That's why I think FSX will keep going, and going, and going.  Faster computers and videocards are the key.  As far as animated people and things, more better. Ican imagine someone savy enough creating People and animal oriented "AI" addons, like "the Great Migration" of wildlife in Africa. Imagine flying over the African savannas and watching the wildebeast scatter! Or some "adventures", like a rescue mission to a small private island where the attractions of a biological amusement park have run amuck and are busy eating the few remaining tourists, unless you get to the tourists first.. (cue Jurassic Park music)

The problem for me, regarding FSX, is that unless I am prepared to throw zillions of pounds at all my hardware, it will never run as satisfactory or as smoothly as my FS 2004 with all my setting set to maximum.
Unless MS recode FSX to make it more efficient, etc, we will suffer even greater problems in the future with with forthcoming massive improvements to the scenery, objects, effects, etc, over the years, seriously affecting all our hardware..!
FSX devastates my various hardware upgrades, and causes disappointments every time!
Unless all those sliders can be wound up to the max in FSX, I am wasting my time with FSX!
Its such a shame!

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

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

I will be keeping my "FSX" and NOT going with the new FLIGHT after what I've seen so far, I really didn't see much improvement in the way of scenery or the scenery's building structures - looks more like a Video X-Box game or playstation from what I've seen and the fact Flight Simmers will NOT be able to add on' any Aircraft or scenery from other sites such as this or the other flight sim web sites , really  says NO-WAY to me stick with FSX !  So, what I've done with my FSX Gold Acceleration the last year - Thanks to ALL of you on these forums who take the time to write and provide information - I've taken my FSX Gold edition and hopefully "AMPED" it up / Enhanced it more than what I had by getting a way better Graphics / Video card upgrading my "RAM / Memory" ( I now sport 12 Gigs / Ram ) - ( 2 Gig AMD Graphics card) - ( Quadcore AMD Processor) Iused to have NVidea years ago , but thought I'd try AMD for grins and so far knock on wood - I really quite amazed at how the graphics show up good and the Rendering , clouds, sky & water.  So some of you know I managed to do these upgrades at a reasonable cost  improving my RAM and video graphics card for under 450.00 and I installed everything myself !!!  I am amazed at how the prices of memory RAM has really went down price wise thru out the years , back in 2005 I remember when I upgraded my computer to a full Gig of ram from 256 and those 2 sticks of RAM 512 each cost me about $170.00 back then , years ago , and that was only for 2 sticks of 512 ????  TODAY you can go way beyond that if your motherboard will let you and your other hardware - I would have givin anything to have just 6 gigs of RAM back in 2005 and who'd known today that i'd be lucky enough to have 12 gigs of RAM and FSX Gold edition.  I have way too many FREEWARE & PAYWARE Add On's to just get rid of FSX fot the new FLIGHT and then all the time it'd take to set it up and adjust and tweak everything to make it work - also I've probably got at least 70% of my Aircraft CFG files edited & tweaked , and a few CFG guage files too - now all that took a lotta time , months worth of work not to mention the abundance amount of time I've spent Researching and sifting & browsing thru every single FLIGHT Simulator web site you could name , and some some of you have never heard of - just to get some well designed and engineered Aircraft that not only Fly good, but look good as well , there have been times I've found myself on Flight Sim web sites searching & browsing for over 12 hours a day,, pulling some of the greatest & neatest looking Aircraft out there to test out in my Flight Simulator - for every 10 Aircraft out there that I download , about 1/2 of them make it into my Simulator - the other 1/2 that didn't make it, had technical issues or Graphical issues and they got kicked out - or - they just weren't Quite up to be what they were Claimed to be in the description of the title !!  I will say most are really decent Aircraft and it takes a lotta time to design and put together any of these aircraft and paint them to get them ready for us flight simmers to use in our flight simulators - to ALL you Aircraft & scenery designers "KEEP UP the Great Work" keep on going I love all your aircraft even the ones that cause a few problems and don't work and get kicked out of my sim, its still great fun to try to fix whats wrong and play Aircraft mechanic , and truthfully its a great hobby and it keeps me at home and out of the way I used to be WILD & CRAZY and hangin around all the Stripper / Go-Go joint - Topless Clubs, which I seemed to live at for years ,, it seems like.  Naw , I'll be keeping FSX Gold edition for many years to come - I keep ALL my Aircraft backed up on CD Disks - so far over 870 aircraft are saved on Disk in my virtual Hanger, which is really a Shelf on the wall catagorized - listed according to what type of Aircraft - Props - Jets - expermental - Military etc.  most are FSX and some are FS2004.  I even started a YOU TUBE channel to post good quality video's , right now I'm in the midst of making a Military Airshow Video with hundreds of Military Aircraft flying around and its taking a lot of time it'll probably be a 10 part Video , I have a lotta video editing to do but it will be up soon I'll post a link when its done - till then keep flying & designing painting aircraft & scenery and lets keep FSX kickin Azz cause it Rocks !!!!! the Jetranger

Hey dont forget that Lockheed Martin's Prepar3d basically works through FSX, and that they have already made many improvements to FSX. The improvements will only get better to fully take advantage of what FSX has to offer.

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

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.

Fozzer wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 7:43am:


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.

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

one question hat is OrbX?
and what is Prepare3d?

easy words please

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?

hyperpep111 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2012 at 10:38am:


Now THIS is what I call Off Topic.

Anyway, ceasing support doesn't mean releasing it on the abandonware circuit. Not even FS95 or Windows 95 are abandonware yet, I wouldn't hope it to happen too soon to XP of all platforms (which is one of the most successful so far).

Strategic Retreat wrote on Jan 15^th, 2012 at 12:40pm:


Actually, I was using XP as an example for if microsoft decided to cease support of fsx.
Prepar3d, Fsx and maybe even fs9 all have really bright futures.
Thanks faildozer and Strategic retreat.
And P.s I still think People flow is a great Idea.

I personally think that with the dropping the FS family by MS with their new game a great opportunity window has opened for FSX developers of all types and a very good one for those developing or planning a brand "New" Sim..The field is wide Open!!! but only those with a good eyesight for the future can or will see it. FSX has a lot still to be developed, just look how much new addons come in every month. Even X-plane is starting to get many new developers on line. Aerosoft will be coming next month with all european airports  for X-Plane 10 and a brand new sim is emerging from Switzerland...I repeat, when the chips are down it is when real big opportunities become available for real Entrepreneurs. MS has commited a real mistake unless they change course, which I doubt....I am pretty sure we will be seeing our hobby become much better than what it is today, mark my words...