Medellinexpat

In terms of developers for MSFS it will be interesting to see if the market is for the same sort of complexity in add ons that we’ve seen in the past. MSFS is attracting a wider group of players. Many of those will want better than the stock aircraft but whether they will want or pay for the complex add ons that have been marketed on other platforms is unproven. I believe that the market is limited for those types of add ons. So will people pay for adds ons that simulate every sort of systems failure? Adding features like that are expensive in the development process. Perhaps rather than $150 for a 737 add on the sweet spot for sales is going to be an eye/feature candy rich $20 one? As for the existing scenery developers if sales take off there, which I doubt, it’s going to bring a huge amount of new competitors to the platform. Scenery development doesn’t require the specialist aeronautical knowledge that aircraft add ons need. If nothing else the thought that $30 for a small or regional airport is a fair price might not last long.

It is pleasant to read a more balance review of the new microsoft product. Over on the .org forum there is a constant stream of drivel with some posters putting up multiple videos each day and in some cases the same video to multiple threads all calling for the death of X-plane. Then there the other up until now Xplane sites that now have podcasts with the presenters all thrilled with the opportunity that the new, greatly enlarged flight sim community is going to give them in terms of new viewers for their online videos. So we wait until the opening day when the vast majority of those who have pre-purchased find out that either its going to run like a slide show or you have to turn down the eye candy and what you’ll get doesn’t resemble what those marketing videos show. Hardware will catch up, it always does, but the kind of hardware that’s likely to be needed for great eye candy, heavy duty add on planes and scenery won’t come cheap for a long time yet. Some have said that competition is good, and there’s some truth in that. Provided of course that Microsoft doesn’t kill the industry around flight simulation. So many software developers are turning their back on their current customer base as they hurry over to the pot of gold that’s going to come from supplying add ons for MSFS. If things don’t turn out to plan it’ll be the death of many of those providers.

Yes SID/STAR procedures would be nice but you rarely get something for nothing. It’s not unlikely that JF are achieving that low FPS by having very simplified flight plans. Making a change like adding SID/STARS might take much of that advantage away. Now perhaps they’ve planned SID/STARS for later versions although I’ve not seen any hint of that in the feedback they’ve given in other forums on the product. If it’s planned as a future development then presumably they can accommodate it within the existing structure. If they didn’t it might mean fundamental changes to the product and often those sort of changes don’t end well. They have said that they were aware that one concern people had around traffic programs was performance issues and I think in the product they’ve produced they’ve provided a solution to that. In other forums there are plenty of suggested features people want, including SID/STARS of course. How many of those can be incorporated without impacting the current performance would be the question. I don’t think that SID/STARS were omitted by oversight by JF. There’s also been comment from people that the schedules aren’t current and JF have talked about the cost of commercial data to support really up to date and full data. Perhaps the same might apply for the navigational data needed for SID/STARS? As you’ve said yourself the price of the package isn’t low (JF are rarely a cheap vendor anyway). Adding in additional licensing costs, in particular if that’s on ongoing cost might be a tipping point for many users in purchasing it.

There’s a big difference between 4 FPS and 8 or more. Traffic packages in terms of simulation are for the most part eye candy. Nothing wrong in that but there’s a personal choice there about the balance between how many frames you’ll trade for increased ‘realism’. My system doesn’t have a small graphics card or weak processor. WT3 has a very large following in X-Plane and many have invested a lot of time with it. Some reviewers are even invested in working with the product. But to me there’s a little snobbery involved here. You ‘can’t be a hard core simmer’ and use GT or its only suitable for ‘newbies’ or those with ‘weak systems’. It’s a trade off. WT3 introduces performance issues and GT is less realistic. But in the end both are eye candy or immersion features, like better clouds or ground traffic vehicles. You pays your money and makes your choice.

‘But I disagree with you on your other comments’ Your article doesn’t disagree with my comments on the frame rate impact difference between WT3 and GT. That it seems to me is not a small point. The 4-8 FPS you quote can be critical for many users. Even ‘hard core’ ones.

‘For newcomers and the lazy’ is I think somewhat unfair. WT3 isn’t light on systems and TG generally seems to have a much smaller impact on FPS. That’s going to be a key feature for many. TG has had some teething problems, including issues with the Laminar map. JF have worked hard to resolve issues - and seem to have been successful - but any new purchasers might want to read some of the forums on tips around settings if issues are encountered. JF have also been pretty clear that this is meant to improve immersion but NOT to be a completely realistic simulation of traffic. No doubt it could be improved but there’s also a balance to be maintained in keeping that low systems overhead. Having airports and the skies filled with traffic for a trade off of 2-3 FPS, which most seem to be experiencing, isn’t a bad deal even if it isn’t a totally accurate representation of traffic flows and the like. Clearly many users like WT3 and have a big investment in time with it, and accept the performance trade off, but that doesn’t make TG users ‘lazy’.