and market size for volume.

 

[DaveKDEN]

Tend to both agree and disagree. I'm more than willing to support payware developers, so long as the price isn't too exorbitant. However, with the complexities of high end add-ons since the advent of FS9, I can somewhat understand the pricing on some add-ons. I recently purchased Aerososft's F-16 and find it absolutely amazing. However, I waited until the price dropped below the $30.00 US mark - since that's my upper end limit for a single aircraft add-on (with maybe a rare exception up to $35.00). In the end, I strongly believe that payweare developers would do better to start with slightly lower prices, as I think there are many like me who are very hesitant to buy high priced items - just for FSX. Therefore, if the price point is lower, it generates more sales and a higher profit for the developers.
Trying not to diminish the enjoyment of FSX here, but it doesn't pay the bills, and it's really just a PC simulation. As such, I have a really tough time justifying expensive add-ons for a simulation (game) that costs $65.00 to begin with (if I remember correctly).

 

[TeaSea]

So, to recap what I've been reading.....

• We want a completely new, revised flight sim using the latest software and technology -- that runs all our old stuff.
• We want a super realistic flight sim with fantastic graphics and speed -- that runs on our old dusty hardware.
• We want perfectly detailed high quality models and software -- for little or no cost.
• We want all third party add-ins to work perfectly without any issues -- without doing any research or coding.
• We want a big software company to create the simulation environment using fundamental programming rules -- then want to break those rules and the environment.
• And mostly, we want all software companies to completely ignore the market -- and still exist.

Did I miss anything?

 

[DaveKDEN]

So, to recap what I've been reading.....

• We want a completely new, revised flight sim using the latest software and technology -- that runs all our old stuff.
• We want a super realistic flight sim with fantastic graphics and speed -- that runs on our old dusty hardware.
• We want perfectly detailed high quality models and software -- for little or no cost.
• We want all third party add-ins to work perfectly without any issues -- without doing any research or coding.
• We want a big software company to create the simulation environment using fundamental programming rules -- then want to break those rules and the environment.
• And mostly, we want all software companies to completely ignore the market -- and still exist.

Did I miss anything?

We want a completely new, revised flight sim using the latest software and technology -- that runs all our old stuff.
- Don't really think anyone's stated that in this thread.

We want perfectly detailed high quality models and software -- for little or no cost.
- Depends on what your definition of little or no cost is... For me, $30.00 - $35.00 isn't little or no cost - for an FS add-on.

We want all third party add-ins to work perfectly without any issues -- without doing any research or coding.
- Don't think anyone's said that either.

We want a big software company to create the simulation environment using fundamental programming rules -- then want to break those rules and the environment.
- Not a developer - so I can't comment.

And mostly, we want all software companies to completely ignore the market -- and still exist.
- I actually think there has been very little market analysis for FS add-ons. Just one developer looking at what another's charged for a product. Then either mirroring it or hiking it just enough. Sounds like greed driving the show vs. supply and demand. I'll emphasize once again that I strongly believe many products would do better from the outset if they were priced a bit less. For example, I still won't buy the Lotus L-39 as it's too expensive (currently $40.00 US at the flightsim store). If they drop the price below $30.00 US I'll likely buy it (depending on what's going on in the homefront at the time). Also, software developers have virtually no distribution costs as compared to conventional products. Host the software somewhere and let your customers download it. Sure, you have to pay for hosting and bandwidth, but compared to conventional shipping, storage, and distribution it's really negligible.

PS: ONE BIG THING HERE - TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE NOT A SINGLE ADD-ON DEVELOPER HAS EVER HAD TO PAY A SINGLE CENT TO MS FOR ROYALTIES!!! Name any other other industry where you'd find such a thing???

PPS: Since FS2002, I've raised my personal limit for a single aircraft add-on from $20.00 US to $30.00 US. 50% inflation for my upper limit is pretty significant - IMO.

Triple PS: Don't mean to come across as trying to stir up a controversy here. Just stating what I think.

 

[flyer01]

"I'll emphasize once again that I strongly believe many products would do better from the outset if they were priced a bit less."


DaveKDEN , there is no dought about that.
lower prices= more sales.
Say you sale a plane for $30.00 and get 1 sale that day. You lower the price to $10.00 and get 10 sales of that plane the next day.

You do not build the planes one at a time so there is no over head.

IMHO The developers that low there prices will survive and the one's that don't won't.


flyer01

 

[bazzar]

"I'll emphasize once again that I strongly believe many products would do better from the outset if they were priced a bit less."


DaveKDEN , there is no dought about that.
lower prices= more sales.
Say you sale a plane for $30.00 and get 1 sale that day. You lower the price to $10.00 and get 10 sales of that plane the next day.

You do not build the planes one at a time so there is no over head.

IMHO The developers that low there prices will survive and the one's that don't won't.


flyer01

Well, to start with, this is not a "build it and they will come" business. It costs money to promote the product in order for people to be aware it exists. Page ads in magazines can cost $10,000 per. So on your count if the product was $10, that's a 1,000 sales before you even get into covering your costs on the item itself.

Many developers do build "one at a time" and there are overheads, especially if you are sub-contracting.

3DS Max is a very expensive piece of software, per licence. Is that not an overhead?
Internet server costs to store and distribute your product. Is that not an overhead?
Good modelers can cost $30-60 per hour. Is that not an overhead?

To build these things for a retail price of less than say, $18 would be commercial suicide.

