Why is A2A still Using fsx

[Great Ozzie]

The statement you originally made, that P3D is the development and updates for FSX, is still untrue, however, regardless of any of this!

Hi Ian,

All I know is what Phil Taylor who was the ACES Lead PM said:

"similar enough that it is close to the same world"
"Slightly different SDK,"
"content providers whose content is contained in the product. that is why there are certain content differences"
"commercial license, as opposed to the single-user entertainment license"
"enterprise level support for ESP solution providers"

All that adds up to me (and apparently Jim Rhoads of Flight1 as well) that prior to Lockheed gaining rights to ESP, FSX ≒ ESP. If FSX ≒ ESP and ESP + L-M Updates = P3D -- then I don't get why a person can't think of P3D as an updated FSX. It is what it is. One has a entertainment license. One has a commercial license structure. I'll end up paying more for the commercial licensing, and having a better product -- but in my mind, it will be an enhanced FSX.

If another company - like FlightSafety or SIMCOM - decided to develop Microsoft ESP, I would look at it similarly - same root, different branch.

Maybe you take the meaning of "thinking of P3D as an updated FSX" to mean "one in the same" regarding in terms of platforms. I don't think that way at all. I do think P3D has become its own platform because of the development by Lockheed.

-Rob

[trucker17]

Personally i have tried Xplane, FSX and Prepar 3d. While Prepar has awesome graphics, it a month to month type sim.
FSX has a good rep, with the sim community, even with those who have left for the others. Xplane, on the otherhand, is not all it was made out to be. To say the least i was not impressed. From what i have seen its not much better then FSX.
But that is my opinion.
I tried them and came back to FSX. And until their is something that is even more realistic then FSX, then i may change.
In truth it all comes down to personal preference.
As far as A2A being garbage. He apparently never tried any of their stuff. Going by what a few modders say is not a valued assessment.

[bobsk8]

Tried X Plane over the years many times, and each time, a short time with it and I was done. I flew FSX for many years, and finally quit due mostly to the instability and bugs in the program causing frequent CTD's, lockups, etc..etc... About 1 1/2 years ago, I decided after an absence of many years to return to simming and I purchased P3D, and was totally amazed that I could actually fly it day after day, it looked good, everything worked, and it didn't crash. I started buying add ons and figured problems would soon start, but after each add on, it still worked like a charm. You couldn't pay me enough money to return to FSX.

[addman]

I would like to respond directly to the topic title: To annoy and frustrate people who doesn't use FSX any more.

[Cowboy100]

...IF Matt Wagner from ED would come over and say:"Hey Scott, we want you to create a module for us. Everything you want to do and simulate can be done with our SDK, down to the last screw and ever so slight ground handling effect"...

That's the problem though - the SDK isn't enough. Accusim goes beyond the SDK and Scott already explained that in this thread. You choose to ignore that and use his summary as a conceit instead of a final word (which is what it was), and that's just disrespectful. DCS has two things against it for most developers - 1) small customer base, and 2) limited use. The first can be resolved over time, but the second is much harder. Matt said in the past he wants to not just be a "Military Sim", but until that happens, I don't see A2A, who've moved to more of a civilian and warbird (i.e. non-shooting) product line, investing the time and money on projects that fit the DCS mold.

This has nothing to do with ego or conceit - it has to do with quality and cost. For A2A to maintain its quality, it costs a lot. They've invested a LOT into Accusim and to re-write it to work on another sim that has a much smaller customer base isn't a good investment.

I chose to ignore because this isn't 2006 anymore. Other sims have come a very long way and while Accu sim might still be ahead in terms of engine failure mode and wear modeling, flight dynamics and engine behavior are spot on in DCS.
Things like ground handling, accurate FM, fuel and hydraulic systems modeling, 3D sound... basically everything that is held in high esteem and advertised as being a marvel in the sim world is more or less the norm for any given DCS module out of beta(excluding FC3).
The DCS P51 can just as easily be flown by the book with the addition that soon I'll be able to fly it in a 1944 Normandy environment, with fully working armament and damage model(which is constantly being worked on as well). How is this limiting?
A2As entire roster of air power aircraft aren't general aviation at all, but pure combat bred warbirds. And trust me, the customer base for such addons is there over at DCS. A2A's professionalism and high standards would be a perfect complement to all that.
But like you said, migrating to another sim takes a lot more effort/time/money and is always risky business, especially if you've devoted a lot of effort into the creation of your own addon sim program. Also, their move to a more civilian type of aviation is a strong argument too. Point taken.
I just don't understand why accu sim has to be a constant among variables when developing a module for a different sim. I'm sure people would fully trust A2As capabilities and attention to detail in any other flightsim with the absence of accu sim(a code BTW that is tailored to fit and overwrite into FSX/P3D and void with any other sim), especially if it's warbirds in DCS.
I guess I'm just one out of a dozen that would like to see this happen. However A2A moves forward these coming years, I'm sure they will be nothing less than a prime adress for study sims.

