[jhb] Re: Aerosoft Flight Simulator 2012
- From: "Fossil" <fossil@xxxxxxx>
- To: <jhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 01:12:59 +0100
"The key is in Matthijs' statement that in two years time there will be very
little market left for FSX addons and no market left for FSX."
He might be right. Had MS dropped out of sim development after FS2004 then
it may have been a very different situation. FS2004 was a great product and
had excellent user support - this may have got stronger over the years. FSX
has had a lukewarm reception by comparison and doesn't generate the same
degree of enthusiasm. With the user base split between the two sims it
doesn't give FSX a very solid development future.
I guess the key issue is whether the Aces team hang together or whether
funding is dropped. If the team breaks up then MS would have to start from
scratch on a new sim unit and the cost may not justify the reward. I'm
pretty sure unit sales of FS are down on the earlier versions because FS3/4
etc were really exciting products for the time and popular. I'm not sure
sims now compete well with so much other fancy gaming software out there to
tempt the kids - it could well have run its course.
bones
bones@xxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Paul Reynolds
Sent: 08 October 2009 00:31
To: jhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb] Re: Aerosoft Flight Simulator 2012
I'm not so sure. I deliberately withheld commenting myself because I
suspect Matthijs may be kite flying here.
The key is in Matthijs' statement that in two years time there will be very
little market left for FSX addons and no market left for FSX.
I think the real intention is to get MS to announce its intentions and to
signal that Aerosoft are prepared to tow the line with regard to interfacing
issues, an area that MS and Aerosoft publicly fell out over when the FSX
patches ditched backward compatibility.
With software development cycles being what they are, Aerosoft need to know
where they are going with their investment strategy over the medium to long
term. If MS hold out then, as an add-on developer, it makes sense to try
and form a coalition of like-minded third party developers and produce their
own sim for which they can supply the addons. The shrewd part is flagging
up the Pro version. To me this reads 'development monies covered by pro.
version partners'.
It's no coincidence Matthijs says that AFS2012 may be a non-starter if the
right partners cannot be found. He could just as easily have said 'Aerosoft
needs a new sim by 2012 in order to sustain itself. We would prefer to know
what MS are doing so we can plan accordingly but failing that we'll develop
our own. The problem is we can't afford to produce it on our own so who's
in?'
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Gerry Winskill
Sent: 07 October 2009 21:38
To: jhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb] Re: Aerosoft Flight Simulator 2012
I'm one of a very large number who have now't to do with Virtual
Cockpits! It's quite easy, in FSX, to avoid VC and just as easy to
design 2D panels. The big threat has now disappeared. Rumour had it that
FSXI was to be VC only, so we've been spared that!
The threat was enough to convince me that FSX would be my version of
choice for the foreseeable future.
Gerry Winskill
Fossil wrote:
> Interesting.
>
>
>
> Nice to see Matthijs is still active in FS - he was one of my first
> pilots with Noble Air. That was going back to before the Internet when
> it was just run on the FSForum of Compuserve.
>
>
>
> It seems a bold move. I still have a raft of CD's here for other sims
> that never quite made the grade - Fly!, Flight Unlimited etc - all good
> sims in their day but they eventually faded away into cult areas.
>
>
>
> There seem to be two requirements for a successful sim. One is that the
> core product needs to be good. The second is user interaction. Microsoft
> got it right from FS4 to FS98 with all those sims being cutting edge at
> their time. They also provided enough information for the user base to
> create tools, utilities, aircraft and scenery to vastly enhance the
> basic product. FS98 was probably the best release for the simple reason
> that FS2000 bombed and so development continued for a good four years -
> and this resulted in a fantastic array of add-ons from the fans and most
> free to download.
>
>
>
> FS2000 didn't do well but FS2002 somewhat made up for this. Two years
> later we got FS2004 which could be said to be the last good simulation
> but, in the meantime, philosophy had changed. With the FS century series
> users were lowly being locked out of the design process because MS
> started integrating the processes. Because of their obsession with
> virtual cockpits (first introduced in Combat Simulator which also
> eventually bombed) panel designers were cast into the void because
> panels became integral with the aircraft design. Likewise aircraft and
> scenery design was limited to GMax (and later FSDS) but these are
> complex tools and essentially moved such work from individuals to teams.
> In essence we now buy our aircraft add ons from the likes of Aerosoft,
> Real Air, PMDG and FSD and the world of the individual freeware designer
> has declined markedly.
>
>
>
> The decline of add-on software also happened because of MS having a two
> year release schedule. Upgrading the sim is no bad thing but if core
> elements change to the extent that add-ons become unusable then the
> designer gets extremely downheartened. We've lost some superb add-ons
> over the years because of this - FSNav, AFCAD, lots of aircraft and
> scenery - all perfectly operational and many still desirable as good
> working tools.
>
>
>
> It is obviously good marketing to have users buy a new product every two
> years but this is far too short a time period for add-on designers to
> consider developing tools for. In the past MS had good reason to release
> a new sim every so often as the sim was still evolving - better graphics
> for aircraft, panels, scenery, better weather, better ATC. I think this
> has reached a peak now and although FSX introduced improved
> environmental factors like snow and rain I think innovation in FS is now
> coming to an end and the only progress is now in refinement of what we
> already have.
>
>
>
> If Mattijs creates a sim which has all the facilities of FSX but then
> locks the core sim engines to allow free development from users then it
> may prove successful. I already doubt this as his comment about building
> the sim around DX11 shows that he is aiming at loftier goals - am
> ultimate flight sim product built for a really top end PC. I suspect
> some users will desire this but I regret I won't. I've spend more than
> 12 years upgrading my PC to chase decent frame rates in the latest FS
> version and it's a race I no longer find affordable or a desirable
> challenge.
>
>
>
> bones
>
> bones@xxxxxxx <mailto:bones@xxxxxxx>
>
>
>
> *From:* jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Paul Reynolds
> *Sent:* 07 October 2009 06:35
> *To:* JHB Private List
> *Subject:* [jhb] Aerosoft Flight Simulator 2012
>
>
>
> I'm sure some of you would have seen this mentioned by now but for those
> who haven't see
>
>
>
> http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=29444
>
>
>
> Comments anyone?
>
>
>
> Paul
>
Other related posts:
