Aerosoft is working at a new flight sim

[fran65]

men at work :brick: in aerosoft , new hopes for flight sim people?

http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php ... ntry162560

[Garry Russell]

An interesting one to watch :think:

Garry

[Quixoticish]

Despite what the naysayers seem to think FS will never be dead as it makes too much money for Microsoft. They will roll it out in the future with a new team of developers and bring us something slightly more progressive for FSXI, no doubt just as the Aerosoft sim starts to hit the shelves.

I can't help but wonder if this could end up splitting the community in two.

Good luck to them though!

[petermcleland]

Despite what the naysayers seem to think FS will never be dead as it makes too much money for Microsoft. They will roll it out in the future with a new team of developers and bring us something slightly more progressive for FSXI, no doubt just as the Aerosoft sim starts to hit the shelves.

Mathijs, as a very experienced developer, knows just what has been bad about previous productions with regard to having all your previous stuff incompatible. I would bet that any AeroSim produced will allow their wonderful German airports scenery to go straight in with minimum change :flying:

[JimCooper]

Despite what the naysayers seem to think FS will never be dead as it makes too much money for Microsoft.

I don't think Microsoft axed ACES because they were making too much money!! Quite the opposite, it was a very popular and extremely powerful platform that was probably barely paying it's way. FSX was evolving into ESP and it's too good to throw away so it's on hold until a 3rd party can take it over!
http://espinsider.com/blogs/espinsider/default.aspx
The most telling line from this announcement is:
Microsoft is currently exploring 3rd party licensing options for the future of ESP and will announce details at the appropriate time.

They will roll it out in the future with a new team of developers and bring us something slightly more progressive for FSXI, no doubt just as the Aerosoft sim starts to hit the shelves.

I agree that FSX will be replaced by ESP Ver2, but maybe not under the Microsoft branding.

I can't help but wonder if this could end up splitting the community in two.

X-plane would probably argue that there are already 2 decent Flight Sims available already???

Despite it's limitations FSX still has plenty of legs and resourceful developers can add all the extras and refinements that simmers may want. I'm in the camp that is pleased that FS has reached a plateau, it enables us part-time developers to really get to grips with it.

Regards

Jim

[Garry Russell]

Even though MA is going no further at the moment I never had the impression that was permanent.

Things constantly change and I am sure when they feel the time is right, the economic situation has improved, spending power and perhaps machine power in general has caught up they will be looking at tapping into that business.

MS like lots of other businesses have scaled back for now while everything re-sets.

Garry

[basys]

Hi Folks

Jim -
ESP is FSX, (only major difference being the licensing, ISTR ~£900/seat).

ESP 2, and all its enhancements over FSX,
as a product, ain't happening.

AIUI
3rd party licensing
is primarily about distribution & support,
post MS ceasing to do so, (2010/2012 respectively).

As the software is licensed, (rather than owned),
there needs to be some mechanism
to allow continued useage after those dates.

Though agree that David Boker's statement is open to wider interpretation.



WRT the Aerosoft announcement -
I'd expect some response from MS
to clarify their position on their next 'game',
if only to retain their market segment.

Whilst ESP 2 would be my preferred framework,
I don't see MS relinquishing their IPR,
particularly if it most likely
conflicts with their future product line(s).

Hoping I'm wrong on that.



Just as I see it -
Don't get me wrong here,
I'm in favour of an eventual follow-on to FSX,
particularly to address its current shortcomings & bugs.



Aerosoft & whoever
will have far a rougher ride ahead
than MS ever did.

With contributing parties defending their own agendas
the final product might not be optimal
and can never meet all user's expectations.

Effectively sim by committee -
http://www.autoblog.com/tag/design+by+committee/
http://sourcemaking.com/antipatterns/de ... -committee



And particularly so,
that poisoned chalice
which killed the SP2/Acceleration display engine's performance,
and subsequently ACEs itself,
those calls to protect user's investment in legacy products,
by maintaining retro-compatibility.

Ironically enough,
it's often those same users
who're demanding Crysis performance levels, (see below).
http://www.businessballs.com/businessba ... ctures.htm



There's also the other aspect
of Aerosoft developing two parallel products,
heavy-iron specific, and the FSX replacement,
http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=25544
risks driving development down a non-optimal path.



Sidenote -
I do find some statements a little disturbing -
that extensions of existing features are already being ruled out,
e.g. multiplayer being limited to two pilots only.
likewise currently existing and un/under -utilised capabilities
are assumed to not be present already,
e.g. data persistance across sessions, either config or career related.
also the inference that it's an Aerosoft only product,
AIUI, it's a cross-industry alliance creation.



Bottom line -
If its to run on the Windows platform,
then its a DirectX based product.

If so,
and it will be,
then many developers need to change their
toolsets, skillsets, and attitudes,
and learn to work within the SDKs and DirectX guidelines,
rather than relying on user PC's horsepower
to overcome their product implementations, (applies to all aspects).



Lastly -
Dependency on tools to convert current content,
and then running it through a compliant compiler,
is not sufficient,
as optimisation is key to the performance goal.

Example -
From a recently released scenery -
6 drawcalls, and ISTR, 10k triangles, (need to reconfirm triangles),
for a 3 ft traffic bollard
is totally unacceptable !



HTH
ATB
Paul

[DaveB]

:o :o :o

I think I understood some of that Paul.. maybe not :think:

I don't have the time nor energy to elaborate. Point is.. why are folk worrying about the demise of FSX or FS in general when they have the software on their pc's?? As long as we have it and the OS will let it run, it will never be dead ;-)

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[Sl4yer]

:o :o :o

I think I understood some of that Paul.. maybe not :think:

It was poetry at CBFS!

The task of producing a new flight sim is obviously enormous. If M$ struggled to make a good job of it last time around, I doubt any new developer will fare any better. I STILL struggle with the idea that ACES didn't know multi-core CPUs were the future when FSX was in development.

I've never really got on with X-Plane, ever since I did a low-level pass at Mach 3 in a SR-71. Something was telling me that the physics aren't as good as they make out... Also REALLY can't do without a VC nowadays.

James