Milviz stops developping FSX airplanes

[dggoofy]

Hi,

You surely saw this news : Milviz will stop FSX products. They will concentrate on 64bit P3D... Well OK.

I'm happy they developped products till today.

However I'm wondering how many does still use FSX as we can see here so many add-ons added regulary for FSX, even FS2004 and CFS2 ?

Cheers

Daniel
(Stick on FSX!)

[falcon409]

I think this was inevitable with the release of the 64bit platform. Both P3D and X-Plane11 are there and the advantages for many will outweigh the desire to stay with older versions. There will always be those within a certain Sim (FSX, FS9, CFS and so on) that will continue for any number of reasons. However the Developers will go where the technology takes them. New techniques only available with 64Bit will allow developers to increase the realism of their aircraft, both in appearance and systems. . .something that has been user driven for years. There will probably be freeware developers who will continue to produce aircraft for FSX or FS9. . .but it just makes sense for the Payware folks to move with the times.

[YoYo]

For me no problem. Its a big problem for developer to support all versions in the same time. In different versions bugs are present or not.
FSX corner is popular still, but the FSX its the title from ... 2007 :biggrin-new:.
Now on my disc I havent FSX from years, just new versions of P3D to the 4.4 and soon 4.5 (and this year or next maybe - P3D 5.0 with new engine).
FSX to P3D it was big jump.

Btw.

https://66.media.tumblr.com/0e5c2d9f4c9cc5a55569445589e31d73/tumblr_inline_pjzjd2By0W1uzd1gc_1280.png
https://download.navigraph.com/docs/navigraph-flightsim-community-survey-2018-final.pdf

[mgchrist5]

This seems to be the trend nowadays. I can't fault developers for discontinuing FSX development, since we're ultimately talking about a nearly 13 year old platform that's been surpassed by newer tech. I'm still solidly in the FSX camp for the time being, as it suits my needs and runs reliably and relatively smoothly on my aging system. Like many others, I also hesitate to changeover due to the amount of time and money I've invested in FSX addons.

I'm actually contemplating reinstalling FS2004 on my machine, as there are a few FS9 planes that were never fully compatible with FSX that I sorely miss (Dreamfleet 727 and AFG Caravelles). I'm moving in the wrong direction, I suppose!

[heywooood]

too bad.

I have spent too much money on FSX to let it go and start over. I had a hard time justifying the expense once - it just isn't feasible to do it all over again.
From my perspective, most of the Milviz product needed the 64bit overhead just to function properly. I refuse to spend that kind of money on something that won't function smoothly on my hardware.
For those who can afford to keep pushing more hardware and software purchases through their homes year after year I congratulate you. Well Done.
FSX in 32bit works well enough for me and will have to do until I win the lottery or leave the table.

Maybe when Lockheed can upgrade their versions without breaking things, or when some developers stop charging extra to those who bought for FSX to switch to P3D versions...
My hope is that future hardware will make enough of a difference that 3rd party developers who also love FSX and are in the same boat as me will carry on - like they have with FS2004
I can always justify new hardware.

[dvj]

too bad.

I have spent too much money on FSX to let it go and start over. I had a hard time justifying the expense once - it just isn't feasible to do it all over again.
From my perspective, most of the Milviz product needed the 64bit overhead just to function properly. I refuse to spend that kind of money on something that won't function smoothly on my hardware.
For those who can afford to keep pushing more hardware and software purchases through their homes year after year I congratulate you. Well Done.
FSX in 32bit works well enough for me and will have to do until I win the lottery or leave the table.

Maybe when Lockheed can upgrade their versions without breaking things, or when some developers stop charging extra to those who bought for FSX to switch to P3D versions...
My hope is that future hardware will make enough of a difference that 3rd party developers who also love FSX and are in the same boat as me will carry on - like they have with FS2004
I can always justify new hardware.

100% agree. Plus we already have dozens and dozens of aircraft in FSX, most of which don't get flown.

[MustangL2W]

too bad.

I have spent too much money on FSX to let it go and start over. I had a hard time justifying the expense once - it just isn't feasible to do it all over again.
From my perspective, most of the Milviz product needed the 64bit overhead just to function properly. I refuse to spend that kind of money on something that won't function smoothly on my hardware.
For those who can afford to keep pushing more hardware and software purchases through their homes year after year I congratulate you. Well Done.
FSX in 32bit works well enough for me and will have to do until I win the lottery or leave the table.

Maybe when Lockheed can upgrade their versions without breaking things, or when some developers stop charging extra to those who bought for FSX to switch to P3D versions...
My hope is that future hardware will make enough of a difference that 3rd party developers who also love FSX and are in the same boat as me will carry on - like they have with FS2004
I can always justify new hardware.


My sentiments exactly...

[Jafo]

Dang and Blast!
What does that mean for the F105 they had in the works?
I've been waiting patiently for that one for eons....and would pay serious money for it.

[WarHorse47]

Hi,

You surely saw this news : Milviz will stop FSX products. They will concentrate on 64bit P3D... Well OK.

I'm happy they developped products till today.

However I'm wondering how many does still use FSX as we can see here so many add-ons added regulary for FSX, even FS2004 and CFS2 ?

Cheers

Daniel
(Stick on FSX!)Not unexpected. Other developers like Dino are rolling out products that are P3D only.

I'm sticking with FSX for many of the reasons stated, but also because I have no intention on spending hours setting up a new flight sim and tuning things to work properly. I've already done that with FSXA and am pleased with the results. I prefer to enjoy the hobby (flying), and not spend time being a technician and tweaking things all the time. I may change my mind if and only if I replace my current hardware with something more powerful down the road, but for now its FSXA.

[srgalahad]

I'm sticking with FSX for many of the reasons stated, but also because I have no intention on spending hours setting up a new flight sim and tuning things to work properly. I've already done that with FSXA and am pleased with the results. I prefer to enjoy the hobby (flying), and not spend time being a technician and tweaking things all the time. I may change my mind if and only if I replace my current hardware with something more powerful down the road, but for now its FSXA.

AMEN! :encouragement:

[tgycgijoes]

I am in the FSX/A crowd because of the hardware. I bought my current box version and the SP's when they came out. For the longest time I still flew FS9 until the XP computer quit and I had to replace both the laptop AND the "desktop" so I opted and bought for me a very capable Windows 7 laptop. It does a superb job I think even running ORBX. I would consider LM P3D V4x except according to their checkup of my system it will only run P3D V2 perfectly and V3 OK. I have watched videos of V2 and V3 and they're still 32bit so for my money my FSX/A is just as good so I don't need to spend the money especially since P3D "tolerates" my FSX stuff I read. With all the freeware and payware aircraft and scenery I have; all the freeware scenery and aircraft that are still out there it will probably be a long time until I switch. I can't afford to buy a new system and pay alimony LOL! GAS or Dino's recent releases which are FSX are fantastic. Or how about the gorgeous N30 scenery Falcon409 just did. There are still enough freeware AND payware developers I think that can find more than enough customers for FSX products and if two versions can be made within their development budget for the project, twice the customer base to present it to.

[TuFun]

Same old tune FS9 users were saying. FSX-SE needs no tweaks. Load up and fly! :biggrin-new:

[Josh Patterson]

Dang and Blast!
What does that mean for the F105 they had in the works?
I've been waiting patiently for that one for eons....and would pay serious money for it.
Me too Jafo, me too. Maybe since it was started before the announcement it will be Milviz's final hurrah on FSX?

[Portia911]

Dang and Blast!
What does that mean for the F105 they had in the works?
I've been waiting patiently for that one for eons....and would pay serious money for it.

