The future of fsx?

[Boikat]

I have a vacant lot where my house used to stand, and plan on selling it (It's of no further use to me, so why carry the tax burden?).  I should be able to get a fair gob of money for it, and I'm seriously considering buying Prepar3d.  I just have to convince myself that it is *really* something I want to spend that kind of money on.  Maybe I'll do the "monthly subscription" thing, and then decide. But not until I sell the lot, first.

[Fozzer]

one question hat is OrbX?
and what is Prepare3d?

easy words please

Orbx

Prepar3D

[Rocket_Bird]

Here is my take, in short. FS9 requires a disc running in the tray, but FSX requires that you validate with a Key number and through a Microsoft site so you can use the full uninterupted version.

Here's how I see it. These were both efforts to combat software piracy. Not particularly successful so MS has taken a different approach with Flight by providing the basic software free of charge & charging for addons only available via the Windows Live! platform. It remains to be seen how effective this will be.

Microsoft is after all in business to make a profit & not particularly bothered about the FS community which is a comparatively small customer base. The idea of withdrawing support for FSX seems rather a drastic measure & I'm not sure it will come to that.

I don't see MS abandoning FSX in the near future, but if and when they do, FS9 could hypothetically outlast FSX. I think. Only time will tell.

I tend to see the evolution of piracy protection to be like chasing a rainbow.

[Hagar]

Thank goodness for that!... ...

Prepar3D

I've been rattling my brain for ages, trying to figure out what the word "Prepar" means!

Now Lockheed Martin tells me the word is actually; "Prepared"... ...!

Who would have guessed that, without a working knowledge of Text Speak?.. ...!

Paul... ...!

Did you know that "Prepared" comes before "Pared" (Pre-Pared)... ...!
(A bit like Prenatal).

It's a pun in the modern idiot idiom.

[Strategic Retreat]

[quote]I tend to see the evolution of piracy protection to be like chasing a rainbow.

[jetprop]

In FSX, the vast difference between the Flight Sim and our Computer Hardware is constantly out of step!

Paul...FS 2004..FS Navigator... ...!

Is FSX out of step with the hardware?

I suspect FSX in it's original format runs very well on modern PC's, probably delivering good performance with the most of the sliders pretty much maxed......for me good performance would be a smooth flight experience at about 25 fps.

From my perspective it seems that the addons with obsessive textures and detail + the desire to run at silly frame rates with masses of traffic is what b*ggers it all up.

........so perhaps it's not FSX that stresses the hardware, maybe it's the developers. Maybe the addons will always be several steps ahead of any current rig.

most downloads IMPROVE the FPS and IMO the stability of FSX,so..

its aircraft that decrease FPS and stability sometimes.

[Cusance]

Here is my take, in short. FS9 requires a disc running in the tray, but FSX requires that you validate with a Key number and through a Microsoft site so you can use the full uninterupted version. All MS would have to do to shut down FSX is close down its validation site and stop taking phone calls that concern validation. Through attrition, one by one, our motherboards need replacing or we need a new machine FSX could basically be gone in 4 years. The only people left with FSX would be pirates who break the validation process. With 'Flight' the shutdown would be even quicker.

Surely this is a very valid point. I have some professional experience and dare I say battles with MS on licensing at corporate level and believe I have a fair understanding of how MS approaches these issues and what drives them. There isnt room for sentiment. If MS is planning to claim back for itself all revenues on MS Flight simulators or games, and the marketing strategy of flight strongly suggests that they want to do this, then trying to take out FSX use one way or another must commercially be attractive to them. Eventually. Whether they could legally render bought software useless in this way, is another point. But I cant see anyone going to court over this.

[Daube]

FSX Is the Past ,Present and It will be OUR future

one question hat is OrbX?
and what is Prepare3d?

easy words please

Easy words, as you wish

OrbX is the team that produces all the payware FTX addons. Big, VERY big sceneries that cover large areas with excellent meshes and lanclasses data, coupled with speicifc ground textures and local scenery objects here and there. It is not photorealistic terrain, it's landclass, but a very good one.

Perpar3D, said "prepared" with a 3 instead of the 'e' to make it more stylish, is in fact FSX. Microsot had sold the FSX coding to Lockheed Martin, but they had to promise (I mean, they signed a legal contract) not to produce an entertainment game (like FSX, Flight or XPlane, a game for normal customers) with it. So LM produced Prepar3D, a professionnal simulator platform using the coding of FSX that they modified to remove bugs, improve performance, and add features.

Most FSX addons work in Prepar3D, and the LM development team is still working on the code. They want, for example, to make it full 64-bit compliant.

To answer the title of the topic, Prepar3D is,in fact, the future of FSX.

[Rocket_Bird]

Please, let us not start a war on which one would outlast the other. As technology stand, FS9 is easier to get on with, more stable and light, so everyone with a today's half a$$ed PC can have great performances out of it, and the various graphical upgrades, even freeware ones, bring FS9 up to FSX default level, and even beyond, of graphical pleasantness.

FSX is more expandable, but in exchange WANTS. Wants even today things (read: CPU and GPU RAW POWER) that do not yet exist. And even if you give it your max... it's FAR LESS stable than FS9 in any and every working situation ([i]and I don't think anyone here relishes to have CTD, especially when the probabilities of having those seem to haunt you by flocking together in the precious moments before a landing so that while you're about to step on the middle marker... C! T! D!).

