Petition to have Microsoft keep the FSX going.

[Scrooge McDuck]

If it is as simple as that, just do it ... ... ...

That was part of the joke

 

[Urwumpe]

Last time I checked, ships don't fly at 300ft altitude.

Last time I checked, the US coast guard does not only use ships. Guess which kind of vehicle they use for making sure the Shuttle ground track until the SRB impact zones is free of any traffic.

 

[T.Neo]

Guess which kind of vehicle they use for making sure the Shuttle ground track until the SRB impact zones is free of any traffic.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that it is something that isn't a ship?

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that it is something that isn't a ship?

Yeah. The coast guard air stations around the ground track of the shuttle are all alerted during a launch, ready to catch the astronauts out of the water quickly if needed.

 

[Moonwalker]

Well, never say never. If there is no new FS, we could catch up. Also, as I remember from Flanker 2.0: Good graphics are not needed, if the simulation absorbs you.

Also, we could do stuff, which MSFS will never do right. Supersonic flight in MSFS seems still to be flawed, for example.

I still want to make a good simulation of the US coast guard in Orbiter... And I am sure, it is possible.

Nothing is more uncertain than the future of Orbiter and its addons. Orbiter is just a hobby for developers, while MSFS is a gigantic freeware and payware community. It's the daily bread for some designers and coders for many years.

What the Aces studios and all the addon companies did for FS for sure won't happen for Orbiter, less than ever for free. Catching up X-Plane already would take as long as Orbiter exists alerady I guess, while X-Plane did not even really catch up MSFS until today. As a free space flight simulator, Orbiter is as good as it is, but I bet all my money I have that it will never nearly going to become what X-Plane already was some years ago.

PS: for a flight simulator you need really good graphics these days. Just the simulation does not do the job anymore, which was still the case in the 1980's and 1990's.

 

[Urwumpe]

Nothing is more uncertain than the future of Orbiter and its addons. Orbiter is just a hobby for developers, while MSFS is a gigantic freeware and payware community. It's the daily bread for some designers and coders for many years.

MSFS also started 20 years earlier than Orbiter. What do you expect? Do you think MSFS was "more than a hobby" when it started?

This is no reason to say, Orbiter is less secure in it's future than MSFS... as you can see, money is a bad replacement for dedication.

I could imagine what we could do if SSU had 20 full-time developers and 20 people writing documentation and other stuff. But we couldn't do that profitable in the current situation. And the MSFS add-on developers also started out just like that. They had to do something, to get into the situation to live from their hobby.

And now, prove the negative, that we can't go the same path with orbiter?

We are no longer a small community of more or less insane people. We have die-hard orbiter users and people who just tried it once and did not yet find a reason to uninstall it. And we suddenly have many of both kinds.

At one point, we will have the conditions to allow add-on developers to professionalize. Even if martins would cease developing Orbiter and turns to gardening. I would bet, that somebody else could start a new orbiter core engine from the scratch even with martins not releasing anything more than the API reference. Who needs the source code, if you know what it should do? It would maybe cause a object-code incompatibility with the current Orbiter SDK, but no source code incompatibility.

So, instead of going "Orbiter will never be as large as MSFS today", I would prefer the less negative "What would Orbiter have to do, to become as large as MSFS today?"

Technically there is no reason - if it ran on a PC with FSX, it can also run on a PC with orbiter. We just have a different focus and universe, but we also have an overlapping community with MSFS - some orbiter fans are also MSFS users.

Maybe DanSteph and some other professional MSFS developers could tell us more about their experiences, about which kinds of developments with Orbiter they would see neccessary for a similar economic strength behind. How could Orbiter attract more players? Which legal securities would Orbiters license need? Currently I remember some insecurities for using the SDK files for commercial add-ons. Are any tools for add-on development missing?

 

[T.Neo]

If I am correct, this is the first version of Flight Simulator:

Progress, no?

Nothing is impossible.

 

[Moonwalker]

Of course in theory everything is possible. Theoretically, Orbiter can even turn into the most advanced climate modeling simulation of the future.