. . . not to mention the King Air

[heywooood]

Dang and Blast!
What does that mean for the F105 they had in the works?
I've been waiting patiently for that one for eons....and would pay serious money for it.

I would expect to see all of the Century series fighters in DCS before too long..

[wombat666]

I would expect to see all of the Century series fighters in DCS before too long..

Seems to be where the money trail leads.
:pirate:

[gman5250]

From my chair:

All of the above comments are valid and indicative of a common dilemma. Technology and markets are always moving forward.
If I may, I'd like to add one or two additional observations.

I find myself in a situation where I am more or less forced to build a completely new system, with very limited resources. I am, of course, in need of a system that is capable of not only running a 64bit simulation platform, but also effectively managing resource intensive art, video & 3D modeling software. After some concentrated research I find that I will be able to pull off my rebuild for less than I had originally forecast, and move up to a Generation 9 system. Am I making sacrifices to make it happen? Sure.

For those who are comfortable in FSX 32bit that's a great thing. Add-ons are plentiful and very well developed. If your concerns about moving into P3D 64bit center on the cost of upgrading systems, let me offer some good news.

The price of processing, video cards, memory and storage have become very favorable for building extremely capable systems at a modest cost. Tech has advanced so quickly in the last two years, what used to be considered expensive has become quite affordable. Memory, SSD, CPU, GPU and motherboards only one generation old have come down dramatically. Realistically, one can build a very fast and capable system for a few hundred dollars. I would do some serious price shopping and find out exactly what it would cost to build a system that would suit your needs. You may be pleasantly surprised. I was.

That said, I'd like to make a point about P3Dv4 64bit/PBR in its current version, and V5 which will most likely be full PBR...from the developers standpoint.

PREPAR3D is coming very, very close to a stage of development that rivals, or even surpasses DCS. Bear in mind that P3D is a global simulator, that will very likely make full use of Physically Based Rendering and eventually ray tracing. The impact of that cannot be understated, especially as it applies to the simulation environment. My ongoing PBR development, including side by side comparison of DCS and P3Dv4 PBR have shown me, conclusively, that the two are becoming virtually indistinguishable. This brings me to the point of the developers.

When developers begin to focus on modeling for P3D using the same tools and techniques that DCS developers have been exploring for quite some time, the improvements in that simulation will be dramatic. This comes at a cost. Speaking from my own experience working with PBR modeling, particle rendering, ray tracing and their applications in the simulator, it is logical that developers must choose carefully where they wish to place their R&D energies.

The differences between FSX modeling and 64bit PBR modeling will very shortly require that any developer who wishes to offer products for both will be required to maintain two separate and dedicated development modalities. This will require twice the energy and expense. The learning curve alone is prohibitively expensive and the investments in software can be staggering. Most developers are small or mid sized operations. Some are individuals. Amortizing the cost of moving into the main stream "gaming" world are simply unrealistic when attempting to maintain two work flows, art programs, marketing, support...etc.

Our community is facing a kind of crossroads. The good thing is that everyone can make their own choice and remain very comfortable with their decisions. I support the developers who choose to move forward as the technology moves upward on the exponential. I also encourage any and all interested in developing for FSX to learn the process. The software is inexpensive, some of it is even free i.3. GMAX or Gimp. Those are fine platforms and can be utilized very well.

I have enjoyed Milviz projects, including the King Air in it's various stages of development, for years now. I'll be quite content to wait for that airplane and all future releases. I absolutely can't wait to see what comes out of their labs for V5. I congratulate them for their commitment to a fine product line over the years, and for the courage to make a tough decision.

Kudos, and good luck gentlemen.

[heywooood]

Yes well to be clear - I have no problem upgrading my hardware and laying out some dollars to do so.
That is all money well spent. I think your assertion that developing for so many various flight sims is expensive is unassailable. And that building virtual models for the 64bit sims is exceedingly difficult making developers even more vulnerable to market ‘failure’ when a product release falls far short of sales expectations. This to my mind makes ongoing FSX development a bit MORE attractive to indivdual and small house developers who want to make money without the overhead.
Again - I dont mind buying new hardware when there is a quantum leap in CPU / GPU technology - thats money well spent. What I refuse to do at this point is buy things like libraries of scenery and aircraft I ALREADY OWN. I expect that while the 32bit will continue to be a bottleneck I am hoping advances in hardware will eventually provide me such a huge bottle it wont matter.

[Catboat]

Thanks Heywooood, ********, and all. Though I think it is inevitable that eventually I may have to upgrade, I started off with FS9 and then on to FSX with which I am totally happy. My main concern is like Heywooood states, all the earlier models that I have would be extremely expensive to replace. Most developers now offer a choice, e.g. Carenado with its tick the box: FSX, FSX Steam, P3D etc. I have opened accounts with most of the payware developers I use, so I believe that hopefully, should I go to P3D in the future, that those models I have already purchased, could be re-downloaded through "My Account" to P3D. It would still mean a lot of work, but at least the money has already been spent. Milviz products have always been excellent, at last count I have 8, and I would hate to lose them should I not be able to download to P3D. In the meantime, I'll stick with FSX for as long as possible.

[expat]

I dont mind buying new hardware when there is a quantum leap in CPU / GPU technology - thats money well spent. What I refuse to do at this point is buy things like libraries of scenery and aircraft I ALREADY OWN. I expect that while the 32bit will continue to be a bottleneck I am hoping advances in hardware will eventually provide me such a huge bottle it wont matter.

P3D 64 bit is the quantum leap. I believe some on this thread explaining why they are sticking to FSX may be short changing themselves and perhaps are being - unnecessarily - defeatist, due to a misapprehension of P3D v 4+. I built my rig seven years ago strictly to run FSX. I haven't changed a thing since jumping to P3D when they went to 64 bit. People here may correct me - I have not researched the specs in a while - but my understanding has been the whole rationale of 64 bit was to if anything reduce the demand on available cpu/gpu and memory so that - in my case at least - my FPS actually doubled going from FSX to P3D with the same hardware. As ******** says, a lot of hardware upgrades can be done today on a tight budget (though Fx cards at least a year ago were very pricey due to bitcoin mining but not sure where they are today).

As far as backward compatibility and potential paying twice for addons, that is really more the exception than the rule in my experience. Firstly, most if not all native FSX aircraft models can be copied and pasted into P3D4. Conversions of older models (e.g., Milton's Howard, CalClassics DC-6B) are increasing more than ever and it's a joy to fly these again in P3D. Second, Orbx has wisely and helpfully allowed owners of FTX global to upgrade to P3D4 at no cost. I have to say, if you just add Active Sky (payware) and tomatoshade (freeware) the look of the sim is absolutely breathtaking and silky smooth with 40-60 FPS. The cost of buying P3D itself can be half of the cost of a single payware aircraft add on.

I moved quite late to FSX and hesitated a little before moving to P3D - and now regret not moving earlier in both cases. Part of this is the very human trait of liking to stay in one's comfort zone. FSX is now 12 years old. I fully respect individuals' budgets, preferences and choices. My point is that with fairly modest means - and an open mind - people may be able to enjoy a massively improved experience that they may be missing out on unnecessarily.

[shotgunshack]

Thanks Heywooood, ********, and all. Though I think it is inevitable that eventually I may have to upgrade, I started off with FS9 and then on to FSX with which I am totally happy. My main concern is like Heywooood states, all the earlier models that I have would be extremely expensive to replace. Most developers now offer a choice, e.g. Carenado with its tick the box: FSX, FSX Steam, P3D etc. I have opened accounts with most of the payware developers I use, so I believe that hopefully, should I go to P3D in the future, that those models I have already purchased, could be re-downloaded through "My Account" to P3D. It would still mean a lot of work, but at least the money has already been spent. Milviz products have always been excellent, at last count I have 8, and I would hate to lose them should I not be able to download to P3D. In the meantime, I'll stick with FSX for as long as possible.

Out of the last 18 years of simming the last two have been my happiest with a new Coffee Lake PC and associated ancilliaries running FSX:SE beautifully. Also as FSX and flight simming in general appears to be losing its appeal ebay has been an absolute paradise for cheap boxed scenery and planes. It seems a shame that so many people struggled for years to make FSX perfect and gave up just as the home computer and Steam came to fruition.

[BendyFlyer]

I can also understand why anybody in this business commercially would shift to say P3D and 64 bit development, if your in the computer game you simply have no other choice. Legacy software work is a very narrow niche indeed. I can also understand a lot of peoples view about the cost of a new rig or alternatively upgrading current sim models etc for P3D. I guess you would have to say if your going to make that change a developer are you moving into a diminishing market, after all FSX has been declining steadily in terms of users which is why MS booted it off shore to LM in the first place.

I fall into the camp of having spent years working on FSX and a myriad of supporting programming and other development tools I now have so customised my FSX that I have neither the energy or the inclination to go and do that all over again in a 64 bit environment. My FSX has become a time capsule in more ways than one, I have customised the scenery etc to an earlier period (Basically pre 1960) and I am still at it doing different places about the world as my interest shifts with a variety of historical aircraft and where they were operated. I just would not do all that work again in for P3D and more especially like others I have a 64 bit PC and it is more than adequate for anything else I do, yes it is ageing but when if falls over I am backed up and will merely keep the same going again.

I also prepared to tolerate the limitations of the 32 bit FSX because simply there are very many models that just made it to FSX via port overs or remodelling to FSX not to mention even Milviz finally did renditions of aircraft that I really wanted the DHC2 and DHC3 for example. Others like the Capt Sim B707 and 727 do not look likely to get redone for P3D and I just cannot see many other developers who are really one man shows making the change either, they may or they may not we have already seen how many fine builders and developers bailed out when FSX came along. I guess on lots of levels my aircraft collection is complete and there are no new versions of anything I would get and the few that I would like brought back from the 2004 era will probably never be done in P3D either. Now I do my own scenery I can keep that process going for ever probably well nearly.

I was the end of the road some time ago for FSX that is true but now there are two competitors for those keen to move up and modernise P3D and XPlane and I have to say I prefer the latter for lots of reasons.

Interesting anyway because MILVIZ and others still need to make a dollar but a simmer like me is unlikely to help them keep afloat, now there is a real challenge.

[Naruto-kun]

Just to give a programmer's perspective (and one from Milviz at that), my dll gauges are getting kinda big. Takes a while to compile. Now if I have to do that 6 times for each installer (eval, commercial, entertainment for x86 and x64), it can get painful, especially when I am trying to manage at least 4 different projects and do R&D to keep up.

Secondly, P3D v4 makes it super easy to do what I always dreamed of, namely genuine IR FLIR/LANTIRN, A-G radar patchmaps, and a TFR E-scope with genuine raw video.

Third, LM opened the interface to DX11 render to texture functions, and while I could do something similar in FSX (We caused a stir with our DX11 cockpit lighting in FSX back in the day), it was painful and hard to do. Now it is much easier to do it without hurting framerates.

And finally, LM also opened the interface to completely stop the sim from fighting back on our external flight models, which is good news because our external flight model guy on the T-38C and F-15C and F-16C already puts out flight models that rival if not exceed DCS quality.

[tgycgijoes]

I understand what you are saying and where you are going as a developer. In a different venue I had a commercial hobby business for 30 years. I can only speak from my corner that I won't be able to maybe ever experience these improvements because at least for the near future there is no new computer or LM in my future. I wish you much success truly and that the LM V4 community support all your efforts. This is closed for me. Back to my FSX/A. :wavey:

[huub vink]

Thanks for uploading this graph YoYo. It really makes me feel special, as I'm part of a small minority and in the near future I will be even more special :biggrin-new:.
And being special has its price. So I can easily accept Milviz will not longer develop for me....

Cheers,
Huub



For me no problem. Its a big problem for developer to support all versions in the same time. In different versions bugs are present or not.
FSX corner is popular still, but the FSX its the title from ... 2007 :biggrin-new:.
Now on my disc I havent FSX from years, just new versions of P3D to the 4.4 and soon 4.5 (and this year or next maybe - P3D 5.0 with new engine).
FSX to P3D it was big jump.

Btw.

https://66.media.tumblr.com/0e5c2d9f4c9cc5a55569445589e31d73/tumblr_inline_pjzjd2By0W1uzd1gc_1280.png
https://download.navigraph.com/docs/navigraph-flightsim-community-survey-2018-final.pdf

[Priller]

Somehow it seems inevitable that FSX(:SE) will be dropped by more and more devs. I don't think that there are payware devs still developing for FS9/CFS2/CFS3, or are there?

32 bit just is a thing of the past. it gave us huge enjoyment, but things evolve. As a young lad, I enjoyed my first car immensely. A second hand Citroën Visa 1.4. But I wouldn't think of buying one today! Things evolve and 32 bit has just been pushed out of the evolution. Call it Darwinism.

Not only that, but FSX stopped evolving almost right after it's release. P3D is still moving on. Same thing for X-Plane, but somehow I don't really like that platform. It's Prepar3D all the way for me.

And please: "don't mention the EULA". ;)

Cheers,

Priller

[Bjoern]

It's a fair decision. FSX is absolutely done for in terms of rendering engine capability when confronted with all the high poly models that are prevalent nowadays.

[dggoofy]

Me too Jafo, me too. Maybe since it was started before the announcement it will be Milviz's final hurrah on FSX?

Nop... finished... end... stop. Even the very soon T38C will be released for P3D 4.4 only...

[dvj]

From my chair:

All of the above comments are valid and indicative of a common dilemma. Technology and markets are always moving forward.
If I may, I'd like to add one or two additional observations.

I find myself in a situation where I am more or less forced to build a completely new system, with very limited resources. I am, of course, in need of a system that is capable of not only running a 64bit simulation platform, but also effectively managing resource intensive art, video & 3D modeling software. After some concentrated research I find that I will be able to pull off my rebuild for less than I had originally forecast, and move up to a Generation 9 system. Am I making sacrifices to make it happen? Sure.

For those who are comfortable in FSX 32bit that's a great thing. Add-ons are plentiful and very well developed. If your concerns about moving into P3D 64bit center on the cost of upgrading systems, let me offer some good news.

The price of processing, video cards, memory and storage have become very favorable for building extremely capable systems at a modest cost. Tech has advanced so quickly in the last two years, what used to be considered expensive has become quite affordable. Memory, SSD, CPU, GPU and motherboards only one generation old have come down dramatically. Realistically, one can build a very fast and capable system for a few hundred dollars. I would do some serious price shopping and find out exactly what it would cost to build a system that would suit your needs. You may be pleasantly surprised. I was.

That said, I'd like to make a point about P3Dv4 64bit/PBR in its current version, and V5 which will most likely be full PBR...from the developers standpoint.

PREPAR3D is coming very, very close to a stage of development that rivals, or even surpasses DCS. Bear in mind that P3D is a global simulator, that will very likely make full use of Physically Based Rendering and eventually ray tracing. The impact of that cannot be understated, especially as it applies to the simulation environment. My ongoing PBR development, including side by side comparison of DCS and P3Dv4 PBR have shown me, conclusively, that the two are becoming virtually indistinguishable. This brings me to the point of the developers.

