NZFF

Ian Warren wrote:

QUOTE (Ian Warren @ Jan 31 2013,10:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well this is a fact , paying for software is the proof you/we are true dedicated flight simmers - and because it can be based on real life experience , also trying or using it to solve problems and the other a handy tool to use for procedure learning and navigation in the real world .... and the hobby side .. go back 20 years we only wished, and the medical side you don't pay for $903NZ yearly medical bills ... you can spend it on Flight Simulation

Yes, piracy is a problem. It's surprising (well it was for me the first few times) when searching for a particular aircraft to find the all the first links returned by the search engine were all to Piracy sites - this does make it easier to download from there rather than doing the right thing and purchasing a copy.

Part of the problem maybe be compounded by the fact that nor all models are up to the standard that we would like and so after some dud purchases it must be more tempting to DL from a piracy site first to "test" the aircraft before downloading - however, once you've got it I suspect it would take a fair degree of moral commitment to then purchase what you already had!

I like the way that Just Flight has provided some restricted flyable downloads to test before purchase - Ian would have liked that opportunity with one of his dud purchases....

Mostly I decide to buy after viewing at Ian's place or from comments from people I know and trust to give a properly considered assessment. Except that anything from A2A (and dare I say ORBX) is certainly going to be worthwhile and there are a number of other developers who also produce high quality products even if they aren't of a type that I might be interested in.

scaber wrote:

QUOTE (scaber @ Jan 31 2013,10:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mostly I decide to buy after viewing at Ian's place or from comments from people I know and trust to give a properly considered assessment.

Truthfully Greg only stops here for 'Marsbar' and no i do not hand out luscious Chocolate treats , Mars is the 'Hanger Cat' so Gareth Morgan no cat piracy here please

You gotta love the Venema style of shooting from the hip:
X-Plane has no future. It’s not a good sim
and goes on to clarify why:
nor does it have a large enough customer base to make it worth our while.

Well take note ye doubters, the two dead sims (FSX + P3D; ORBX doesn't develop for the Real Sim) are where it's at, and the only one being developed (X-Plane) is just plain lousy!

Dang... gotta go practice my golf swing a little I s'pose.

Charl wrote:

QUOTE (Charl @ Jan 31 2013,1:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dang... gotta go practice my golf swing a little I s'pose.

I was thinking of changing my name to Adam 'Happy Gilmore' Sandler , ..... I always have a rep to take a swing .

Charl wrote:

QUOTE (Charl @ Jan 31 2013,1:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well take note ye doubters, the two dead sims (FSX + P3D; ORBX doesn't develop for the Real Sim) are where it's at, and the only one being developed (X-Plane) is just plain lousy!

Maybe someone should let the guys at Laminar Research know that they have a cr@p sim and should stop developing it...

That's a huge statement for someone to make, especially given that the flight physics / controls of X-Plane are known to be far more accurate and realistic than FSX / P3D. It's true that the graphics style of X-Plane is still very FS9-like, but their buildings, vehicles and lighting are, on balance, out of the box with no pay-for add-ons, quite a way ahead of FSX. As they should be, given that FSX hasn't had any input from MS for several years, and X-Plane continues to be developed for by the people who actually wrote it, not by "axe to grind" 3rd party developers.

IslandBoy77 wrote:

QUOTE (IslandBoy77 @ Jan 31 2013,3:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a huge statement for someone to make, especially given that the flight physics / controls of X-Plane are known to be far more accurate and realistic than FSX / P3D.

This argument can be swashed in a couple of seconds , If you pay for the high end - the likes of A2A for your Warbirds or PMDG for the Heavymetal think X-Plane might get back in his box , Trouble is most people don't want to pay for them .

IslandBoy77 wrote:

QUOTE (IslandBoy77 @ Jan 31 2013,3:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe someone should let the guys at Laminar Research know that they have a cr@p sim and should stop developing it...

That's a huge statement for someone to make, especially given that the flight physics / controls of X-Plane are known to be far more accurate and realistic than FSX / P3D. It's true that the graphics style of X-Plane is still very FS9-like, but their buildings, vehicles and lighting are, on balance, out of the box with no pay-for add-ons, quite a way ahead of FSX. As they should be, given that FSX hasn't had any input from MS for several years, and X-Plane continues to be developed for by the people who actually wrote it, not by "axe to grind" 3rd party developers.

