73 replies to this topic

[Atomic_Sheep]

I'm more than happy with what MSFS have currently in terms of flight physics. I tried full motion simulators, and I can say that I didn't notice a difference between the two. Perhaps there were way too many switches in new positions that you had to click manually rather than either using short cuts or clicking them with the mouse which detracted the attention from assessing the quality of the simulator, but to be honest, if I couldn't notice a great difference, I'm more than happy with what MSFS has in terms of physics for GA and commercial airliners. How high performance aircraft behave themselves in MSFS I don't know, and I suspect they perform poorly (as I have tried a few for very short periods of time and the flight dynamics felt completely dead), but to be honest, MSFS isn't something I would ever use as a fighter sim, you have Lock On and Falcon 4.0 for that. For commercial aviation, a basic flight model is really all you need in my opinion. All in all, sure it's not real life, but personally, FSX creates an unmistakable sensation of flight even with GFX at their lowest settings and horrible fps (until I have my new comp). I really want to try X-plane, but the fact that the demo didn't work makes me wonder if buying it is such a good idea, and the fact that there aren't a lot of third party addons and lack of eye candy, just means that I'm really not interested in it, no matter how much better the physics may be because as I said, FSX is good enough for what it's designed for.

[Flying_Pie]

Alright I haven't read the entire thread, I just saw the posts at the beginning talking about the success of the sim being doubtful. One big factor you have to consider: in 2012, FSX will be 6 years old. FS9 is 6 years old at the moment and it's being phased out by a sim that's already 3 years old. Imagine comparing FSX to the Aerosoft sim given the time frame...I have a feeling Aerosoft will have a huge edge.

[Mohammad]

^Yeah, the age factor is pretty big. Here's the problem, though. What if Microsoft get back all of a sudden and announce their own simulator to be released sometime in the 2011-2013 time frame? Then we'll have 3 series competing one-another, and that might water down the availability of add-ons made for each sim, due to exclusivity or other reasons. For all we know, this project might also get canceled. I hope not...

[Brandon-M]

Mohammad, on Oct 4 2009, 08:19 PM, said:

^Yeah, the age factor is pretty big. Here's the problem, though. What if Microsoft get back all of a sudden and announce their own simulator to be released sometime in the 2011-2013 time frame? Then we'll have 3 series competing one-another, and that might water down the availability of add-ons made for each sim, due to exclusivity or other reasons. For all we know, this project might also get canceled. I hope not...

True, it might have the opposite effect. It could draw more addons and interest to the simulation world

[Atomic_Sheep]

I imagine if Microsoft decides on bringing back the series, and announces this before the 2012 release date, no one will care much for the Aerosoft one as there has been too much developed for MSFS already. The only hope Aerosoft will have is if they produce a product which is VASTLY better and has a lot of compatibility with MSFS, but this will obviously depend on when the next FS will come out also, as theoretically a post 2012 release would mean a better product over Aerosft, making it moot. That's my theory.

[AgonisNewton]

This is great news but i do hope that they will focus on the psychics & graphics department without suffering too much frames. I hope that DX11 will have a huge advantage over DX10. I'd gladly switch over because FSX does look amazing but it does not really support DX10 fully. Not to mention that it's a performance bog which misleads people away, one of the main reasons why the fanbase remains so small. Not all people want to invest 2000+$ just to run a flight simulator. I hope Aerosoft can fix this & still deliver something better, more realistic & better looking then FSX & still let 3rd party developers develop both free ware & payware addons. Looking forward to more news.

[niteye]

I don't think a split market would be good. I think addons have been in the making for long enough that the demand is more or less fullfilled. More sims would just mean that microsoft's (or whoever's) they make addons for will have a smaller share of customers (because some will have gone over to different sims) and they have to do more labor to be able to sell to the same ammount of customers, making the prices rise. I don't think more sims would attract more simmers. Budget for addons would definitely be smaller even if more addon creators come to the market because instead of a few big renowned companies (PMDG, LevelD, FTX or whoever makes it etc.) would instead be more companies but smaller companies and the community would end up being too cluttered.

[Atomic_Sheep]

AgonisNewton, on Oct 7 2009, 10:08 PM, said:

This is great news but i do hope that they will focus on the psychics & graphics department without suffering too much frames. I hope that DX11 will have a huge advantage over DX10. I'd gladly switch over because FSX does look amazing but it does not really support DX10 fully. Not to mention that it's a performance bog which misleads people away, one of the main reasons why the fanbase remains so small. Not all people want to invest 2000+$ just to run a flight simulator. I hope Aerosoft can fix this & still deliver something better, more realistic & better looking then FSX & still let 3rd party developers develop both free ware & payware addons. Looking forward to more news.