When developers begin to focus on modeling for P3D using the same tools and techniques that DCS developers have been exploring for quite some time, the improvements in that simulation will be dramatic. This comes at a cost. Speaking from my own experience working with PBR modeling, particle rendering, ray tracing and their applications in the simulator, it is logical that developers must choose carefully where they wish to place their R&D energies.

The differences between FSX modeling and 64bit PBR modeling will very shortly require that any developer who wishes to offer products for both will be required to maintain two separate and dedicated development modalities. This will require twice the energy and expense. The learning curve alone is prohibitively expensive and the investments in software can be staggering. Most developers are small or mid sized operations. Some are individuals. Amortizing the cost of moving into the main stream "gaming" world are simply unrealistic when attempting to maintain two work flows, art programs, marketing, support...etc.

Our community is facing a kind of crossroads. The good thing is that everyone can make their own choice and remain very comfortable with their decisions. I support the developers who choose to move forward as the technology moves upward on the exponential. I also encourage any and all interested in developing for FSX to learn the process. The software is inexpensive, some of it is even free i.3. GMAX or Gimp. Those are fine platforms and can be utilized very well.

I have enjoyed Milviz projects, including the King Air in it's various stages of development, for years now. I'll be quite content to wait for that airplane and all future releases. I absolutely can't wait to see what comes out of their labs for V5. I congratulate them for their commitment to a fine product line over the years, and for the courage to make a tough decision.

Kudos, and good luck gentlemen.

gman, I would value your input. What hardware configuration are you suggesting for a few hundred dollars to drive P3D? By the time I put in a new motherboard, power supply, adequate memory, SSD, hard drive, graphics card, 64 bit OS, and a late gen CPU, I find my cost in the thousands of dollars.

-d

[Priller]

Why would you need a new PSU? Oh, and btw, any rig with a 4 GHz processor (in turbo mode or overclocked), 16 Gb's of ram, a 500 Gb SSD and a graphics card with 8 Gb's of it's own ram will run P3D v4.4 quite nicely. That is hundreds of dollars, not thousands.

[expat]

You just made my point earlier with far fewer words. Unlike the move from FS9 to FSX now many years ago which required a pricey jump in gear, the move from FSX to P3D is being misunderstood to require a similar outlay however this is is not necessary.

[BendyFlyer]

I would say it is a healthy cross section of users who have posted to the news about MILVIZ and probably a quite representative cross section. I have no issues what so ever with the more up to date software or the programming benefits plus how it opens up the platform to cross integration and hence even more improvement. I have quite a few MILVIZ products and they are all first class sure they will become even better. Not sure however as I said in my first post how you can grow or hold onto a profitable market given the proliferation of other gaming products which are not flight simulation. Gosh even my 6 year old grand daughters go on line and game away with 30 or 40 others chasing dragons or similar.

[gman5250]

gman, I would value your input. What hardware configuration are you suggesting for a few hundred dollars to drive P3D? By the time I put in a new motherboard, power supply, adequate memory, SSD, hard drive, graphics card, 64 bit OS, and a late gen CPU, I find my cost in the thousands of dollars.

-d

For my repair, it was necessary to replace my Mobo and CPU. I decided that I should go Generation 9, so that meant new memory. I chose to switch from water cooling to thermal, and I added an M.2 drive to the build for the OS. I kept my tower, GPU, optical drives, external storage and my 2.5 GB SSD that currently houses my sim. I also purchased a new PSU, but that may or may not have been the problem, so I'll leave that out of the rebuild cost.

I did a ton of research on CPU speed/temps, SSD life expectancy, RAM speed/latency, system optimization and heat management. The new build will optimize the system, using the M.2 for the OS, optical drives for big data storage (only a single 2TB WD Black onboard) and external server for additional optical storage. When P3Dv5 is released I'll add a 2TB M.2 NVMe for that purpose. FYI, leave a lot of space open on an SSD for system re-write cycles. The new system will run lean and efficiently, utilizing the various components to the best overall performance.

One important thing to bear in mind, using SSD appropriately improves load speeds. Optical storage is much better for data, but slower. I plan to add another 32GB of RAM later for 3D Studio, Photoshop, Quixel, Substance Painter and the video software. That should cover it!

I swallowed the pain and went for this build for one reason. I intend to develop for 64bit, full PBR, ray tracing platforms. I can't do it on a mediocre system.


The new system build: Prices in USD on Newegg

MoBo: ASUS ROG Strix Z390-E $259.99
I don't plan on overclocking, so I kept my cost lower by not purchasing boards designed for that purpose.

CPU: Intel Core i_9 9900K $599.99
I stepped up to the plate on this one because most of my time is in development & video work. Flying is a lower priority, but it will certainly benefit from a rock crusher CPU.

Memory: CORSAIR Vengeance RGB Pro 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3200 $249.99
I could save a few bucks here, but I opted for the RGB "Bling"...call it whimsy.

Cooler Master: Master Maker 8 $114.95
The 9900k runs warm, but well with acceptable if not overclocked. I did the research and decided that thermal cooling would suit my requirements, and avoid the possibility of freezing or leaking from my aging AIO Corsair water loop. The Master Maker 8 runs within one or two degrees of an AIO, so that's fine for me.

Note: The thermal unit has two fans and can be rotated to accommodate memory stick height, and more importantly, to direct airflow. The unit sits directly over the GPU so the fans can be used to enhance airflow around the GPU, M.2 onboard SSDs, and memory sticks. Overall the airflow can be controlled and interior air pressure adjusted for optimum airflow. All it needs is cowl flaps. lol

Total $1,224.92


The optional M.2 was another $167.99
SAMSUNG 860 EVO Series M.2 2280 1TB SATA III V-NAND 3-bit MLC Internal Solid State Drive

That was an acceptable upgrade investment for me, considering my needs. It's also a huge upgrade from what I already had. See stats.
This is going to be a monster. :applause:


A good Generation 7 machine, with forward comparability and which will run a 64bit sim can be done for substantially less if you keep your tower and peripherals.


i7 An Alternative Re-Build

i7 Intel or comparable AMD processor starts a little under $400.00

Gen7 MoBo $150.00

250GB SSD $49.00

Memory 16GB $127.00

That's an extremely capable system, and comparable to what I was running before the system died. I was easily making 60+ FPS in V4 with the old system. That's fantastic and good even for video work.

I would suggest that anyone wanting to attempt their own build do their due diligence, cross check system specs for compatibility and watch a few build tutorials. With the new generation hardware it's pretty hard to bork a build, and you can save a ton.

Hope this was helpful. :encouragement:

[dvj]

For my repair, it was necessary to replace my Mobo and CPU. I decided that I should go Generation 9, so that meant new memory. I chose to switch from water cooling to thermal, and I added an M.2 drive to the build for the OS. I kept my tower. GPU, spinning drives, external storage and my 2.5 gig SSD that currently houses my sim. I also purchased a new PSU, but that may or may not have been the problem, so I'll leave that out of the rebuild cost.

My repair build: Prices in USD on Newegg

MoBo: ASUS ROG Strix Z390-E $259.99
I don't plan on overclocking, so I kept my cost lower by not purchasing boards designed for that purpose.

CPU Intel Core i_9 9900K $599.99
I stepped up to the plate on this one because most of my time is in development & video work. Flying is a lower priority.

Memory:CORSAIR Vengeance RGB Pro 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3200 $249.99

Thermal Cooler: Cooler Master Master Maker 8 $114.95

Total $1,224.92


The optional M.2 was another $167.99
SAMSUNG 860 EVO Series M.2 2280 1TB SATA III V-NAND 3-bit MLC Internal Solid State Drive

That was an acceptable upgrade investment for me, considering my needs. It's also a huge upgrade from what I already had. See stats.


