Search the archive:
YaBB - Yet another Bulletin Board
 
   
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
why are there so few aircraft to download on fsx? (Read 772 times)
Oct 16th, 2007 at 3:12am

stick4000   Offline
Colonel
Get some
M.F.I Headquarters

Gender: male
Posts: 77
*****
 
hello all. i have a question. it may seem a very silly question to some of you, but im curious as to why there are so few aircrafts to download on simv, compared to when fs 9 was the current model. the planes to download appear to have frozen up. am i not going to the right place for them? or are there just not people creating aircraft now?. i understand that aircraft packages dont create themselves and that there is obviously an enormous amount of time involved in making one.so please somebody get back to me and let me know. any answers would be appreciated, sarcastic or not  Wink. get some.
 

2 x western digital 250G SATA2 7200rpm HDD(16Mb cache) G Raid 0 Stripe&&DDR2 2048MB (2 x 1G) PC6400 800MHZ black heatspreader G.Skill &&MSI GeForce  8800GTS 640M OC Dual DVI TVout HDTV PCI Express Video &&Gigabyte P35-DS3P P35 ATX FSB1333 2xPCIEx16 SATA2 RAID 1394 GbLAN Dual &&Intel  E6750 CORE 2 DUO 2.66GHz/4MB CACHE/1333FSB/LGA775
IP Logged
 
Reply #1 - Oct 16th, 2007 at 3:35am

Hagar   Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159
*****
 
Give it time. There is always a lull before the developers get to grips with the latest features of a new version of FS. The first files to be uploaded are usually repaints of the default aircraft along with updates of existing 3rd party models from the previous version modified to work in the new one. This has always been the case.

FSX is the most complicated yet so this might take a while & development of new aircraft using the new features will obviously take longer. Meanwhile, the expectation from the end-users becomes more demanding. Consequently I don't expect so many individual freeware developers to be creating aircraft for FSX as for previous versions of FS & the trend seems to be towards more & more payware.
 

...

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery
IP Logged
 
Reply #2 - Oct 16th, 2007 at 5:33am

Daube   Offline
Colonel
Alternative bloomer
Nice (FR)

Gender: male
Posts: 5833
*****
 
You also have to notice that a huge part of the FS9 planes work with no problems in FSX.
And for the FS9 planes, remove the repaints and you'll see, there won't be that much left....
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #3 - Oct 16th, 2007 at 7:25am

Brett_Henderson   Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender: male
Posts: 3593
*****
 
It's probably just me, but it seems like time has sped up in the FS world since FSX's release. Building an FSX specific airplane feels like rushing into a time-frame of unknown duration... and to complicate things, the new modeling techniques are taking longer to adapt to. It's a larger commitment of time for a product that's taking longer to reach mainstream acceptance.

I did my best to make the Cardinal FSX compliant, and it is, in that it uses FSX materials and FSX animations... but I never did get a grasp on getting bump-maps to work without degrading the already delicate balance between diffuse-maps, spectural-maps and both of their alpha-channels.

I'm about 1/2 way through an FSX Cessna 310 and intend figure out bump-mapping before releasing it... but I'm a little woried about how much of a change there will be for FSXI.. and am starting to think about taking the, "wait and see" break   Huh

 
IP Logged
 
Reply #4 - Oct 16th, 2007 at 8:06am

krigl   Offline
Colonel
Flightsim did me in.

Gender: male
Posts: 8255
*****
 
My understanding from Phil Taylor's posting is that, instead of trying to get the max out of FSX and deliver all that was promised, graphically at least, they've given up on it now after two 'tuning' 2 SPs and a small datadisk, and are getting on with other stuff, which may or may not include FSXI, which probably will not be backwards compatible. It doesn't surprise me that a lot of modellers are sticking with FS9, or just updating stuff, and not getting stuck into all the new things in FSX. A rough announcement about when FSXI might be ready would help some - for example, if it's in 3 years then 'getting into FSX' will be worth it for more people.
 