But to remain realistically: Orbiter is nothing more than an actually unknown free space flight sim, if we compare it to MSFS. Orbiter has a rather small community (some single addon communities of MSFS are already up to 20 times bigger and more). Don't expect too much. Orbiter is just a hobby for all those who develope stuff for it, other than for Microsoft developers and payware addon developers of MSFS, who earn their money with it for many years, by daily work on it, full-time. It's not just a hobby, it's a software business since the first version of MSFS.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Such systems simulations are basically done be companies. I doubt we would ever see such freeware simulations, less than ever for Orbiter. Orbiter is good for space flight, but lacks on atmospheric flight, required to make it a good flight simulator.

Orbiter has a very nice atmosphere for Earth. More accurate than MSFS. It just needs developers willing to code aircraft, not Star Trek space vessels.

 

[Moonwalker]

Orbiter has a very nice atmosphere for Earth. More accurate than MSFS. It just needs developers willing to code aircraft, not Star Trek space vessels.

Orbiter is not an aircraft flight simulator, it is a space flight simulator. Its atmosphere is rather static and rudimentary. There is no wind, no fog, no precipitation, no different temperatures and pressures, no weather change trends and much more. The only nice thing of orbiters atmosphere is its visuals from orbit/space.

Orbiter is anything, but close to a flight simulator. I'm wondering if some orbiter users either do not know MSFS or X-Plane very well/at all, or have that much bad hardware and poor settings averagely, that they think orbiter could be compared to MSFS and X-Plane.

 

[Hielor]

In 300 ft altitude, water looks pretty flat.

At 300ft altitude you can still see incredible detail in water (IRL and in MSFS) that you don't get with Orbiter's solid-flat-color.

 

[Moonwalker]

If you have a real flight simulator and right hardware, nothing looks flat

 

[yagni01]

We are no longer a small community of more or less insane people.

Absolutely. We're a larger community of more insane people. :rofl:


-----Post Added-----

Orbiter is not an aircraft flight simulator, it is a space flight simulator.
<snip>
Orbiter is anything, but close to a flight simulator.

You need to make up your mind.

Orbiter is a space flight simulator. Says so right on the splash screen. Its focus is on the physics, not the scenery, and thats ok.

 

[T.Neo]

Of course in theory everything is possible. Theoretically, Orbiter can even turn into the most advanced climate modeling simulation of the future.

But to remain realistically: Orbiter is nothing more than an actually unknown free space flight sim, if we compare it to MSFS. Orbiter has a rather small community (some single addon communities of MSFS are already up to 20 times bigger and more). Don't expect too much. Orbiter is just a hobby for all those who develope stuff for it, other than for Microsoft developers and payware addon developers of MSFS, who earn their money with it for many years, by daily work on it, full-time. It's not just a hobby, it's a software business since the first version of MSFS.

Maybe I'm not aiming for something like MSFS.
Maybe I just want to see more realistic atmospheric flight for Orbiter.

PS: for a flight simulator you need really good graphics these days. Just the simulation does not do the job anymore, which was still the case in the 1980's and 1990's.

Does Orbiter have really good graphics?
It seems to work for us...

 

[tl8]

Orbiter is not an aircraft flight simulator, it is a space flight simulator. Its atmosphere is rather static and rudimentary. There is no wind, no fog, no precipitation, no different temperatures and pressures, no weather change trends and much more. The only nice thing of orbiters atmosphere is its visuals from orbit/space.

Orbiter is anything, but close to a flight simulator. I'm wondering if some orbiter users either do not know MSFS or X-Plane very well/at all, or have that much bad hardware and poor settings averagely, that they think orbiter could be compared to MSFS and X-Plane.

Orbiter is primarily a space simulator that can simulate all aspects of Space travel from mining the raw materials to have that Beer after you touch down again. It isn't being done now, but it can be done

 

[Quick_Nick]

Breaking away from the 'Orbiter becomes flight sim' discussion for a moment:
Most of today's major game-making companies are more than capable of perfectly replacing FSX. The graphics in just about any 3D console game made within the past couple of years is amazing. There's more physics in many FPS games than there is in FSX. And game-makers have been making good gameplay(missions) for years. There are many groups that could release a game within a couple of years that is far better than FSX. It just isn't being done. (there are 'unrealistic' combat flight games though)

 

[Moonwalker]

Most of today's major game-making companies are more than capable of perfectly replacing FSX.