A good Generation 7 machine, with forward comparability and which will run a 64bit sim can be done for substantially less if you keep your tower and peripherals.

i7 or comparable AMD processor starts a little under $400.00

Gen7 MoBo $150.00

250GB SSD $ 49.00

Memory 16GB $127.00

That's an extremely capable system, and comparable to what I was running before the system died. I was easily making 60+ FPS in V4 with the old system. That's fantastic and good even for video work.

I would suggest that anyone wanting to attempt their own build do their due diligence, cross check system specs for compatibility and watch a few build tutorials. With the new generation hardware it's pretty hard to bork a build, and you can save a ton.

Hope this was helpful. :encouragement:SAMSUNG 860 EVO Series M.2 2280 1TB SATA III V-NAND 3-bit MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) MZ-

Very helpful. And I am sure for many others too.

thanks!

[WarHorse47]

Very helpful. And I am sure for many others too.

thanks!Not necessarily... I for one do not have the technical knowledge or skills that Gman has to put together such a system. Furthermore, what is missing for me is the effort or cost to get things up and running smoothly BEFORE purchasing and install a new flight sim.

When I migrated to Win8.1 I spent hours attempting to install some older software, only to end up purchasing a compatible replacement with the right drivers. After reading about the horrors some folks experience with Win10 I can only imagine how many hours I would spend on that migration.

As for P3D I'm just going to wait until the time is right. For now, I'll stick with what I have. :wavey:

[gman5250]

Not necessarily... I for one do not have the technical knowledge or skills that Gman has to put together such a system. Furthermore, what is missing for me is the effort or cost to get things up and running smoothly BEFORE purchasing and install a new flight sim.

When I migrated to Win8.1 I spent hours attempting to install some older software, only to end up purchasing a compatible replacement with the right drivers. After reading about the horrors some folks experience with Win10 I can only imagine how many hours I would spend on that migration.

As for P3D I'm just going to wait until the time is right. For now, I'll stick with what I have. :wavey:

OK...this is important.

One month ago, when the system went south, I knew nothing about building computers, specs or the technical labyrinth associated with the process. I've used this time to learn as much as I could, in order that I can do my own build. I've never built a PC before.

Basically, you need a Phillips Head Screwdriver...that's it. The assembly is logical and requires very little technical knowledge beyond grounding yourself prior to the build. I'm completely confident that I can do the build, and if I can...anyone can.

Windows 10...that's a deep well, but I can tell you that I have tamed the beast and it works quite well for me. Turn off all of the telemetry features and the OS is very placid. There are good install tutorials on that.

Regarding P3D, I still rent by the month for less than the cost of three Starbucks coffees. Maybe I'll buy V5, but I won't know until we get there.

[wombat666]

Building your own system is actually quite simple IF you plan properly before you spend a single $.
Read each and every manual or review, ask questions (there are no dumb questions, only dumb answers) and shop at a PC specialist store, not a chain.
All building your own consists of is connecting cables and fitting parts into a box.
I've been doing it since 1997 for myself and family, friends and the odd blow in, as for costs, buy cheap and you get (mostly) crap.

Buy smart and ALWAYS negotiate.

My current build is relatively capable, BUT if I run intense weather and cloud cover at high setting I will often get the BSOD........so I have a new build taking shape.
What you first must take into account is what you want to run, then decide on a budget.
I liken it to tuning cars, 'How fast do you want to go? ........How much have you got to spend?'
:pirate:
Be aware of the caveats that usually come with a commercially built system, often with a notice (in very small print) that if the case is opened before a specified time the warranty (if any) is void.

Now get out there and roll your own.

And a PS: I prefer to buy P3D up front, it's cheaper than most of the payware releases these days.
I should add that my system does duty as a pixel pusher for my photography as well as assorted sims.

As Gordon mentions, you really only need a Phillips Head screwdriver (actually two, a stubby and a right angle) but an extension magnet strut is also really useful..........:biggrin-new:

[hairyspin]

As Gordon says. It’s really easy to put together a pc and so long as you do your homework you’ll wonder afterwards what the fuss was about. Check sizes for memory modules in case they sit under big heatsinks like a cpu cooler and don’t buy a full size motherboard for a microATX case! This is my second build I’m posting from.

[WarHorse47]

Notice how this discussion has gone sideways... All this conversation about building a new computer because one developer has decided to no longer develop or support products for FSXA.

Personally, I'm still not convinced that all the time, effort and money is worth it just because of one developer's decision. I barely have time to enjoy the hobby as it is, much less to upgrade my entire system. Sorry, guys.

Thanks for all the responses, but I think its time to move on.. :untroubled:

[wombat666]

Notice how this discussion has gone sideways... All this conversation about building a new computer because one developer has decided to no longer develop or support products for FSXA.

Personally, I'm still not convinced that all the time, effort and money is worth it just because of one developer's decision. I barely have time to enjoy the hobby as it is, much less to upgrade my entire system. Sorry, guys.

Thanks for all the responses, but I think its time to move on.. :untroubled:

Agree with get back OT but here's a thought........only one developer appears to have taken this decision so far, but perhaps the 'First of Many'?
:encouragement:

[b52bob]

I think you are forgetting you can plug in your old hard drive and not go through any setting hassles. Believe me, the advance performance would be well worth it.

i remember very well when FSX was released and very few people could run it. It took a super computer to get anything but a slide show. It took me a year before I upgraded. Time marches on and FSX can Run well on a “mid” spec computer.

[blanston12]

I Certainly think more developers will do this. As others have already said, up until 4.4 developers could make there FSX models and do a simple convert to 64 bit and it would work, or make it for 64 bit and then 'simplify' there model to work in FSX. As new features like PBR become more accepted and even demanded by customers its not just a matter of converting from one to the other, now you have to re-implement features using completely different methods.

As you can see from many of the comments for a large percentage who are saying with FSX the reason is financial, they don't want to spend the money on the new hardware and/or software to run the latest SIM. So if your a developer and your creating something new, of course your going to make sure its P3D compatible before you do FSX, as you can see from the chart YoYo posted P3D users now out number FSX uses and you know there willing to spend money on new products.

So developers are always going to ask themselves if its worth making the product FSX compatible and as the FSX base continues to shrink the answer is more like no to FSX than yes.

[Josh Patterson]

Nop... finished... end... stop. Even the very soon T38C will be released for P3D 4.4 only...
Well, looks like I'll have to get a new machine to run P3D and maybe DCS as well as admittedly they both look marvelous, and I really want both Milviz's Thud and Razbam's Mig-19. I can run both machines through my TV so I'm not REALLY losing anything as FSX or P3D would be available depending on what I feel like flying. I just can't cut the strings on FSX though because of the investment in add ons (I could buy a nice used car, or an engine for my RX-8) over 5 or 6 years and it does still work well enough for me.

[dhazelgrove]

Agree with get back OT but here's a thought........only one developer appears to have taken this decision so far, but perhaps the 'First of Many'?
:encouragement:

That's the truth.

There's at least one other developer already moved to P4D - namely Simworks Studios. Their T-37 Tweet is P4D-only.

Dave

[gman5250]

I'm thinking it may be beneficial to launch a thread covering the challenges and benefits of moving towards 64bit. The 32bit platform will eventually be abandoned entirely by manufacturers and developers as well. From what I have read on this post, it seems a comprehensive look at costs and the real learning curve could relieve some of the anxiety in this area.

I'd be willing to kick it off if there is interest.

[mike_cyul]

Agree with get back OT but here's a thought........only one developer appears to have taken this decision so far, but perhaps the 'First of Many'?
:encouragement:

Flight Replicas sales are almost equally divided between FSX and P3D, with no trends one way or the other so far. And so, no intention of cutting anything off. :)


My off-the-shelf-but-higher-end computer handles FSX and P3Dv4, both with ORBX full sceneries, without any problems. (That is, until I installed the new True Earth Great Britain South in P3Dv4, and now have had to move sliders left to cope....)

