37 replies to this topic

[Buziel-411_RED]

I was reading the AVSIM and FTX Flight forums, and found some interesting topics.

Quote from John Venema, CEO of ORBX.

http://airdailyx.blo...terview-of.html

Quote

Flight is not what people are expecting, it won't compete with FSX at all, it's a completely different sim category. FSX is the serious sim platform for the hardcore and will be for at least 5-10 years, and certainly hardware is now capable of overcoming most of the shortfalls of the code. We are also very excited about Lockheed Martin's PREPAR3D, which is built on FSX and has a bunch of ex-ACES guys fixing all the major bugs and making it work with today's CPU/GPU hardware. We are waiting on some new pricing models to emerge and then it becomes a serious alternative platform for Orbx and its customers.

Other posts by him:

http://www.orbxsyste...ight-an-update/

http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__2112641

There was a comment on the first article by an "anonymous developer" over Flight, and there is some discussion over it at AVSIM. http://forum.avsim.n...are-hoping-for/

Thoughts? I know how the most recent "inside information" turned out, but I would put a little more faith in what John Venema says.

Edited by Buziel-411_RED, 18 September 2011 - 04:31 PM.

[Brandon-M]

If Flight is going to be different from FSX then what would it be ... ? The flight website specifically said that it is a simulator so i don't believe any of what this guy is saying.

[Jonay]

Sounds very disheartening... If ofcourse any of those concepts are true!

[Daube]

While I really hate what is being said about Flight, I love more and more what has been said about Prepar3D.
It sounds like Prepar3D might be the "Flight" we've been expecting...
But those stories/rumors about Flight are interesting, to say the least. I'm curious to see how it will end up, but so far the chances I become a Flight customer are reducing everyday.

[BrandonF]

John cleared up what he had said...not quite what it was meant to be taken as:

http://www.orbxsyste...an-you-confirm/

He says what he says because we don't have any other public info to go by yet, so we have to wait and see what Flight will actually be.

[LA_PHX]

BrandonF, on Sep 18 2011, 10:30 PM, said:

John cleared up what he had said...not quite what it was meant to be taken as:

http://www.orbxsyste...an-you-confirm/

He says what he says because we don't have any other public info to go by yet, so we have to wait and see what Flight will actually be.

Do you mind quoting what he said here?  I don't have an Orbx account and would prefer to not create one just to read what he said in this one instance.

[SwitchFX]

Here you go, Alex:

John Venema said:

From day one since Flight was announced I have committed Orbx as being an excited supporter of Microsoft and of the new platform and that we would be creating content for it. That position is unchanged, but it has been quite a long time since their announcement, and the industry is moving on.

That's why we are working with Lockheed Martin who have an SDK and a platform we can write to. You need to understand that developers don't plan their business a week in advance, and don't use vapor to create content. We need debugged SDKs and a known target platform before we commit resources to anything. Orbx has a product roadmap which is EIGHTEEN MONTHS ahead of today. We build our business plans around what we know, not speculation. I have shareholders which I am responsible to, and my job is to continue to deliver revenue from sales from real platforms.

Until we see a mature Flight SDK and the tools provided to allow us to port content across to Flight, and fully understand how our content is distributed and sold, I am afraid I can simply assume that Flight is an unknown entity. And what we do know, based on the videos and screenshots shown by MS is that it appears to be only GA aircraft and only in Hawaii. Of course if MS show us more areas of the world or actually provide a features list including geographical areas, airports, aircraft, then we will have a better understanding of the new sim. But right now, based on publicly available information, it looks very much to me like something very different to FSX, thus my comments in the AirdailyX interview.

It leans toward sour grapes, in my honest opinion. All these "leaks" or "double-crossing developer" stories are getting ridiculous. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft spreads misinformation within the company to find leakers just like Apple does.

Edited by SwitchFX, 19 September 2011 - 01:32 AM.

[ChaoticBeauty]

Now I'm even more confused. Wasn't Prepar3D intended for professional use?

[Daube]

Yes, but NOT ONLY for professionnal use.
It's written clearly by one of the Prepar3D guys in one of the topics linked in the first post.
Clearly said: everybody can buy it, it is not "restricted" to any category of buyer.

Edited by Daube, 19 September 2011 - 10:30 AM.

[_BD6_]

Microsoft needs to step up here and understand that in this generation, companies are open with their customers and etc.. Producers like ORBx, FSDT, Flightbeam, PMDG and others are constantly updating customers and releasing pictures as well as features way before the release.

Oh, X-Plane 10 too.. tons of updates from them so we almost know what to expect.

[Jetset]

So the guy from OrbX has fallen into the same trap as a lot of the doubters out there.
Because all we are seeing from MS is stuff from one island and only a couple of GA, then it's clear as day that Flight will be a dumbed down version of FSX?

Didn't someone the other day here, remind us of the fact that when the demo of FSX came out, it consisted of one island and a couple of planes.?

[CaptainG37]

Just had a look at PREPAR3D.  Doubtful Flight will be what people expect seeing as PREPAR3D will reportedly accept all FSX add ons.  As well as being developed by some of the ACES team.  
Now THIS is what I call serious X Plane 10 competition.  Having seen some XP10 screenshots, I can safely say it's a VERY tight race.
Although it remains to be seen what the core flight model will be like.

[Buziel-411_RED]

CaptainG37, on Sep 19 2011, 06:41 PM, said:

Just had a look at PREPAR3D.  Doubtful Flight will be what people expect seeing as PREPAR3D will reportedly accept all FSX add ons.  As well as being developed by some of the ACES team.  
Now THIS is what I call serious X Plane 10 competition.  Having seen some XP10 screenshots, I can safely say it's a VERY tight race.
Although it remains to be seen what the core flight model will be like.

Just to note, that is ORBX scenery running in Prepar3D.

The best thing about Prepar3D is it is receiving updates and is still under active development.  I beleive some of their future goals include DX11 and 64bit support.

[franthree]

Ah imagine "Flight" having worldwide 'ORBX" quality textures!

[BrandonF]

Once Prepar3d doesn't look like FSX by default, then I'll be interested. But for now, it's just FSX with a few updates. When it looks like Flight, then Prepar3d will be my friend.   My FSX setup is running pretty much bug free and I if I'm going to start using another sim, I'd like to to at least be an upgrade.

Edited by BrandonF, 19 September 2011 - 10:47 PM.

[Fate01_VUSAFS]

Why do I get this feeling they're going to make helicopters even more impossible to fly...

[wynthorpe]

Fate01_VUSAFS, on Sep 20 2011, 08:15 AM, said:

Why do I get this feeling they're going to make helicopters even more impossible to fly...

Look on their forums, they seem to think they have the best Helicopter physics of any sim.

[ChaoticBeauty]

wynthorpe, on Sep 20 2011, 03:55 PM, said:

Look on their forums, they seem to think they have the best Helicopter physics of any sim.

Who?

[wynthorpe]

Kaotika, on Sep 20 2011, 02:01 PM, said:

Who?

Prepar3D.

[Jonay]

If that's the case then I'm certainly game!

As long as it supports a native trim (able to use my hat switch) , and decent flight physics (i.e able to go backwards etc) then I'll be happy.