Cheers

[CAPFlyer]

The reason is that DCS, as good as it is, is still not a procedural, systematic simulation of the way an airplane works. This is what AccuSim does. The only developers I've seen so far that have done anything close are DoveTail with TrainSim World and Cloud Imperium Games with StarCitizen. Several have made strides, but none are actually simulating down to the level that A2A does.

A2A *IS* Accusim. They don't release anything without Accusim anymore under the A2A banner. As such, they've made a decision that they're not going to move platforms unless they can move Accusim. While you might not agree with it, that's their decision and their decision alone. You don't have a right to demand (which you've done several times) that they develop for another platform or claim that their conceited or otherwise ego-filled because they make a business decision.

As for the SDK, from what Scott has said, neither Laminar Research or Eagle Dynamics will allow A2A to see and modify the parts of their code that they would need to move Accusim over and that's the problem they run into. If they were to move, it would require a full re-write of Accusim to get it to work and that means recreating almost a decade of work, and that's just not feasible.

[Cowboy100]

The reason is that DCS, as good as it is, is still not a procedural, systematic simulation of the way an airplane works.

This is simply false. Without straying too much from topic, but the the DCS A10C is arguably the most accurate rendition of an aircraft (disregarding the software suite updates the real life counterpart has recieved).

and Cloud Imperium Games withStar Citizen.

LOL

They don't release anything without Accusim anymore under the A2A banner. As such, they've made a decision that they're not going to move platforms unless they can move Accusim.

Perfectly sensible in the world of FSX/P3D. The code is ?()^, or to put more nicely, extremely old and outdated. So an augmentation like accu sim becomes a necessity for accurate modeling.

You don't have a right to demand (which you've done several times)

I've never done that.

they would need to move Accusim over and that's the problem they run into. If they were to move, it would require a full re-write of Accusim to get it to work and that means recreating almost a decade of work, and that's just not feasible.

Again, Accusim is a means to an end. Who says that it is the industry's benchmark? Is it powerful software? Certainly! Is it the best of the best? Hard to say. If you're into stuff like wear, beyond advanced engine modeling (oil viscosity and such), it might very well be, but in terms of the flight model there are limits. Accu sim is amazing but it can't work wonders. Especially in the realm of stall characteristics and departing controlled flight.
I'm fully aware that accu sim is their brainchild and as such it took a lot of time and effort to create (I'm repeating myself here). But why is it written in stone that it needs to migrate to other sims, if A2A decides to develop for other sims?
Again, I know it's economically not viable to suddenly change platforms, but it shouldn't be for a lack of the technical(SDK) abilities in other sims(DCS mainly).

[Alan_A]

I think the Chicago Cubs should play basketball. I know they've got a big investment in bats and gloves and a ballpark, but that's really just a sentimental attachment to an old game with bad code that nobody watches anymore. They should stop being arrogant and telling us that baseball is the be-all and end-all when it's obvious that basketball is a better game and it's the one I watch so that's what they should do.

[Cowboy100]

Lovely analogy borne of narrow minded thinking.
As if I would want A2A to suddenly develop trains and agricultural vehicles, simply because they run with engines as well.

I like flying the A2A modules in P3D as much as I like flying combat missions with warbirds in DCS or other sims.
Combining the best of both worlds shouldn't be a matter of: "Accu sim isn't compatible." or "Accu sim is the best there is, period. No need for a different platform."
It's a matter of what can be achieved in spite of the hazards of new ventures.
It's been repeatidly said that A2A will on principle, not abandon FSX/P3D as their platform, mostly because of accu sim and their degree of freedom with it.
So after everyone who feels like adding his sarcastic remarks to my opinion is done, we can close this topic.

[AKar]

Things like ground handling, accurate FM, fuel and hydraulic systems modeling, 3D sound... basically everything that is held in high esteem and advertised as being a marvel in the sim world is more or less the norm for any given DCS module out of beta(excluding FC3).

That's btw something I do like in particular in DCS: while it is often brought up they are far from perfect, the mechanics of 'partial flight', that is when having one or more contact points with ground, are there and work. In FSX/P3D, this is specifically the least credible aspect of simulation to me when compared against how often one runs into it (every flight of mine includes ground portion). Especially with ASN/AS16, I get all kinds of weird and disproportional behaviour in crosswinds in particular. Also, the ground handling in general is far better realized in DCS, being apparently one of the inherent limitations in FSX/P3D.

That said,

The reason is that DCS, as good as it is, is still not a procedural, systematic simulation of the way an airplane works. This is what AccuSim does.

This is simply false. Without straying too much from topic, but the the DCS A10C is arguably the most accurate rendition of an aircraft (disregarding the software suite updates the real life counterpart has recieved).