As long as it would be based on FSX I see no problem. Because it is not just Microsoft which made MSFS that much famous. It's all the companies which develope addons (PMDG, Aerosoft, FlightOne, Dreamfleet, JustFlight, Wilco and some more). If the next sim does not allow the former MSFS addon developers to do stuff for it, then it would be just a fun game and not really something MSFS fans would love to see. The community would go on using FSX instead.

A naked sim without addons, be it better than FSX graphically and physically, would not be a big success. That's what makes it really hard for X-Plane, which actually has a small community compared to MSFS. People want complex aircraft to fly and nice looking detailed sceneries of their famous and home airports. Physics is not really on the top of the list. MSFS does its job very well, and even FS9 still although it has not such good physics like X-Plane. It's all the addons, just like for Orbiter...

 

[markl316]

Why are we all freaking out? As far as I am concerned, it will be another few years before affordable computers can run FSX with all graphics up. By then, either Microsoft will have decided that they were stupid and go back to making FS, or another company will have come out with a better one. Besides, judging by pictures on the internet with really good computers and DX10, FSX looks just fine to me.

 

[Quick_Nick]

As long as it would be based on FSX I see no problem. Because it is not just Microsoft which made MSFS that much famous. It's all the companies which develope addons (PMDG, Aerosoft, FlightOne, Dreamfleet, JustFlight, Wilco and some more). If the next sim does not allow the former MSFS addon developers to do stuff for it, then it would be just a fun game and not really something MSFS fans would love to see. The community would go on using FSX instead.

A naked sim without addons, be it better than FSX graphically and physically, would not be a big success. That's what makes it really hard for X-Plane, which actually has a small community compared to MSFS. People want complex aircraft to fly and nice looking detailed sceneries of their famous and home airports. Physics is not really on the top of the list. MSFS does its job very well, and even FS9 still although it has not such good physics like X-Plane. It's all the addons, just like for Orbiter...

Even console games (XBOX 360 for sure) can have addons now.

Why are we all freaking out? As far as I am concerned, it will be another few years before affordable computers can run FSX with all graphics up. By then, either Microsoft will have decided that they were stupid and go back to making FS, or another company will have come out with a better one. Besides, judging by pictures on the internet with really good computers and DX10, FSX looks just fine to me.

:rofl:Excellent points! My current computer is nowhere near capable of making use of even some simple features of DX10/FSX, and I can't afford a good new computer.

 

[Hielor]

Most of today's major game-making companies are more than capable of perfectly replacing FSX.

After taking several years to do it. From what I've heard, there were some absolutely fantastic things on-deck for FS11--the one that comes to mind is voice recognition for ATC. X-plane has been in development for at least 8 years now, and their audible ATC is just a recorded loop (or maybe random) in the background. It was annoying. FSX already has an excellent ATC simulator, which really takes the "single" out of single-player, since if you have traffic turned on you can hear ATC really interacting with other traffic (in addition to you). It really makes the world feel alive, unlike X-plane: which doesn't even have traffic!

The graphics in just about any 3D console game made within the past couple of years is amazing.

Consoles blow. Console games blow. The bleeding-edge of computer gaming is light-years ahead of the bleeding-edge of console gaming. At the same price point you can play better-looking games on a console than a PC, but also remember that console controls suck (if they make a console where I can use a mouse and keyboard for FPSes and a joystick for flight sims, I'll switch to a console. None of that stupid dinky controller crap.)

There's more physics in many FPS games than there is in FSX.

The wrong kinds of physics simulations. The physics equations that make a bullet ricochet off a wall (or make the wall crater when it gets it by that bullet) are not the physics equations that make airplanes fly.

And game-makers have been making good gameplay(missions) for years.

Um...okay?

There are many groups that could release a game within a couple of years that is far better than FSX. It just isn't being done. (there are 'unrealistic' combat flight games though)

"Within a couple of years," possibly. "Far better than FSX," possibly. But not both "far better than FSX" AND "within a couple of years." If you think that's possible, then you're severely underestimating software development time.