[Catboat]

Thanks Mike,
It,s heartening to know that developers like yourself will be supporting FSX for the immediate future. I have no doubt that eventually I will have to upgrade and invest in P3D, but for economic and other reasons, I will be staying with FSX for as long as possible. It is obvious that our hobby has enthusiasts from many many backgrounds, which is one of the things that makes it so enthralling. It is an education to read these forums, and learn from so many about the techniques and complexities of Flight Simming. As I have stated in some of my previous forum posts, I am a computer Neanderthal, so moving outside my comfort zone, is a major effort!! However, technology marches on, and I'll have to move with it-however a question, P3D or X-Plane seems to be the current way to go, but I noticed from a previous post that at least one developer is now producing for P4 only. Does that mean the P3 users will eventually be finding they will have to further upgrade? There still seems to be plenty of FS9 and prior enthusiasts out there, who are still receiving some support. Therefore there seems to still be a viable market out there for developers both freeware and payware for the foreseeable future. I stand to be corrected, but not so long ago I believe I saw a comment by freeware developer (par excellence) Milton Shupe, that he does not have P3D, but FS9 and FSX only.

[Naruto-kun]

And PMDG has just decided to follow us down the rabbit hole :) .

[Aircanuck]

Like many I was keen to get my hands on the F105 from Milviz, curious if they'd let another developer take it to completion ?

[Naruto-kun]

We most certainly won't abandon the F-105. We just won't do it for FSX. P3D v4.4+ only.

[Aircanuck]

.... my bad !! ... just saying :)

[Jafo]

We most certainly won't abandon the F-105. We just won't do it for FSX. P3D v4.4+ only.
If it was about cost...I'd pay $1000 for a good thud in FSX.
I guess it's your loss.

[wombat666]

Going over the graph lifted from the 'Navigraph Flightsim Community Survey 2018' and then reading the original PDF is enlightening.

The highest number of respondents (roughly 38%) are from the US, next comes the UK (about 14%) then Germany (at 10%), with the remaining seven countries at 5% going down to almost 1%.
Maybe I'm being my usual cynical self but it does appear to be skewed toward one particular market.
Levels of education are really interesting, 25% of respondents are in the highest educational level while all others fall below 20%, but annoyingly there are no numbers, just a (dubious) bar graph.
Incomes (just a few porkies IMHO), time spent, expenditure on hardware and software, freeware v payware comparison, employment status appear a tad vague.
Types of aircraft flown (overwhelmingly GA and Tubes) seem to fit the general profile.
One section that seems to be highest on the BS scale (just my opinion) covers the 'Preferred Generalist Stores' section, aka 'Where do you buy stuff'.......................Aerosoft and SimMarket miles ahead????

Methinks the 'Survey' is somewhat flawed, but that's just my cynical opinion.

:devilish:

[wombat666]

3. Conclusion
The typical flight simulator enthusiast is a 43 year old male from the United States. He flies simulators
2-3 times per week for about 5-10 hours in total and was introduced to flight simulation 20 years ago.
There is a 27% likelihood he already has some sort of pilot license. If so, he was introduced to flight
simulation before he pursued his pilot license. Moreover, he has a bachelor’s degree, is full time
employed, makes 50,000 USD per year before tax, and spends about 250 USD on software and 200
USD on hardware annually. He prefers X-Plane 11, but Prepar3D v. 4 is also popular.

These are some of the conclusions from the annual FlightSim Community Survey 2018 organized by
Navigraph together with 19 partners. More than 15,000 respondents contributed which makes this
survey the largest of its kind. With 77 questions it is also the most comprehensive, covering
demographics, as well as simulation preferences and habits. This year the survey also incorporated
specific questions on Virtual Reality and Free Route Airspace.
The results are shared openly with the community for everyone’s benefit. Each partner is also
receiving a customized report presenting their user group in respect to the total community to
promote development and recruitment of more pilots to the flight simulation hobby.
To track trends another survey will be published in November 2019. The emphasis will be on
diversifying the sample by including additional partner organizations. Companies, organizations, and
developers within the flight simulation community are already now invited to contact Navigraph to
discuss next year’s set of questions.

My BS Meter just went off-scale.
:redfire:

[Jafo]

Well....I'm male...so at least they got that bit right....;p

[jeansy]

Going over the graph lifted from the 'Navigraph Flightsim Community Survey 2018'

Methinks the 'Survey' is somewhat flawed, but that's just my cynical opinion.

:devilish:

Its not flawed it was marketed to certain client base particularly The people who fly tubes despite its appearance

After doing the survey it was clear that it was aimed at tubers and international hub scenery

So the with that in mind you can understand why the results pointed in a general direction that really isnt inline with the genre with majority of people at SOH

[wombat666]

You're right there Matt, but I'm wondering how many of our lot actually read the whole 'survey'?

The graph posted by 'YoYo' is very misleading at first glance, the reason I downloaded the PDF and read it thoroughly.
'Combat' flying got the short back and sides, DCS rated around 5% for 'Most of the time' but petered out with some 15-20% 'Frequently and Some of the Time' to somewhere around 30% 'Infrequently'.
Agree, we at SOH appear as a minority, which rings true for most 'Enthusiasts' in many fields.

I can't take the 'Moreover, he has a bachelor’s degree, is full time employed, makes 50,000 USD per year before tax, and spends about 250 USD on software and 200USD on hardware annually' seriously, what sort of dummy with a BD only earns $50K annually and spends a pitiful $450.00 on Flight Simming!

:biggrin-new::biggrin-new::biggrin-new:

Lies, lies and damn statistics.

[b52bob]

I was always taught that statistics can be manipulated vatious ways to get the result you want. That’s why serious statisticians take a very long time formulating the questions to be asked.

[Bjoern]

My Master's Degree in mechanical engineering earns me $50k, so be careful what you say. And I'm spending much less than $450 on soft and hardware annually.

[aeronca1]

Surveys and statistics are just numbers, nothing more. One of my university statistics courses included an assignment to take one name from a list and design a survey to make that person seem to be very much admired. The catch? The list was all about the worst people in history. All surveys are commissioned and created with a specific outcome in mind.

[Ferry_vO]

If it was about cost...I'd pay $1000 for a good thud in FSX.
I guess it's your loss.

You know you can buy P3D, the F-105 and a decent GPU for less than that, right……?

[WarHorse47]

Speaking of surveys and outcomes, I've often wondered where payware developers get their data that says they decided to spend the resources to produce a specific product for a specific simulator. Despite what I spend annually on FSXA addons, I don't recall ever participating in a survey of any sort.

I'd love to see native FSXA F-105. I have one for FS9 and now there is one underdevelopment for P3D, totally ignoring the FSX market. And, I have tons of Mustangs and Corsairs for FS9 and FSXA, but no native B-25 Mitchell. Baffling it is. :dizzy:

[Jafo]

"you know you can buy P3D, the F-105 and a decent GPU for less than that, right……?"

And you know that is entirely NOT THE POINT, right? ...;p

My GPU is not the problem, if it was I'd spend the grand on it....but instead, at the time I spent 10 grand on the computer and it was the fastest possible to be built at the time [about 3 years ago - when a GTX980 was THE top of the heap].

I paint for FSX...and I've invested a crapload of time in FSX. I'm not about to have some 3rd party outfit 'make me' change choice of Sim.... not after spending eons creating a photo-real Thud 2D pit in FSX [photo-real as in the canopy reflections even have mirrored and working gauges].

