Looks like MSFS is truely dead as we see it...

[forthbridge]

As every time MS does release a new sim it nearly always means having to fork out for more on updated hard-ware to get the best out of it.

This is how every other game works.... surely this is called progress?

If MS were to release new sims that didn't require updated hardware then we'd end up with sims that look absolutely horrible. I find FS2004 hard enough to go back to, let alone stepping back to FS2002 or FS98.

Chris, no-one can argue on your point here - what does irk some people (me included) is not progress per say - but the costs involved. If you own a 'games system' what you buy works on that system as it was designed, but with few exceptions, new sims such as FS always require significant outlay to enjoy them at their fullest - and it's not something that everyone can do just to enjoy the latest version - especially as they have forked out full price for the new version..... so you are stuck in the 'do I, don't I' bracket of deciding if it's worthwhile getting the newest version, especially if money is tight and you can't afford/don;t want to shell out more money on hardware - so in that area - progress is actually not so great, and it could be argued that for the vast majority of users, the latest 'version' is far from new or state of the art when they are able to fully realise it's potential....

[Vulcan_to_the_Sky!]

I disagree with the statement that MSFS is truely dead as we see it.

Perhaps this might be true for Future versions, but as far as Im concerned theres plenty of life in MSFS yet! Even in FS9 and certainly in FSX.

Just because there might not be a new version for a while does not mean what we already have isn't any good. For me FS9 is visually good enough, if anyone thinks its bad they should re-install FS98 to see how bad it was!

Now, to go fly FSX.........

[stegs]

My opinion is that FSX has become a bit of a cul-de-sac.
Every update since 98 until FS9 has produced a whirlwind of addon freeware/payware new stuff and updates within weeks of
the release. That seemed to grind to a halt with FSX. I can't comment on how tricky/costly it is to produce addons for FSX but new freeware
for FSX is rare and payware is becoming very very expensive.
A lot of the fun with flightsim was downloading loads of new kit and trying them out. Some went straight to the bin and others were keepers.
It hasn't happened with FSX. I have FSX but just can't get away with it. I can get the frame rates but it seems so Mickey Mouse.
Not when I can download that wonderful Sabre(FS9) and blast it round Glacier Bay(FS9). If I get lost I can bring up FSNavigator(FS9)
Just my opinion

Steve

[SkippyBing]

new sims such as FS always require significant outlay to enjoy them at their fullest

This is a problem for all PC games, look at Crysis. Developers have to decide whether to design for the average system available today, or one a year or more hence which would give their game greater longevity. There are a lot of hard core PC Gamers out there who have rigs that'd run FSX all sliders right with ease, for a game like FS where it's life span is measured in years (5 for the FS9 die hards out there, 2+ for FSX) if it isn't designed for a high end system at the start of it's life then it just won't have the life span we've come to expect.
The difference between a games system and a PC is that a given standard of PC will have doubled in power in 18 months where as a games console will still be the same spec. The PC is a moving target for developers where a console isn't. If you want to run a flight simulator, which by its nature of trying to simulate the world will use all the power you can throw at it and isn't suited to console style game play, then you have to be prepared to spend to be at the cutting edge, or settle for a standard you can afford.
Most PC games developers don't expect everyone to be able to run their game when it comes out otherwise they'd be hobbling themselves needlessly, it's up to you to decide if you can afford the upgrade.

[Nigel H-J]

This is how every other game works.... surely this is called progress?

Chris, you missed my point completely, yes this can be called progress but all I was stating is that for the time being at least, I do not have to think about whether or not I can or cannot afford the essential up grades in which to run the sim to its' full potential, many people who run flight sims on their computer are probably just making do with what they have as money is a prime factor in these cases or they just cannot afford to upgrade or buy new.

As for your statement 'I find FS2004 hard enough to go back to' that is your own personal choice, as for me I am quite happy to be flying in FS9 and so are many others equally, I have no intention of progressing forward.......just yet ;-)

Regards
Nigel.

[ChrisHunt]

Not dead but having a bit of a lie in perhaps (forever Sunday in FS land). I well remember MS saying that FSX was developed for future hardware - available about 2 years out from its initial release... Well here we are approaching 2.5 years and even with the best available hardware today (and at a cost of £0000s) FSX still struggles to deliver a smooth experience in the most congested areas. If you've been keeping track of the latest GEX release for Europe you'll see some truly stunning screen shots but the unfortunate fact is that the vast majority of users won't be able to experience such delights without considerable outlay and/or about 18 months into the future. The usual response (Nick Needham is particularly guilty of this) is that FSX will run on nearly any system but you simply have to set the sliders according to your resources - this is undoubtedly true but lets face it having your key sliders over to the left delivers a pretty crappy experience compared to what the glossies promise (is FSX really the noisy and smelly building site next door to that stunning hotel that you booked?).

At least the pause in the headlong rush to deliver the next and greatest version may allow FSX to realise its true potential - now that would be worth something waiting (and developing) for; the potential for this may even reduce the surprisingly high levels of activity for and of FS9 (going very cheap at Game btw). Personally I look forward to the realisation that we now have a stable (mostly) FS platform (and I can hear in my head the soft but insistent "but we've had FS9 for years" ;-)... ) that is going to be with us for a few more years than anticipated and that it really is worth adapting all those glorious FS9 add-ons after all.

Regards,
Chris

[simondix]

X Plane will do well out of it.

[simtrac]

Well, I lurk around here a bit, but don't often post - and the reason I don't post much is because I don't fly much anymore. Not since FSX came out really. I fell into the awful trap of upgrading PC's for 100's of pounds a pop just so the next version of FS would work stunningly. It never did. I used to spend hours being amazed at how seriously people on the *other* forums took MSFS and how seemingly innocent threads would turn nasty after a few posts. I mean - I enjoy MSFS (still!), but I'm not going to sit in front of a PC for 22 hours while I fly a PMDG 747 from Frankfurt to Syndney. There are other things I'd rather do to be frank.

The recent 'Op-Ed' on Flightsim is just daft and extremely naive - painting MS in a satanic light because they laid off the ACES team. The reason they have done this is for business - simple as that. They're under threat from Google et al and to a certain extent, Apple. Windows Vista bombed - the next one has to be right, or else. FSX must have disappointed them - any future version will need a new engine and a ground up rebuild which will cost $$$. And there's a pretty nasty recession. A flight sim game (really sorry, but in business terms, however good a simulation it may be to enthusiasts, to shareholders - it's a game) will take a back seat.

As for me, when I choose to fly, FS9 runs like silk on my iMac and FSX is perfectly acceptable. I've got some great add-ons and they're going to be around and supported for the foreseeable and I don't have to waste money on a new computer. Plus - it's almost inevitable that someone will fill the gap with a better flightsim than MS ever did.