At the moment and for a while still it is perfectly useless to hope to use FSX to the same levels of expandability of FS9 and with the same performances. Pimped to eleven FSX does look better than FS9, no doubts, but even if you invest dozens of grands in your hardware, it won't be anywhere a smooth and stable platform... at least for the moment.

Which one of the two would outlast the other? Unless one has a time machine or is a TRUE clairvoyant and can tell us about it FOR REAL, let's leave to Father Time the arduous verdict and let us not speculate here.

Eh, I wasn't really trying to churn out an FS9 vs FSX debate (or "war) here, but was merely stating the matter based on what FSX has now become, technologically, and the hypothetical scenario of MS pulling the plug for online verification.

[Rocket_Bird]

Here is my take, in short. FS9 requires a disc running in the tray, but FSX requires that you validate with a Key number and through a Microsoft site so you can use the full uninterupted version. All MS would have to do to shut down FSX is close down its validation site and stop taking phone calls that concern validation. Through attrition, one by one, our motherboards need replacing or we need a new machine FSX could basically be gone in 4 years. The only people left with FSX would be pirates who break the validation process. With 'Flight' the shutdown would be even quicker.

Surely this is a very valid point. I have some professional experience and dare I say battles with MS on licensing at corporate level and believe I have a fair understanding of how MS approaches these issues and what drives them. There isnt room for sentiment. If MS is planning to claim back for itself all revenues on MS Flight simulators or games, and the marketing strategy of flight strongly suggests that they want to do this, then trying to take out FSX use one way or another must commercially be attractive to them. Eventually. Whether they could legally render bought software useless in this way, is another point. But I cant see anyone going to court over this.

It's possible they can do this, and I can just dimly imagine them doing so (some corporations are stupid).

[Steve M]

When MS would likely stop the whole registration thing is when the market share reaches 1%. They just ended validation for an early OS platform recently for that very reason. Daube made a very good point, Prepar3d won't need validation by MS. I give you a link just to refresh our corporate memory.


http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/ ... pport.aspx

[Strategic Retreat]

Would you people stop bringing Prepar3d into the equation? That is a simulator that, NO DOUBT, we will never see marketed.

Developed by Lockheed on Microsoft ESP, Prepar3d is sold by Lockheed, ostensibly with M$ permission, to airspace technical developers for professional simulation purposes.

Now, ask yourself, why should Lockheed (you know, the builders of the F35 lightning II, the C130 and many other planes and other stuff) decide to become a simulation software house if their income comes from just another place and it's way greater than the marketing of a simulator, and once you're thinking about this add to your thought processes how likely would it be for M$ to give Lockheed the permission to use THEIR OWN SOFTWARE against Flight.

For last seriously consider how many flight simulation hobbyists would be able to buy the professional version with its lots-of-zeros-price? And even, for absurd, having the sum available, wouldn't it be SANER to go for other platforms then and use the remaining of the many-zeros-price saved to build a home cockpit instead? Or for a new car? A vacation? OR AN ACTUAL REAL PILOT LICENSE?

Please. Get. Real.

[Daube]

Would you people stop bringing Prepar3d into the equation? That is a simulator that, NO DOUBT, we will never see marketed.

Developed by Lockheed on Microsoft ESP, Prepar3d is sold by Lockheed, ostensibly with M$ permission, to airspace technical developers for professional simulation purposes.

Now, ask yourself, why should Lockheed (you know, the builders of the F35 lightning II, the C130 and many other planes and other stuff) decide to become a simulation software house if their income comes from just another place and it's way greater than the marketing of a simulator, and once you're thinking about this add to your thought processes how likely would it be for M$ to give Lockheed the permission to use THEIR OWN SOFTWARE against Flight.

For last seriously consider how many flight simulation hobbyists would be able to buy the professional version with its lots-of-zeros-price? And even, for absurd, having the sum available, wouldn't it be SANER to go for other platforms then and use the remaining of the many-zeros-price saved to build a home cockpit instead? Or for a new car? A vacation? OR AN ACTUAL REAL PILOT LICENSE?

Please. Get. Real.

You should get real too.
You don't have to BUY the simulator at the full 500 dollars. This is only if you want to make a payware addon yourself.

If you just want to use it, or test stuff etc... anything that is not money-generating, then you can go for the 10$/month subscription. I pay more than that for using a cell phone.


And finally, contrary to XPlane 10 and Flight, the FSX addons work in Prepar3D. So Prepar3D [glow=yellow,2,300]DEFINITELY[/glow] comes into the equation, for any simmers that wants realistic and immersive addons.

[Strategic Retreat]

Forgive me... I may have overplayed its price in the heat of the moment, but...

Sorry, I cannot see any difference between that situation and M$ new approach with Flight (even if Prepar3d seems not to have the black smear on it of the closed market that WILL shame Flight unto its early grave).

You want to go Prepar3d? Your choice. May you be happy. Just don't ask me to follow you.

Going from a situation of a sim with an already not so cheap price to another similar one where newsimprice=oldsimprice*10 is just NOT my cup of coffee.

[hyperpep111]

I do not really want to pay $10 per week when I do not really fly all the time. It is a little steep.
And Btw this is not an Fsx vs Fs9 vs prepar3d. It's about the capabilities of the game.
And since Microsoft is "ending support" for xp, will it make win xp open source? :-?