More Doom for FSX?

[Canuck1955]

If anything it is X Plane that is increasing in users. Just look at the files appearing in the two top sites Avsim & FlightSim.com. Never before has XP been so prolific.

[cevans]

Looks like you like XP. Probably a good sim but I have XP10 and it's not my thing compared to P3D.
One of my FSX uploads from just yesterday has over 500 d/ls in less than 24 hrs.
I prefer P3D going forward. Xplane is moving too but each to their own. No point in taking sides

[tjitah]

Looks like you like XP. Probably a good sim but I have XP10 and it's not my thing compared to P3D.
One of my FSX uploads from just yesterday has over 500 d/ls in less than 24 hrs.
I prefer P3D going forward. Xplane is moving too but each to their own. No point in taking sides

I also had XP10 and didn't like it at all. However, XP11 is a huge improvement and much better than XP10. But I'm also still a solid user of FSX, occasionally dabbling in P3Dv3 and holding off on buying P3Dv4 because developers (such as Captain Sim) are just using it as an excuse to ramp prices and milk us.

For now, I probably use the flight sims in the following ratio:
XP11 - 50%
FSX - 40%
P3D3 - 10%
P3D4 - 0%

[B52bob]

Really never use FSX anymore, P3D V4 covers almost every aircraft in FSX i want and with no crashes and much superior graphics. Becoming more and more happy with XP 11 also. Hated it before V11 but now in love with it.

[Daube]

I found these stats from Navigraph, quoted on another forum. It shows the difference between 2016 and 2017.
So, this data is already one year old, and only concerns the Navigraph customers, but it gives quite a good idea on the evolution of the market I think:

2016´s Navigraph Survey
Microsoft FSX (FSX box + FSX: Steam) 60%
Lockheed Martin Prepar3D 30%
Laminar Research X-plane 10%

2017`s Navigraph Survey
Microsoft FSX (FSX box + FSX: Steam) 33.19%
Lockheed Martin Prepar3D v4 30.75%
Laminar Research X-Plane 11 19.58%

As you can see, until 2016 FSX was still gathering the most people. However, already 30% of the community had already migrated to P3Dv2 or P3Dv3.
XPlane was still version 10 only, which started to look good (better than FSX) but still suffered from its uncomfortable user interface.

In 2017 things changed drastically with the appearance of 64 bit simulators.
Those who were trapped with the Out-Of-Memory errors in FSX and P3Dv3 finally had an escape door with P3Dv4.
XPlane 11 also did a lot of noise, because it came first, had stunning graphics, and FINALLY had a very good user interface. A lot of FSX users fled to XPlane11 thanks to that. Everything was made to ease up their "migration". P3Dv4 appeared a bit later, and managed to convince the rest of the community who didn't want to switch to XPlane (or wanted to use both).
The only people who stayed in FSX were those who couldn't afford a harware upgrade (yet) or didn't want to upgrade Windows.
Situation is very similar to the good old times when FSX appeared and people didn't want to leave FS9 because their computers were too old, etc... same reasons all around.

[Hawkeye07]

I found these stats from Navigraph, quoted on another forum. It shows the difference between 2016 and 2017.
So, this data is already one year old, and only concerns the Navigraph customers, but it gives quite a good idea on the evolution of the market I think:

2016´s Navigraph Survey
Microsoft FSX (FSX box + FSX: Steam) 60%
Lockheed Martin Prepar3D 30%
Laminar Research X-plane 10%

2017`s Navigraph Survey
Microsoft FSX (FSX box + FSX: Steam) 33.19%
Lockheed Martin Prepar3D v4 30.75%
Laminar Research X-Plane 11 19.58%

As you can see, until 2016 FSX was still gathering the most people. However, already 30% of the community had already migrated to P3Dv2 or P3Dv3.
XPlane was still version 10 only, which started to look good (better than FSX) but still suffered from its uncomfortable user interface.

In 2017 things changed drastically with the appearance of 64 bit simulators.
Those who were trapped with the Out-Of-Memory errors in FSX and P3Dv3 finally had an escape door with P3Dv4.
XPlane 11 also did a lot of noise, because it came first, had stunning graphics, and FINALLY had a very good user interface. A lot of FSX users fled to XPlane11 thanks to that. Everything was made to ease up their "migration". P3Dv4 appeared a bit later, and managed to convince the rest of the community who didn't want to switch to XPlane (or wanted to use both).
The only people who stayed in FSX were those who couldn't afford a harware upgrade (yet) or didn't want to upgrade Windows.
Situation is very similar to the good old times when FSX appeared and people didn't want to leave FS9 because their computers were too old, etc... same reasons all around.