[Priller]

it is not "some 3rd party outfit 'make you' change your choice of Sim", but rather technology gently nudging you in the direction of 64bit flight sims.

FSX isn't current anymore, and just like FS9, it will soon be a thing of the past.

Priller

[pilto von pilto]

Legal blah : I dont/cant talk for milviz or AH as a group. This post is not meant to attack anyones rights to free speech or opinions. The following is my opinion. Again sorry for any issues you may have with it. ( remember a time when we didnt have to run a disclaimer like that... when a developer or anyone could just talk in a forum without fear ? ...:dizzy: )

Developers and publishers are only reacting to the market. They are not driving the market. The quote " vote with your wallet " is used alot on SOH and other forums. Guess what? It has worked. The voting has shown that 64bit exclusivity is the way forward both fiscally and from a market share point of view. Not to mention the future.

From a customers point of view it is a purchase of a new simulator ( x-plane or p3d or both - definitely both if you can afford it ) and in most cases your addons will work. Will they utilise all the new features? Probably not. But the enjoyment and engagement that you had with the addon in a 32 bit platform is still there in the 64 bit platform with the added bonus of knowing that it will continue to work under updated 64 bit Os's and p3d v4.4 ( there are rumours that V5 might break backwards compatibility but we have to wait on that. ) I like to think that despite not true p3dv4.4 a development that has given you hours - if not years - of enjoyment will continue to give you that enjoyment in the era of 64 bit.

As for unreleased developments , well 64bit + pbr + changes to sdk is very mouth watering for devs who finally get to give you something closer to what they want to give, rather than in 32 bit where they have to approximate.

I just keep remembering that the FS community is a symbiotic relationship. If one side dies or leaves the other also dies or leaves. And then there are no winners.

Warhorse : The B-25 has 2 developers working on separate developments, both well known. No other dev is likely to consider one. Especially since one of the devs is going to a detail amount that is not cost effective for most devs. Just a case of waiting for one or both of the devs to finish up.

[tommieboy]

As mentioned before, the same situation happened when FSX came out; lots of hurt feelings, but FSX eventually ruled the day. I think the problem is now further complicated in that some will be leaving or have already left the FSX camp for X-Plane, or other flight sims like DCS, and have absolutely no interest in P3D. I tried P3D and it just wasn't for me. I recently gifted my entire flight sim rig with a fresh install of X-Plane 11 (64 bit) and FSX with all my FSX add-ons that I had bought and collected over the past decade to my friend's youngest son. He much prefers X-Plane 11 (64 bit) over FSX (32 bit) as he gets much better graphics on the same rig. To him it's a no brainer; he will be investing in X-Plane and deleting FSX in its entirety. Sad to see my FSX install and all my add-ons go like that but it's his rig now, and it is what it is.


Tommy

[jeansy]

People just need to chill out when it comes to which platform developers choose

If devs want to concentrate on a platform that achieves the desired aim and drop another as it limits or constrains them so be it

Its the sign of the times, how many said im not changing from fs9 to fsx

We have never had a true backwards capability with msfs and definitly from now never will

To date there have been countless devs announcing the dropping of older platforms to purely focus on the newer ones for many reasons from coding to PBR this also hasnt just effected aircraft development, flytampa fsdreamteam have stated no more fsx sceneries

You will see more and more devs dropping older platforms in years to come

Like it or not but its the evolution of the pc flying genre

[Naruto-kun]

Milviz was the first to make the move to abandon FS9 back in the day. They got way more flak for doing so than now.

[BendyFlyer]

Fascinating. Thanks for the information about simmers Wombat. I do recall that in its heyday MS counted 22 million flight sim users world wide it would be interesting to know what the numbers are now. The only comment I make about the survey is it is also restricted to primarily english speakers or western countries such as the US, as well. And we all know there are some very active sim groups in countries all around the world, spanish speaking, french speaking, russian speaking etc who produce lots of scenery etc etc but unless you really dig about you don't find them or know about them and unless your read and understand the language you do not get a handle on what is going on or what there interests are, like us they tend to focus on their own patch and paints and planes etc that operate there. To give you an example there is a group of Japanese developers who do scenery for FSX, they do limited releases which is if your in the know they give you an idea it is under development, then there is a download window and then that is it you cannot get it anymore. They produce some of the most exquisitely detailed scenery for flight sim I have ever seen bar none, but the other catch is, it is only for Japan. I spent a lot of time translating pages to get an idea of what was what before I picked up the way they worked and now I check regularly every couple of months to see what is happening or if what was underdevelopment has been released. I have discerned no particular focus in any of these overseas groups to tubes but a bit of everything.

As far as the technology and software issue is concerned that is the nature of micro computers and always has been I think we are always surprised at how quickly what was top of the heap very rapidly becomes not obsolete but well an also ran, I guess we all have rigs of one sort or another that when we bought, with simming in mind was state of the art but is no longer, but hey it works fine until such time is it does not work and as GMANs recent travails show, it is always a hardward failure that brings about a reassessment of what you had and what you have, I think it is amazing actually that we have been able to continue with FSX, a 32 bit program as long as we have. I can remember when in the work environment looking at a rig with 300mb of memory was viewed almost as a super computer. Computing wise I have always had an issue with software bloat and the loss of those people with programming skills who could work across platforms (Remember Cobol?). I have been simming since ATP started off but always have been restricted to MS based systems because sim programs were all written to run on Windows/DOS platforms but I am a firm and experienced user of alternative software platforms such as UNIX and LINUX which are more robust easier to program with once you know what your doing but more importantly are based on an ethos of open source and community participation. I am in a minority though, for most people it is Windows or nothing else because that is all they know and all that is offered to them. And it is for that reason alone that I will, when FSX becomes a dead duck for me, move to X-Plane because I can run it on a non MS software platform like Linux and other nice stuff like GIMP run on LINUX as well and that is a major attraction why? because that platform demands a tighter approach to software design, uses less memory and is invariably faster in execution. I look at the scenery being done and very rapidly now in X-Plane and I see that potential being unleashed and it actually looks visually a whole lot better than P3D to my eye.

But I am caught by the problem we all have, that is, while there are things I can do there a lots of things I cannot. So I rely heavily on payware and very talented and industrious solo shows for the aeroplanes I like to play around with (Not tubes with EFIS or PC screen displays, I have flown them for real and they are as boring as batsh@#T. What has caught my attention is that serious developers such as Carenado and PMDG have produced their stuff for X-Plane as well so hope springs eternal for the future but until the inevitable hardware meltdown I will continue with a 32 bit program on a 64 bit PC, then again I still run programs (long consigned to the software dustbin - ala Lotus 123 and Lotus Notes), designed for the Windows 3 and Windows 98 era for certain family members who insist on using them and nothing else. IMHO those 20 year old programs still are just as visually attractive (GUI wise) and had heaps of internet or HTML interconnectivity, work better and have more capacity than anything else produced by the Corporates since, except another public open source offering Open Office which kills MS Word etc.

No gripes at all but I understand completely why MILVIZ and others would say nope, 64 bit stuff only now. If your in that game you have to.

