FS dead for good?

MartinW wrote: Dan, provocative statement no, fact yes. The core sim is without doubt archaic.

I completely agree with all that you have said, but some people will ignore facts if they find them emotionally troubling. (See Study Demonstrates How We Support Our False Beliefs). Since most of us do look at flight simulation with some emotion, there are going to be a few people who, since they may find the factual information upsetting, will retain false beliefs so that those false beliefs can be used for emotional crutches - even when the facts are staring them in the face. The fact that the person presenting the facts is knowledgeable is something such people don't want to know. If such people don't know, they won't make any attempt to find out. Even a statement that is not meant to provoke at all can be viewed as provocative by such people. With a world filled with so many people like that, it's little wonder so many of us want to hop into a flight simulator aircraft and fly off! 

- GONE FLYING -

Dan

737Chris wrote: Dambuster wrote: How's that ridiculous?   First of all. . . .Dont assume that just because the ACES team disbanded there will not be any future Flight Sim. although obviously it wont be "Microsoft's Flight Sim."  You do realise they have re-grouped, although because they no longer have the funding from MS it could take years and years to make, if they're making one at all.   "there is no other FS planned for the moment."   Your own words   Either way, the fact that you seem dissatisfied with FSX is amusing to say the least, it also amuses me that despite the fact people are only just managing to run all settings maxed out with i7 systems, you are still looking for the next best thing!   Anyway, like you said, after 20 years of development, thats pretty damn good if you ask me.

Why didn't you say that in the first place instead of saying this topic is ridiculous? That's the bit of information I was interested in...

Also, what makes you think that because the new hardware is mildly capable of running the sim at high settings that it's attractive? Why is software that requires a huge amount of processing power so interesting?

I don't know how on earth this topic turned into "I'm not happy with FSX" it was just an inquiry really.

I think Chris should read Dan's post's.

I know the coding is stupid, I said that, But Martin keeps going on about how he can run FSX brilliantly on an overclocked dual core let alone an i7. 

Well you know more than me about these things. . . . Im just saying I enjoy it, regardless of its structual problems .

Hi,

Seems we have a philosopher on the forums!

It is certainly true that FSX has more than a few flaws, but as Martin said - we fly it because there is nothing better.

I will say that on the usability front, MS did a good job, but in terms of it being a sim - the flight model hasn't changed since FS98, and is seriously dated. Considering this is a flight simulator, they have neglected the heart of it in favor of flashy graphics.

I'm pleased MS disbanded ACES - FSX was heading in a direction that it wasn't suited for - unrealistic arcade style gaming, not serious flight simulation. We caught a nasty glimpse of what might have been in the missions MS provided.

FSX has a lot wrong with it. For a start, it's very slow. Second, very buggy, and in some cases, poorly coded and shows a lack of knowledge on the part of the programmer.

MS did not properly model an atmosphere, which when you look at it, is not so hard to do, and what we do have could be improved with a little bit of thought. Mach and ground speed calculations are wrong, so you can't even use it for basic yet realistic instrument flying (this stems from the fact that the FS world is physically too small).

Whilst FSX introduced a spherical earth model, MS totally neglected every other aspect of the sim. The weather system is still based on the cylindrical model, and this is evidenced North of N60°/South of S60°.

The only thing that save FS IMHO is the systems modelling that goes on in advanced airliners (LevelD 767, DreamFleet 727, LSH MD-82, Concorde), and photoscenery for VFR flyers.

Unfortunately though - the very thing that puts  the "sim" in Flight Simulator is over a decade old.

Falcon 4 still holds the crown for flight modelling, performance and systems depth, and is rivalled by DCS:BS which does for helicopters what Falcon does for fast jets.

Rise of Flight focused far too much on the graphics and not enough on the flyability. It's allegedly excellent flight model is unflyable as the sim runs so poorly on good hardware.

FS2004 is as good as FSX for systems modelling, but not as good as FSX for the virtual cockpit. If MS hadn't wasted their effort on the earth, and instead focused on the heart of the flight simulator, they would be in a better position than they are now.

The other thing to remember is MS are now dedicated to consoles. They can produce games more cheaply (less expertise required) and can sell more units (thus making larger profits for the shareholders). It ultimately comes down to money.

As for your original question - real flight sims are such a nieche market, that people would rather invest their time in serious flight simulators for money than for fun. There is little real difference in the effort required, but a huge difference in the gains to be had.

Keep an eye on Eagle Dynamics ( http://www.eagle.ru/ ). They've got some great projects in the pipeline.

Best regards,
Vulcan.

Sorry to cut in again, does anybody know whether that other sim. . . I think it was Aerosoft were develping ?   Do you know if its becoming a reality ?

yet people don't code or have a clue about what has changed over the years.

Dale - before making generalizations such as this, do a search. I am (for example) on the development team of the AirSimmer A320 for example, and Beta Tester for several other major developers. I also own an IT company that develops....software (and I mean low-level stuff such as drivers written in pure assembler for example).

That is not to mention other devs here who develop for FS, etc..

If you wrote software, you'd appreciate that most major software is built upon previous versions, and not re-written from scratch.

Sorry to cut in again, does anybody know whether that other sim. . . I think it was Aerosoft were develping ?   Do you know if its becoming a reality ?

They're trying. We have to wait and see what the result is though.

Vulcan.

VulcanB2 wrote: Dale - before making generalizations such as this, do a search. I am (for example) on the development team of the AirSimmer A320 for example, and Beta Tester for several other major developers. I also own an IT company that develops....software (and I mean low-level stuff such as drivers written in pure assembler for example). If you wrote software, you'd appreciate that most major software is built upon previous versions, and not re-written from scratch. Vulcan.