This is more an issue with setting someone up as a 'guru' and then relying on them for our opinions. It's pure economics -- users are looking for an alternative to the dead-end that is FSX, and so far the contenders are X-plane and Prepar3D. Orbx would benefit greatly from a big swing towards Prepar3D, and lose a lot if the prize goes to X-plane. Telling your fans that the competition is dead is a good move -- but yeah, it doesn't make it true.

I like to see John commenting on the future of flightsim, but that doesn't make it unbiased commentary:)

IslandBoy77 wrote:

QUOTE (IslandBoy77 @ Jan 31 2013,3:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

out of the box with no pay-for add-ons, quite a way ahead of FSX. As they should be, given that FSX hasn't had any input from MS for several years,

Biggest problem with outta the box , the as is FSX/FS9 or what ever is the addon packages ..... FSX Still has many years left in it until P3D picks up ... its those big developers you can hold a measure stick to.

Ar well that is just one persons view the only person with the ability to comment on what is the best is one that has tried X-plane 10 P3d-1.4 Fsx Acceleration all out of the box. But a very interesting interview.

Charl wrote:

QUOTE (Charl @ Feb 5 2013,12:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You gotta love the Venema style of shooting from the hip:
X-Plane has no future. It’s not a good sim
and goes on to clarify why:
nor does it have a large enough customer base to make it worth our while.

Well take note ye doubters, the two dead sims (FSX + P3D; ORBX doesn't develop for the Real Sim) are where it's at, and the only one being developed (X-Plane) is just plain lousy!

Dang... gotta go practice my golf swing a little I s'pose.

Well, regardless of how he worded it, he has a very valid point - why would a business pour money into a market with a significantly smaller customer base? There has yet to be a mass exodus of flight sim pilots from MSFS to X-Plane, I imagine if/when that happens then OrbX may well change their mind. It might be a bit over the top to claim X-Plane isn't good because it doesn't have many customers, but you can hardly blame them for not wanting to develop for a market which isn't going to be profitable for them, it's all well and good to imagine that these sorts of products could be created out of the goodness of peoples' hearts, but that just isn't practical when you're dealing with such ambitious projects.

Ian Warren wrote:

QUOTE (Ian Warren @ Jan 31 2013,4:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Biggest problem with outta the box , the as is FSX/FS9 or what ever is the addon packages ..... FSX Still has many years left in it until P3D picks up ... its those big developers you can hold a measure stick to.

Thing is though Ian, that the things I'm talking about are more basic than REX or Acu-sim type things. Vehicles, roads & buildings are awful in FSX. Sure, one can have localised stuff that is pretty good (although roads tend to stay smeared JPEGs), but with X-Plane its GLOBAL. Ditto with the lighting. I'm not saying I'm a big fan of X-Plane: I'm not. But it does have some good features that are, for all intents and purposes, missing from FSX entirely, add-ons or no.

It is weird though how flight simmers will just accept as "normal" the need to purchase an almost endless stream of add-ons. Sure, if one wants a specific aircraft that's very highly crafted, I can see that. But having to purchase stuff like Rex just so that we see what should've been there in the first place? That just bites. Those who do first person combat shooters (which I dabble in) are used to having many of their add-ons free, and the detail in-game is set very high at the start, not bolted on later. Yes, a flight sim covers a much bigger field of "play", but still, a number of what I would call "the basics" (like what Outerra is working on now) seem to be an afterthought: can it really be so much to ask to put as much effort into the flight physics as to the environment physics / looks? Apparently the answer so far is "Yes".

IslandBoy77 wrote:

QUOTE (IslandBoy77 @ Jan 31 2013,8:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thing is though Ian, that the things I'm talking about are more basic than REX or Acu-sim type things. Vehicles, roads & buildings are awful in FSX. Sure, one can have localised stuff that is pretty good (although roads tend to stay smeared JPEGs), but with X-Plane its GLOBAL. Ditto with the lighting. I'm not saying I'm a big fan of X-Plane: I'm not. But it does have some good features that are, for all intents and purposes, missing from FSX entirely, add-ons or no.

All people complain about straight outta the box , BASIC .. that's what ya get .... strange .. most get the products then complain its nothing like it ..mesh roads , "but with X-Plane its GLOBAL" So is MSFS9/X , so were do you start , If you fly regular like every day , your looking checking , then you require the aircraft .. Fact is the ones who complain the most are the ones who least spend the most or don't spend anything at all , you then get people like me for example who don't charge but create the scenery , then for example in comes our well known Mr DeaneB .. DB for the beers he should have after his works , aircraft physic's .. prove the real feel on a PC ..Nah .

