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.

Steve M wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 7:27pm:


I tend to see the evolution of piracy protection to be like chasing a rainbow.  It almost never works, and when it does, it cuts into what profits companies like Microsoft so crave and harms the customer because they simply can't use their product without special measures....

But anyways, I don't think the means that are used to combat piracy will be that much of a factor in dictating the shelf-life of say, FS9 vs FSX.  Looking at FSX in particular, even if MS were to shut it down, we have to assume that everyone is a legal sucker who follows word by word of what MS considers lawful in the usage of their software and not dabble into the means of going around their software verification process.  Quite frankly, I think most sensible folks who've invested time and possibly money into FSX would rather find the means to get around this unless FSX becomes so hopelessly outdated compared to other software that using it is not worth their while anyways.  Otherwise, what's the harm in breaking into the software one has legitimately paid for and (for payware enthusiasts) have invested money into?

FS9 can hypothetically outlast FSX, but I doubt it would ever happen, even if MS pulls the plug.  FSX has evolved quite a bit over the past few years with technology that has without a doubt brought the armchair pilot closer and closer to what real flight is actually about.  I see the abandonment of FSX will come from obsolescence and not so much from it's online verification process. 

Rocket_Bird wrote on Jan 13^th, 2012 at 2:34pm:


Pretty much what I wanted to write myself.

Personally I have my doubts that the new measures invented for Flight will last all that long.

And yes, THERE IS INDEED a way to activate FSX without going through M$'s patented activation, but I'm quite sure I'd be banned if I wrote about it, so you're on your own. Not trying to be unhelpful here, simply trying to shield my a$$ from wrathful Mods and Admins ICBSBA's (Inter Continental Ballistic Suppository Ban Attack).


Rocket_Bird wrote on Jan 13^th, 2012 at 2:34pm:


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.

Steve M wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 6:35pm:

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.

Strategic Retreat wrote on Jan 14^th, 2012 at 10:11am:


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.  Based on the context that was stated earlier: disc4 vs online verification.  The hypothetical scenario is that FS9 would outlast FSX in this regard, but realistically, that probably wouldn't happen.  Speculation, yes, but I was not trying to put a "vs." scenario into this discussion.

On the topic that you brought up, however, I want to point out that while I won't disagree with you in regards to FS9 stability and performance vs. FSX, the FSX platform has evolved quite a bit and has a fairly bright future ahead of it.  The technology to run all it's goodies are here, contrary to what you stated earlier (I run a 3-year old machine, and I have no trouble putting it to the paces running stuff coming from PMDG, Orbx, etc.).  There are addons out there that can literally simulate the effects of bugs hitting the windshield; the subtle vibrations of running engines; consequences of incorrect airframe, engine, and prop management; how the aircraft reacts to different weather situations and so on.  The fidelity of new scenery packages are just astounding.  Few years ago, I would not have said the same (in fact, I regarded FSX as a fail), but the sim  has changed in ways I had not quite anticipated and I think there is a good reason why many developers have moved on from FS9 to support FSX in expanding it's capabilities. 

In terms of smooth and stable, it might never reach FS9, but I do believe that it is now at a level that is completely acceptable by what technology we have today.  You don't need 60 FPS to enjoy a game, when your human eye can only perceive about 25 would be a good analogy of this.  I've never really had much stability issues with FSX.  Rarely do I CTD except when I overload my resources by running multiple programs, tabbing out frequently, and so on..

Going back to the discussion about which sim would outlast each other, it probably doesn't really matter other than the entertainment value of talking about it.  I think if we give it another few years, other sims (probably not Flight...) might emerge to make both FS9 and FSX obsolete.   It certainly happened to some of my old favorites: like MSFS for Windows 95, Combat Flight Simulator series after that, etc.  Things change, and sometimes developments can improve things.  I think that FSX would probably still stick around a little longer, given it's developments, but that's my opinion.  Speculation can be fun. 

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/endofsupport.aspx

Strategic Retreat wrote on Jan 14^th, 2012 at 11:52pm:


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 DEFINITELY comes into the equation, for any simmers that wants realistic and immersive addons.

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?