I can't help but feel that a simulator is not the same thing as a PC game. FS has never been a mainstream product and its following has always been simulator enthusiasts only. From those enthusiasts, only a few actually take it to the next level and invest in their hardware, their time to learn the ropes etc, the rest of the people who might still have an interest in flying, may simply not want to dedicate so much time and money to this hobby and hence quit after a short while. Considering the limitations of all simulators i.e. the fact that they are inherently cpu intensive, means that developing something that you described is simply not feasable as it would be too basic for the hardcore sims and too simple for further development of people who do actually get into it. You can't produce a simpler version of poker because it will be too hard to enjoy in the long run even if it takes less time to learn in the first place. You would be shooting yourself in the foot. What Microsoft did with this release of FSX was as far as I'm concerned... brilliant! They included features that beginners could enjoy and had system requirements... which lets face it... in its barebone state, aren't THAT demanding. It's only once you start tweaking it to the extent that some of us do that you really need to unload your wallet. I think Aerosoft should follow in these similar footsteps. Develop a product that is both beginner friendly and at the same time has enough potential to be upgraded by hardcore simmers. I suppose that's really what you said in a nutshell, but I just wanted to put my spin on it.

As niteye pointed out... a split market would equate to what happen to IVAO? and VATSIM. I've never tried either but I can see how things have become worse. Either way, you need competition only so much as to keep the prices down for the top of the range products to a level that isn't insane. An example of this would be ORBX (In my opinion, 180 bux for scenery of just Australia is just excessive... especially when you consider the fact that the airports aren't included!!!). Imagine how much the whole world will cost! Or as some of you have pointed out with the PMDG prices. But you certainly don't want a split in the customer base.

Edited by Atomic_Sheep, 07 October 2009 - 07:36 AM.

[Mohammad]

^Good post. I agree, fully!

One reason that got me interested in flight simulator in the first place was the fact it was easy for beginners and serious for experts. It was a perfect blend. If you wanted casual flying, you had it. If you wanted something a little bit more detailed and difficult, you also had it. This is something which X-Plane lacked. For someone who just loves to fly for the sake of flying, FS9 and FSX suit my needs. And for those who want to get into the detailed technical aspects of flight, and give more effort than us casual simmers, FS9 and FSX also suit their needs as well.

This is what I think Aerosoft will continue doing for their future products.

Call me crazy but if Microsoft doesn't decide to split the market into 3 competitors, I have a feeling they might form a partnership with Aerosoft in flight simulation development.

[moey]

but can aerosoft buy flight simulator franchise from microsoft? i think it would be better if they do that just to be in a safe way. plus add ons company won't be having to make 2 addons for 2 software. i think they should approach microsoft. and microsft must be knowing whats going already. what do you guys think?

[AirFranceSST]

The thing is I don't think they want to utilize the FS engine anymore.

They want to make a newer better one.

[franthree]

I beg to ask the question--Why do we want/ need a new flight simulator???? I am one "happy camper" with FSX! It has it's faults of course but I finally have pc that will run it nice! And will all my Aerosoft--aircraft/scenery--be future compatible? Thses are important questions. And will new sim require yet more hardware upgrades on our part??

I hope FSX goes on a few more years!!

[AirFranceSST]

What people want is Realism, that is why.

[Nabeel.]

Or this could be a move for MS to buy them out, or turn them into the next ACES

Edited by Nabeel., 08 October 2009 - 01:47 PM.

[franthree]

AirFranceSST, on Oct 8 2009, 02:42 PM, said:

What people want is Realism, that is why.

Then go buy a real airline simulator! FSX is a good compromise for the rest of us!

[AirFranceSST]

franthree, on Oct 8 2009, 01:47 PM, said:

AirFranceSST, on Oct 8 2009, 02:42 PM, said:

What people want is Realism, that is why.

Then go buy a real airline simulator! FSX is a good compromise for the rest of us!

If one could bring real realism to the PC the creators would be really rich.

Buying a real airline simulator would be too expensive which is why we depend on just the software. To save space.  

[THBatMan8]

moey, on Oct 8 2009, 01:46 PM, said:

but can aerosoft buy flight simulator franchise from microsoft? i think it would be better if they do that just to be in a safe way. plus add ons company won't be having to make 2 addons for 2 software. i think they should approach microsoft. and microsft must be knowing whats going already. what do you guys think?

Microsoft would have to sell it's copyright protection rights to Aerosoft, otherwise it would borderline copyright infringement and/or plagiarism (even though the ACES team is disbanded, Microsoft still owns the copyright protection). I would prefer that Aerosoft steers clear of the MSFS platform, as it's full of bugs.

Edited by THBatMan8, 08 October 2009 - 02:13 PM.

[bigflyersmallbyer]

franthree, on Oct 8 2009, 07:40 PM, said:

I beg to ask the question--Why do we want/ need a new flight simulator???? I am one "happy camper" with FSX! It has it's faults of course but I finally have pc that will run it nice! And will all my Aerosoft--aircraft/scenery--be future compatible? Thses are important questions. And will new sim require yet more hardware upgrades on our part??

I hope FSX goes on a few more years!!

We'll be needed a replacement for FSX around ~2012 I would have thought.

[Alex_S]

Little Big Planet uses fully real physics for its PS3 game wonder if the same could be transferred into an FS