If you're bored of an evening - and you'll have to be - you can check out my screenshot gallery: Kriglsflightsimscreens...HERE

...
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #5 - Oct 16th, 2007 at 8:17am
Mothball   Ex Member

 
Well, FSX has been out about a year, FS9 has been out for four years. Just my view of the world. Semper Fi, Dave
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #6 - Oct 16th, 2007 at 10:04am

JBaymore   Offline
Global Moderator
Under the curse of the
hombuilt cockpit!

Gender: male
Posts: 10261
*****
 
I see this as a FIVEfold issue:

One, the complexity of creating models for FSX that actually can take advantage of the existing capabilities of all of FSX's features has reached a new level of complexity.  And people are still trying to figure out what FSX is capable of due to the slow start (with service packs to make it "functional").  When FS2004 came out... it was a FAR shorter technical and hardware "jump" from fs2002.  So it was easier to adapt add-on development skills to that new platform.

Two, because of the SERIOUS hardware demands of FSX to get anywhere near what is "promised on the box", that has slowed the acceptance of the offering in the main existing FS community.  The new marketing and "missions" likely attracted a NEW audience to the flight sim title... so that helped keep sales solid... but it seems that many "serious" long-term FS addicts either are waiting to buy until things "shake out", or they bought early and were disappointed due to performance issues.  In any case, there are a LOT of people still happy with FS2004 and still using it.

Three, because there was such a long lifespan with FS2004, it gave the developers a LOT of time to figure out how to use the sim.  And time for a LOT of stuff to BE developed.  In the process of that the PAYWARE offerings that accumulated for FS2004 blossomed.  That payware added capabilities to fs2004 what were VERY sophisticated, like FSGenesis's very detailed trerrain mesh, the PMDG 747-400 "Queen of the Skies", Flytampa Airports, and Aerosoft AES services, to name just a few.  So FS2004 started to be a pretty SERIOUS simulator when you added all that kind of stuff.  And many serious simmers have.

So for point number four, many people invested a LOT of money in payware for FS2004.  That $50 simulator quickly became the $1000 simulator.  This provides incentive NOT to change over to FSX...... since most of that investment is not transferable AND "out of the box" FSX does not feature some of the stuff that the addons did for FS2004 (ala FSPassengers, etc.).  All of that payware showed what was POSSIBLE in flight simulation..... so all of this also "raised the bar" as to what was expected in serious add-ons.

Which brings us to point five.  Expectations.

The level of detail that serious simmers now EXPECT in an add-on aircraft, or in an airport, or in a "gee wiz" utility has been raised a LOT during the tenure of FS2004.  In the past, it was not all that difficult for a lone freeware developer to toss out a new aircraft.  (I'm NOT belittling the effort here... I undestand that is is not "easy".)  Not so simple to do anymore.  

These days, if the ITT temperature of the engines is not spot on to the real aircraft, people will be all over the boards complaining.  If the synoptics on the glass display are not exactly the correct ones for the model number of the Boeing being flown.... people will criticize.  If the climb rate does not match "specs", people will criticize.  If the hangar texture on Hangar #10 at Airport X is not exactly the same as the real airport.... people will complain.  If the add-on flightplanner does not go online and get the daily NAT trracks for the DAY out of Gander... people will complain.

So it has become much more demanding to produce add-ons for the newer sim.  Freeware developers do not do their selfless work just to hear people criticize it all to pieces all over the net.  And I see this as only getting MORE complicated as time goes by and as FSXI (and XII, and XIII, etc) come along.  At this time, to develop a "serious contender" add-on..... it typically takes a TEAM of people to put it together.  The lone developer is being put to the test both skills wise as well as to the TIME he/she has to devote to the hobby.  This will result in some attrition.  

I see the move toward more payware addons as inexorable as this complexity factor goes through the roof.  Yes, there will always be some dedicated and self-less freeware developers putting out STELLAR products.... but I see this number decreasing as the complexity increases.  Few will have the time to put out the next "Queen of the Skies" for free.

I also do not see this as a bad thing.  All in all... it will STILL result in better and better flight simulation available to the home user.  We might just have to pay a bit more for it.

best,

.............john
 

... ...Intel i7 960 quad 3.2G LGA 1366, Asus P6X58D Premium, 750W Corsair, 6 gig 1600 DDR3, Spinpoint 1TB 7200 HD, Caviar 500G 7200 HD, GTX275 1280M,  Logitec Z640, Win7 Pro 64b, CH Products yoke, pedals + throttle quad, simpit
IP Logged
 
Reply #7 - Oct 16th, 2007 at 11:00pm

richardd43   Offline
Colonel
Edmonton AB

Gender: male
Posts: 764
*****
 
I have spent very little on FS-9 software over the years because of all the excellent freeware.