And then you'd need to be selling in volume. Are you going to guarantee that?

Sorry mate, anyone who works in this business is just plane(sic) crazy...

 

[Lionheart]

Well put Baz...

PS: ONE BIG THING HERE - TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE NOT A SINGLE ADD-ON DEVELOPER HAS EVER HAD TO PAY A SINGLE CENT TO MS FOR ROYALTIES!!! Name any other other industry where you'd find such a thing???

PPS: Since FS2002, I've raised my personal limit for a single aircraft add-on from $20.00 US to $30.00 US. 50% inflation for my upper limit is pretty significant - IMO.

Triple PS: Don't mean to come across as trying to stir up a controversy here. Just stating what I think.

DaveKDEN

One of the BIG things that brought in developers like me was the ability for 'anyone' to make their own planes, which came about with FS2002 Pro. It came with Gmax and thats why I bought it. I wanted to make my own planes. I had other sims, but this one offered a free program (Gmax) to make planes with.

And......... As Baz states, there are large overheads with payware. Its not as cheap as you might 'think' it is. I can tack on a ton of costs.

Not to mention, if you package your product lines.

You do not build the planes one at a time so there is no over head.

flyer01

My group does. If my model maker makes 3 planes (at a huge cost to get them made, payment due on delivery) and it takes me several months to turn the model into a flyable, textured, refined bird, then set it up for market, I have sat on that debt for how long, and what is the recovery time (if it pays off). Another words, does one have the money in the bank?

IMHO The developers that low there prices will survive and the one's that don't won't.

flyer01

I tried this. It was also my thoughts that this was true. So I created the Pasped Skylar. 3 Textures, pure FSX, bump maps, custom gauges, only $12.00. Loss.... Instead of generating tons of sales, it went under and barely sells. My thoughts are that the price makes people think its not worth it. I now agree. But... I did give it a try. The market decides the final answer.


I would again like to add that putting files up to friends and groups, VA's and Torrents destroys it all also. You might think 'nah...... ' but it does. In the several years I have been in this, (short time), I have seen sales dropping big time. Where we have lots of releases, they are now becoming few and far between. The lake is drying up.



Bill

 

[TeaSea]

We want a completely new, revised flight sim using the latest software and technology -- that runs all our old stuff.
- Don't really think anyone's stated that in this thread.


Triple PS: Don't mean to come across as trying to stir up a controversy here. Just stating what I think.

No controversty here Dave, and I was taking some tongue in cheek poetic license....you're right, I've not heard these things in this thread...but bear with me in they are common lamentations through a good part of the simming community....

I do think that the base MS FSX product is not really for most serious simmers or even aviation enthusiasts. Like most gaming products, its for adolescent boys since they will make up most of the market that will plunk down the cash to make it profitable. They may only run it a dozen times or so and go off to something else....but in the market, that's okay. If anything, the fact that MS has produced a fairly high end game that appeals to a chunk of the market beyond that basic target is a testimony to the developers and teams that put it together.

I distinguish the basic sim from the third party add ins, which clearly target a more sophisticated niche (folks such as ourselves)...and do so fairly well from my perspective. As to the expense of putting something to market, I would guess that the market would dictate, except to those hobbyists who do this more for the creative hobby aspect than the profit.

As to what could kill FSX? ...a newer product that increases the immersion and is fairly affordable. Failing that, I think we're still in the first half of the run.

 

[DaveKDEN]

- I tried this. It was also my thoughts that this was true. So I created the Pasped Skylar. 3 Textures, pure FSX, bump maps, custom gauges, only $12.00. Loss.... Instead of generating tons of sales, it went under and barely sells. My thoughts are that the price makes people think its not worth it. I now agree. But... I did give it a try. The market decides the final answer.


Bought it right when you released it Bill. She's a beauty, but I think a bit too obscure for some, which is probably why it didn't sell as good as your other designs.

IMO, you've hit the price point right on the spot. Still love your Epic LT! $24.95 US for such a nice flying machine.
Also, fantastic customer support on your side!

- And......... As Baz states, there are large overheads with payware. Its not as cheap as you might 'think' it is. I can tack on a ton of costs.

I'm sure you can add a ton of costs to a product, however, many aren't necessary in this market as compared to conventional products - which was my original point. As for a $10,000 page ad in a magazine as Bazz states - well I'd guess I'd skip advertising in that magazine. Let word of mouth do my advertising for me on the many flightsim forums.

Once again, I'm not stating payware developers shouldn't charge for their products, or should charge unreasonably low prices. However, once you get above a certain price point, you end up killing sales as you make the product unaffordable or undesireable for many.

 

[bazzar]

Unfortunately, the "many flightsim forums" just don't provide enough marketing territory.

To reach the mass market, where an awful lot of people have never even heard of a flightsim forum or would visit one, you need to advertise. That's why you will see the big glossy ads from Just Flight, Flight 1, Aerosoft and others in your favourite aviation or flight sim magazine.

A large amount of the market still buy their simulators, add-ons and other games from stores.

Only recently has the industry started to educate people to the fact that they can save money by downloading instead of boxed product. It takes a long time and a lot of cost to do this as these people have a natural mistrust of paying via the net and rarely download anything.

Then you have to include instructions on how to use a zip or installer. It goes on and on, believe me.

Unfortunately, we "enthusiasts" who populate these excellent forums (fora?) alone are not enough to make commercial production viable.