The 2017 stats only accounts for 83.52% whereas the 2016 reflects 100% of the customer base. That missing 16.48% is almost equal to X-Plane's share but I would say X-Plane took the lion's share of the decrease in FSX, not P3Dv4. Surprising since we hear more praise about the merits of P3D than we do X-Plane.

As for the comment "The only people who stayed in FSX were those who couldn't afford a harware upgrade (yet) or didn't want to upgrade Windows." I somewhat disagree with that absolute statement. As for myself, I'm waiting for P3D to settle down with the updates and besides I have too much payware that doesn't cross over so why would I want to abandon those aircraft that I still enjoy flying? That doesn't make any sense. Hardware wise I already operate on a 64 bit system so that's not an issue either. I suspect the payware might be a big issue with many others too but I could be wrong.

[Daube]

It may not make sense to you, but it is what I can see throughout most of the FS forums I read.
Users who don't want to give up some payware planes have just kept FSX in a corner of their hardrive to launch it from time to time, and use P3Dv4 for everything else. Some like myself have chosen to use P3Dv3 instead of FSX to use the FSX paywares that are not compatible withe the 64bits sim. For example, the old Accusim planes like the B-17, Cub, or P-47.
What are the addons you're thinking about ?

I still have FSX Steam installed, but I never use it. I just keep it as a kind of backup for some files, like the default planes that do not exist in P3Dv4 (glider, Goose, Beaver...). I sometimes launch it, just for the sake of remembering, but P3D looks so much better there's really no point in continuing to use FSX for me. Fortunately, most of the good payware planes I had are working fine in P3Dv3, even for a few FS9 planes

Granted, I had to buy again some of my addons, but very few. A2A Spitfire, VRS F-18 and TacPack, and I don't remember what else... Yes that was a small investment of money, but worth it, given the benefits of using the new sim.

[Shadowcaster]

I've been having a bit of a think about this (what's still left of my brain is now hurting) and as I see it all the sims mentioned here have a healthy future. FS9 still has a big following and judging by some of the screen-shots and add-ons featured here has a lot to offer so that's not going away anytime soon. FSX and FSX SE I would think are still the most popular, SE certainly introduced a few more people to our hobby and for me it certainly runs better than Disk FSX, add-ons are now of exceptional quality and for the most part are well priced and offer a level of sophistication that was a only pipe dream a few years ago. P3d Ver 1 and 2 did not bring to much more to the party to make it worth my while changing but were still an improvement over FSX. Things changed a bit with P3d Ver 3 which I now use it runs well on my computer and make full use of the graphics card and does not rely as much on the CPU so for most it's a worthwhile purchase. Yes some add-ons will not work but that's why I kept FSX. We then come to the big guys P3d Ver 4 and X Plane 11 switching to 64 bit will lead us into a new era where the current crop of processors and GPU's will offer performance and even more sophistication but at the price of upgrading hardware, which for many can't be justified. I suspect a few years down the line we will all have a 64 bit sim when hardware prices come down. I can't see either of them usurping the other, people will probably get both eventually as I suspect some aircraft/scenery will only be available on one or the other. I haven't mentioned the likes of Aerofly or DCS because although I have DCS Huey I have never got to grips with using it but both certainly look pretty good.

The future of flight simming is looking bright we have something to satisfy most tastes and although like your car it will be more difficult to get parts for, each sim will keep going and keep us flying the virtual skies for a long time yet.

Cheers
Rich

[garymbuska]

Any 32 bit program can be rewritten and recompiled to work as a 64 bit program. I use to work for an insurance company and had to take programs written using COBAL and convert them into RPG programs. Granted not quite the same thing.
One has to know the difference between a 32 bit program and a 64 bit program. It all has to do with addressing so unless I am mistaken all you have to do is to have a compiler that will compile the main program into a 64 bit program
and of course MICROSOFT'S permission to do so. That is the tricky part.
Any game or program starts out as what is called a source program than one has to take that source code and use a compiler to make the actual game. The hard part is the compiler has to be able to read and understand the source code.

A 32 bit program means that one instruction is 32 bits long
a 64 bit program means that one instruction is 64 bits long
The 64 bit instruction is more precise as to what has to be done with it
Think of it this way
You are told to go to the store This we will say is a 32 bit instruction
the 64 bit version would be go to the store and buy milk and eggs and bring them back home.

So much for programming 101