What if FSX....

[Javis]

What if FS would NOT have been an open architecture program, no third party add-ons possible. It would've still evolved into what FSX is today with all the REX,FEX,GEX,UTX,FTX,ETCX bells and whistles included. It would have great performance even on mid range systems. Only 9 aircraft types would be available though but they'd come in most variants, all of PMDG/A2A-Accusim quality. Which type would you fly most ?

[Pepere]

If FSX was not an open architecture program? I would have baught it but it would have gone by the wayside soon. I think what makes FS what it is, is the expandability and the ability for me to tweek it....

David

[heywooood]

agreed - it would have been good to a degree without being open...but it has the potential to be great by being open

and it is that ongoing potential that keeps us all in....or at least that's my opinion

there is always something new coming along for FSX, and even after that's done with - what we will be left with is a very entertaining simulator with a ton of variety and smooth performance (at some point there just has to be a fast, glassy FSX for all doesn't there?) and that's what I'm staying in for.

[robert41]

I agree with pepere. With FS9, before I discovered SOH and other forums, flying the default aircraft in the default sim got old very fast. Once I found and started installing and modifing aircraft and sceneries, flightsim became much more interesting and I have been with since 2005.
Now, with scenery like PNW and aircraft like Accusim and computers with four cores, FSX is just starting to develope. Looking forward to the next five years.

[Lionheart]

FSX and FS2004 are like aircraft and scenery media players. If MS took that out of the FS equasion, it would be like Apple selling an iPhone that was 'just' a phone, no Apps...



Bill

[PRB]

Given these constraints, DC-3.

[CG_1976]

If FS didn't have the DC-3, I'd use the disk for Coffee coasters.

[stiz]

Tiger Moth for sure :jump:

[dominique]

Let's see, I want

- to be able to land on rough airfields (bush)

- to have a cruising altitude allowing to enjoy the landscape below

- to be multipurpose : civil and military, passengers and freight

- to have some historical resonance

- to have some system management

- no aerobatic capability would be needed

That leads to the DC 3 ! Actually I left Fly!2 for FS2K long ago because of MAAM's :).

... but the Spitfire and the F86 are strong second :engel016: !

[huub vink]

When I look at the options I would most probably have not bothered to buy FS, mainly because there are no bad guys aircrafts.

When someone would force me to choose one of the aircrafts listed in this poll, I would most likely fly the Tiger Moth or perhaps I would consider the Spitfire, depending which engine is fitted.

Cheers,
Huub

[Bjoern]

Boeing 737, day in, day out.

But then again...closed architecture...no airport sceneries, no AI traffic...I probably would have left FSX rotting away in the store shelf.

[Lionheart]

Boeing 737, day in, day out.

But then again...closed architecture...no airport sceneries, no AI traffic...I probably would have left FSX rotting away in the store shelf.

Me too. After about 2 weeks, it would start to get less attention, just like that fighter arcade game that came out last year. After several flight missions, its like you know the entire package now and the fun is gone.

Thats whats cool about being able to enhance it. It never gets boring. Always being renewed....




Bill

[Bjoern]

Thats whats cool about being able to enhance it. It never gets boring. Always being renewed....

And you'll also get to complain about engine limitations.

Man, I was peeved off to no extent about the attachpoint bug last night. How could Aces just let that one slip by?

[warchild]

If FS was closed architecture, i probably wouldn't by it. I cant do anything that doesn't have a part of my soul in it. So if it was closed architecture, i'd most likely be spending a lot more money on tires shocks and gas while pushing the Jeep into the vertical..

[empeck]

I bought FSX because I wanted to make aircrafts too, not only to fly them. FSX with closed architecture = no buy.

[bazzar]

I'll answer slightly differently Jan.
I think if we were to have the"definitive" sim then the chosen subjects would have to be milestones in aviation for sure. This is so difficult as there are so many but if restricted to 9 then I believe they should be:

DC3/C47
Tiger Moth
Concorde
B707
Spitfire
P51
Lancaster
Cessna (take your pick)
B747

So you see, FS2004 just about got the balance right. The DH Comet was as strange choice and could have been replaced by the Spitfire as an iconic subject. Not sure about the Learjet either.

So I think a "closed shop" would not be a great idea. It is too risky - get the choice of aircraft wrong and you immediately lose sales.

XPlane devotees are developing a LOT of new subjects and the sim itself is beginning to look very good now. Perhaps this will become the new "black" in time?:engel016:

[Scenium]

No helos?:isadizzy:

Thorbjörn

[Naki]

I'll answer slightly differently Jan.
I think if we were to have the"definitive" sim then the chosen subjects would have to be milestones in aviation for sure. This is so difficult as there are so many but if restricted to 9 then I believe they should be:

DC3/C47
Tiger Moth
Concorde
B707
Spitfire
P51
Lancaster
Cessna (take your pick)
B747



This is going to depend on what part of the world you are from...I'm sure some around here would substitute the Tiger Moth for a Stearman and the Lancaster for a B-17.

For Cessna it would have to be the 172.

[bazzar]

OK well we'd have to leave bombers out as aviation milestones. So, that leaves room for a helicopter. Forget the Tiger and/or Stearman and there's room for one more milestone...Has to be the Space Shuttle surely?

[Cazzie]

I voted Tigermoth on the Poll list, because that was the only one I really liked.

That said, I have Ant's Tigermoth in FSX and it more than fits the bill for me.

And I have a series of Spitfires that suit my needs.

But I have not purchased a Mustang yet!

I only fly the multi-engines for screenshots and I avoid tubes like the plaque.

But now, say some real nice World War I fighter came along???????????????:ernae:

Caz

[bazzar]

nahhh who in heir right mind would make one of those...:engel016:

[gera]

Here some equations .....if all cars were colored "black" as Mr. Ford wished, how would you like them? or if all women were really fat.......:kilroy:

[nio]

Spitfire by RealAir gets it for me;

closely followed by Ant's fantastic freeware Tiger Moth for which he has my lasting appreciation and thanks;

closely followed by the four packaged set of Golden Age Simulations Stearmans which are an absolute joy to fly.

But that's just me.

best

nio

[Snave]

Without the open architecture none of us would be here having these conversations in this and the many other fora devoted to the subject.

It is ONLY the open architecture that has given FS its franchise duration, its ongoing appeal - and its market potential for itself and the aftermarket. The strength of FS sales was always its ability to sustain a volume month-on-month, year-on-year, justifying its shelf position. I have always put that down not to clever advertising or exceptional marketing by MS, not even dwell or duration of the actual product (there are other sims I actually have used for longer) but the fact that as initial sales start to drop off, the aftermarket arrives to `pick up the slack` -and in so doing re-energises the basic products' appeal.

The clue for me is in answering the question:
The default I fly most is the 172, mainly for homogeneity and consistency in the testing environment - but the difference in simulator hours between it and my most-flown addon is a factor of TEN.
...an addon that didn't arrive until nearly two years after FSX was released...:applause:

[tanocapo]

Even when your selection is quite short in terms of variety, i would say that i'd fly most of the time the beech baron and the boeing 737.