Really, enda the day the complainers are the ones who don't spend anything and expect everything .

It would be interesting to know how many X-Plane users there are compared to P3D users.
The thing I struggle to see happening with P3D is that LM will need to cater to and support general users if they go mass market with a consumer version of P3D, and to get the numbers needed to make it viable to 3rd party developers, they will need to go mass market to some degree. LM are very much used to dealing with "Big Business" and the military... Will be interesting to see how this one pans out.

IslandBoy77 wrote:

QUOTE (IslandBoy77 @ Jan 31 2013,8:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is weird though how flight simmers will just accept as "normal" the need to purchase an almost endless stream of add-ons. Sure, if one wants a specific aircraft that's very highly crafted, I can see that. But having to purchase stuff like Rex just so that we see what should've been there in the first place? That just bites. Those who do first person combat shooters (which I dabble in) are used to having many of their add-ons free, and the detail in-game is set very high at the start, not bolted on later. Yes, a flight sim covers a much bigger field of "play", but still, a number of what I would call "the basics" (like what Outerra is working on now) seem to be an afterthought: can it really be so much to ask to put as much effort into the flight physics as to the environment physics / looks? Apparently the answer so far is "Yes".

I don't think that this is just a matter of acceptance -- flightsimmers tend towards the baby-boomer market, with money to spend, so they may as well spend it on their hobby. Like most things technological, money tends to take over, and that's certainly what's happened to flightsim.

Orbx has kind of inherited the position of flightsim evangelist, and they are doing a great job of keeping things fired up, but even Orbx can't see the future, so the best thing they can do is to direct it to some extent. A big part of this is to be 110% confident that you are on the right track. And I think they are, although if the goal is to remake the flightsim market, they'll run out of steam eventually.

I'd be careful with comparing FPS games and simulations. You've got an average of 6 FPS games coming out each year with the latest bells and whistles. How many flight sims do they develop on a yearly basis. 0.2? Also, as Rob stated, the amount of new bolt-ons make this hobby exciting and challenging. If you consider that in the software market flight simulation is a very niche genre, we can say it's doing rather well.

I think you guys keep missing my point. Flight simming stands out as the "poor cousin" to most other "gaming" software. Ok, so flight simming is "different" - I get that. But I also say that regardless of how often new sims are or aren't developed, to date their lack "out of the box" is totally unacceptable. You all are welcome to believe otherwise, but I'm telling you it ISN'T acceptable. As I already said, to pay for some specific add-ons is fine. Again, you miss my point that so much BASIC stuff is missing from the "flight sims" that it's laughable. Maybe that's part of the reason flight simming is still relatively niche. One look at how rudimentary they are from somewhere who is used to the joys of FPS gaming, and they go "Pfffft" and move on. I find it annoying that so many people who are serious simmers here are prepared to defend such lack-lustre software with such vigour. And, FYI, I've purchased quite a number of add-ons, so I get the right to have a moan - it's just not good enough. Roll on Outerra - the only sim engine out there that will bring the proper mix of realism & eye-candy: if it ever makes it into production...

I am very much aware of the limitations of FSX, and yes, you either accept it as it is, or you don't. Saying it is unacceptable is one option, but not the only one. Could we do with a much better sim? Hell yes! Are we likely to get one? Um, not likely. So it seems that you have a choice between two different but equally satisfying hobbies -- flightsim, or complaining about flightsim. I've made my choice, and I'll stand by it.

Complaining about FSX is a bit like complaining about the Treaty of Waitangi -- it's a done deal, you can stick bits on, ignore it, embrace it, but you can't go back in time and do it over.

If we did see an Outerra flightsim one day, I'd be thrilled, and probably a bit more forgiving than most if it was more looks that simulation, but the sniff of vapourware doesn't automatically relegate FSX to the bin.

the way I see it, at the end of the day, its in his best interests to talk up FSX and P3D, if he doesnt promote it, he looses out on an income

theres a lot of Xplaners out there that say the same thing about FSX

funny enough there may be a lot of people who still cling to MSFlight

DCS is slowly picking up speed, they may include a civil factor soon who knows

one mans views on a market which is his source of income shouldn't be taken as gospel, no matter what you say it will be a very biased approach on his behalf

on the other hand if a independent guru or group spoke about all thats out there, then theres some truth about what is said

at the end of the day, what ever works best for you and you enjoy, thats where your heart will be

i too, am waiting for Outerra to mature, the possibilities are endless