[heywooood]

People just need to chill out when it comes to which platform developers choose

If devs want to concentrate on a platform that achieves the desired aim and drop another as it limits or constrains them so be it

Its the sign of the times, how many said im not changing from fs9 to fsx

We have never had a true backwards capability with msfs and definitly from now never will

To date there have been countless devs announcing the dropping of older platforms to purely focus on the newer ones for many reasons from coding to PBR this also hasnt just effected aircraft development, flytampa fsdreamteam have stated no more fsx sceneries

You will see more and more devs dropping older platforms in years to come

Like it or not but its the evolution of the pc flying genre

It only hurts when I think about the money...
I don't care personally one way or another who develops for FSX and who doesn't - the people that do continue will get my money because this is the software library I already own.
I have other flight sims - DCS, IL2(new), ROF, etc..that are 64bit and I will continue to spend money on hardware upgrades - but what I personally will not do is start over with FSX (ie P3D or Xplane) and purchase a whole new library of scenery and aircraft for it - I can't justify it. Sure some developers allow you to simply download for the version you have without an upcharge, but many do not. And in both of those cases (P3D and Xplane) it seems they keep reinventing the wheel every six months and breaking things, raising the frustration levels around the very thing that is supposed to alleviate that unhappy condition. I'm just going to keep riding this ol' dependable hoss til it drops thank you..warts, tics, chiggers and all.

[jeansy]

It only hurts when I think about the money...
I don't care personally one way or another who develops for FSX and who doesn't - the people that do continue will get my money because this is the software library I already own.
I have other flight sims - DCS, IL2(new), ROF, etc..that are 64bit and I will continue to spend money on hardware upgrades - but what I personally will not do is start over with FSX (ie P3D or Xplane) and purchase a whole new library of scenery and aircraft for it - I can't justify it. Sure some developers allow you to simply download for the version you have without an upcharge, but many do not. And in both of those cases (P3D and Xplane) it seems they keep reinventing the wheel every six months and breaking things, raising the frustration levels around the very thing that is supposed to alleviate that unhappy condition. I'm just going to keep riding this ol' dependable hoss til it drops thank you..warts, tics, chiggers and all.

To be brutally honest then its your choice to remain with fsx

This is what people fail to forget no developer is forcing anyone to change plarforms or sims or upgrade or what ever

Theyre are merely saying they are no longer going to develop for dated sims. If someone whats to remain with the older platform i cant see why they are targeting and wanting to delay the evolution the genre

Was there this much tears when cars replaced horses

[heywooood]

from those who had just bought a horse - or a herd..? yes.

and after 100+ years of fossil fuel burning I think many have carbon monoxide induced tears..if not asthma as a result. Progress for its own sake ain't always a good thing

but I digress - to your point, I'm not holding anyone back - just stating why I wont be in any particular hurry to follow this herd

[blanston12]

In many ways we were spoiled by having FSX being the leading sim for so long, had they kept developing we probably would have four or five new versions since then (remember FS v1-v5, FS95, FS98, FS2000, FS2002, FS2004, FSX). Now that LM and XP have some momentum behind them its I am glad to see the 'state of the art' finally moving forward again.

I do remember when FSX was released and how much resistance there was to it, and sometimes I think that lack of love from many (including me) may have helped kill it, so even though I am not a fan of X-Plane I still buy it to support them, hoping the next version will finally be usable.

[jeansy]

from those who had just bought a horse - or a herd..? yes.


And it would be my luck too your family background was stud ranchers as well

Ok i will try again

From fingers to knifes and forks?

And again it would be my luck youre missing a few digits so that one wont work either

[b52bob]

Yes, it would be interesting to see how many users are into flight simulation. I remember when I would check SOH daily and there would be two pages of discussions, now there is usually about a quarter of a page. I don’t think that simmers are going to other websites either because I believe that ours is the best and has a sterling reputation.

i have noticed that activity has been picking up in the x-plane forum which is good. No one sharing downloads yet. I don’t know if a section for them would work here, It seems that most freeware developers go to x-plane.org. SOH is known mostly for MS and LM users.

[bazzar]

Gee this thread wanders about a bit. The intention of a developer to stop developing for a simulator does not necessarily mean the end for the simulator. There are many other developers both free and payware who will continue to support FSX for some time to come. As for "investment" , people own the existing products they have and are enjoying them in their simulator of choice. What's to change? Who has "lost" anything?:engel016:

[magoo]

Most true.

Not only is it not the end of anyone's favorite sim platform, but it could open the door for the consumer to begin learning how to develop their own projects. Take charge and provide for their own appetites.

I was most pleased in the past few weeks to wander through here and notice that some enthusiasts are creating new files to run in CFS1.

Amazing. Old sims don't die so easily. Purple skies and all.

[Mach3DS]

From my chair:

All of the above comments are valid and indicative of a common dilemma. Technology and markets are always moving forward.
If I may, I'd like to add one or two additional observations.

I find myself in a situation where I am more or less forced to build a completely new system, with very limited resources. I am, of course, in need of a system that is capable of not only running a 64bit simulation platform, but also effectively managing resource intensive art, video & 3D modeling software. After some concentrated research I find that I will be able to pull off my rebuild for less than I had originally forecast, and move up to a Generation 9 system. Am I making sacrifices to make it happen? Sure.

For those who are comfortable in FSX 32bit that's a great thing. Add-ons are plentiful and very well developed. If your concerns about moving into P3D 64bit center on the cost of upgrading systems, let me offer some good news.

The price of processing, video cards, memory and storage have become very favorable for building extremely capable systems at a modest cost. Tech has advanced so quickly in the last two years, what used to be considered expensive has become quite affordable. Memory, SSD, CPU, GPU and motherboards only one generation old have come down dramatically. Realistically, one can build a very fast and capable system for a few hundred dollars. I would do some serious price shopping and find out exactly what it would cost to build a system that would suit your needs. You may be pleasantly surprised. I was.

That said, I'd like to make a point about P3Dv4 64bit/PBR in its current version, and V5 which will most likely be full PBR...from the developers standpoint.

PREPAR3D is coming very, very close to a stage of development that rivals, or even surpasses DCS. Bear in mind that P3D is a global simulator, that will very likely make full use of Physically Based Rendering and eventually ray tracing. The impact of that cannot be understated, especially as it applies to the simulation environment. My ongoing PBR development, including side by side comparison of DCS and P3Dv4 PBR have shown me, conclusively, that the two are becoming virtually indistinguishable. This brings me to the point of the developers.

When developers begin to focus on modeling for P3D using the same tools and techniques that DCS developers have been exploring for quite some time, the improvements in that simulation will be dramatic. This comes at a cost. Speaking from my own experience working with PBR modeling, particle rendering, ray tracing and their applications in the simulator, it is logical that developers must choose carefully where they wish to place their R&D energies.

The differences between FSX modeling and 64bit PBR modeling will very shortly require that any developer who wishes to offer products for both will be required to maintain two separate and dedicated development modalities. This will require twice the energy and expense. The learning curve alone is prohibitively expensive and the investments in software can be staggering. Most developers are small or mid sized operations. Some are individuals. Amortizing the cost of moving into the main stream "gaming" world are simply unrealistic when attempting to maintain two work flows, art programs, marketing, support...etc.

Our community is facing a kind of crossroads. The good thing is that everyone can make their own choice and remain very comfortable with their decisions. I support the developers who choose to move forward as the technology moves upward on the exponential. I also encourage any and all interested in developing for FSX to learn the process. The software is inexpensive, some of it is even free i.3. GMAX or Gimp. Those are fine platforms and can be utilized very well.

I have enjoyed Milviz projects, including the King Air in it's various stages of development, for years now. I'll be quite content to wait for that airplane and all future releases. I absolutely can't wait to see what comes out of their labs for V5. I congratulate them for their commitment to a fine product line over the years, and for the courage to make a tough decision.

Kudos, and good luck gentlemen.

Yup couldn't agree more. My forrays into PBR especially with Gordon's help form my perspective, are that it was just time. And as a beta tester and someone who's known Colin for a long time, it was a tough decision. I'm not speaking for him, just my observations through conversation. But I can tell you from my perspective it was about time! Upwards of 5 sims is resource intensive...which is a complete understatement. PBR is the future. You simply can't get these visuals in FSX.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4867/45886887474_39e880a2fa_o.jpg