It is very obvious that once the dust settles and the latest updates for FSX are purchased/downloaded and installed, payware will be in my future.

I am waiting for the new hardware to come out and either Nick, Brett, or any other knowledgable person to submit a shopping list of parts to maximize FSX with the new hardware that will be available.
 

Asus P8Z77-V Deluxe
Intel I7 3770K w/ Corsair H100
Thermaltake Level 10 GT
Silverstone 1000W PSU 
Corsair 120G Force 3
2 x  Seagate Sata 3 
16 G Corsair Meemory
2 x EVGA GTX 295   
Windows 7 Ultimate
IP Logged
 
Reply #8 - Oct 16th, 2007 at 11:44pm

JBaymore   Offline
Global Moderator
Under the curse of the
hombuilt cockpit!

Gender: male
Posts: 10261
*****
 
richardd43 wrote on Oct 16th, 2007 at 11:00pm:
I am waiting for the new hardware to come out and either Nick, Brett, or any other knowledgable person to submit a shopping list of parts to maximize FSX with the new hardware that will be available.


Just look up the word "
Cray
".   Wink Grin

Seriously... NickN is the man to steer you right.  Probably clean out your WALLET in the process....... but he knows what he is talking about.  If he says, "With that you still won't be able to max out the sliders." then .....you won't.

best,

............john
 

... ...Intel i7 960 quad 3.2G LGA 1366, Asus P6X58D Premium, 750W Corsair, 6 gig 1600 DDR3, Spinpoint 1TB 7200 HD, Caviar 500G 7200 HD, GTX275 1280M,  Logitec Z640, Win7 Pro 64b, CH Products yoke, pedals + throttle quad, simpit
IP Logged
 
Reply #9 - Oct 17th, 2007 at 7:57am

Brett_Henderson   Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender: male
Posts: 3593
*****
 
I'll happily post my step-by-step dive into a new computer... and share what I learn (should be happening soon), but remember that I know just enough about this stuff to get into trouble Roll Eyes

NickN has forgotten more about hardware stuff, than I know in total   Cheesy
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #10 - Oct 17th, 2007 at 8:50pm

richardd43   Offline
Colonel
Edmonton AB

Gender: male
Posts: 764
*****
 
Quote:
I know just enough about this stuff to get into trouble


LOL.... that is my problem. I have worked on computers of some sort most of my life (I'm 64) and I am either learning less or forgetting more, not sure which.

I was looking at the Asus X-38 today but want to hold off until I see what the new CPU lineup will be like. Would hate to shoot myself in the foot with an early buy.

This is getting off the original subject of the thread... am sure there will be plenty of discussion about the new hardware later.
 

Asus P8Z77-V Deluxe
Intel I7 3770K w/ Corsair H100
Thermaltake Level 10 GT
Silverstone 1000W PSU 
Corsair 120G Force 3
2 x  Seagate Sata 3 
16 G Corsair Meemory
2 x EVGA GTX 295   
Windows 7 Ultimate
IP Logged
 
Reply #11 - Oct 18th, 2007 at 9:00am

Camel_Moe   Offline
Colonel
Manufacturer of high quality
spam since 2002

Gender: male
Posts: 251
*****
 
richardd43 wrote on Oct 17th, 2007 at 8:50pm:
LOL.... that is my problem. I have worked on computers of some sort most of my life (I'm 64) and I am either learning less or forgetting more, not sure which.


Hehe, I hear you. My first comp of my own was a Tandy TRS-80. Dad had been working with machines since the 1960's punch card computers, and there where others around the house, but the tandy was mine. I knew it inside and out.
By the time of Dos machines became the thing, and Basic was becoming extinct, I stoped following the trends so much. Now there are twelve year olds that know more about programing than me, and I am only 32. ROFLMAO
 

...


Online Interactions Not Rated by the ESRB
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print