...I am not that confident that there would be "the best from both worlds" that would end up to be the sum of two. Many DCS modules are impressive for sure, but they do have their limitations - some apparently only noticeable by someone with real-life counterparts, but others rather easily findable by little knowledge and experiment. And Accusim planes have their limitations too, and while for instance the system and engine simulations go as deep as ever on PC flight sim, they do appear to be necessarily simplified in many, many aspects. And when learning the "tricks" of any given simulation, it is not too difficult to find the limits of the realism.

Having been...well, perhaps part-time flight sim hobbyist for maybe like twenty years, I've been taking the claims of ultra-realism with smile, nod, and replacing the words of realism with "very good representation" or something. At this stage of computer age, no matter what simulation I've attempted (full cockpit sims included), they always are just renderings that attempt to create a believable simulation within their scopes. Different simulation platforms / engines apparently do have very different scopes and approaches to the problems, and simulation techniques created for one may not be able to push it to the fullest on the other.

I don't see the need for Accusim on the DCS: it tackles the problems associated with designing high-end airplane simulations for FSX/P3D. The DCS has its own set of limitations, being worked on by different groups of people. I don't see an unfilled "combination" where to specifically bring anything brand-new, only competition - that is, unless totally new segment was opened, perhaps DCS (Digital Civilian Simulation) .

What I find amusing are the comparisons that are made in between two very often falling into mine-is-bigger-than-yours discussions by the supporters of either, I recall few of such discussions about DCS P-51 vs. A2A P-51. To me, different sims are like different tools, each (or most perhaps) having their places.

While I can see why some developers could do for multiple platforms, I understand why some perhaps don't. But this is only voicing my opinion, as always!

-Esa

[CodyValkyrie]

I think many of you are forgetting one key element to this conversation... FSX in its various iterations has legs at the moment, is the most used civilian simulation, and A2A has grown considerably over the years. Changing simulators could mean changing demographics and markets in many ways in the wrong direction.

[Scott - A2A]

Cowboy,

I think maybe why this thread is going in circles is you are outside of the nuts and bolts operation of what we do. This is seen with you mistakenly thinking Accu-Sim tech is mostly about wear and tear, when the maintenance, damage, etc. is just a minor part, maybe 10% or even less. So what you are seeing is just a sliver of what it takes.

The main point to understand is the sim platforms out there in their current form fall short in most areas for our needs, including flight physics. However shortcomings can be overcome, as we have done with FSX, but it's the process of doing it that matters.

Let me give you an example of what we would run into:
Let's say we're working with someone else's tools and can't recreate a certain characteristic under a specific power loading on a particular airplane. We now have to contact the developer of the host software and go through the process of explaining to them exactly how this particular airplane behaves in this specific condition. We have to make vids, diagrams, etc. and probably start engaging in a lot of testing back and forth. We are now burning what amounts to completely wasted energy hoping someone else delivers something with no guarantee. So we would be stuck. And you can multiply the above times on hundred (or more). And A2A would find themselves spending excess time and cost and be in a less capable position with a worse product.

I understand that other aircraft developers can move from platform to platform but that is because their products don't require the things ours do and the host software is enough for their needs. Now, with Microsoft and Lockheed Martin, we can just..... “make it happen”.

While from your vantage point products may just appear in our store from time to time and while the end result may be magical, there is nothing magical about what we have to go through to make it. It takes a well planned out strategy to avoid traps along with intense mental and physical work to make an Accu-Sim airplane. It's a winning formula which shows in the end result. Our community keeps getting bigger and last year marked our 8th straight year of growth.

Scott.

[dvm]

I am no hotshot real world pilot. I have flown GA aircaft in the real wold when I was an active pilot. The most sophisticated airplane I have flown was my Father's Navion. Not exactly a hot airplane. That being said I have messed with most of the combat sims including DCS and I think A2A Accu-Sim birds have the best (most realistic) all around flight dynamics based on my limited real world flight experience. I have found that most of the combat sims have exaggerated ground handling and stall characteristics in my opinion. Not trying to start a big controversy just my observation.

[DC3]

[quote=Cowboy100]I just don't understand why accu sim has to be a constant among variables when developing a module for a different sim. I'm sure people would fully trust A2As capabilities and attention to detail in any other flightsim with the absence of accu sim(a code BTW that is tailored to fit and overwrite into FSX/P3D and void with any other sim), especially if it's warbirds in DCS.[/quote]

My two cents worth from working in engineering development for the last 35 years. From a development perspective developers are always challenged with new ways to do things and new technologies. When I started as an engineer Fortran and Cobol along with Pascal were the primary development languages. Along came the C programming language, and the Internet, and Java, and PHP and frameworks of all sorts and sizes. The point is it is impossible to be good at all these things and as you invest more time in a technology you become a lot better at it. Sooner or later you will make the decision to move to a newer technology and hopefully most of the things you have learned will be transferable in some form or another. But the decision to move to the newer technology is always weighed against continuing on a little longer with the existing technology because you have so much time, energy, sweat, and money tied up in it.

For A2A to move to any other platform at this point would have to be a lot more compelling than any arguments I have seen so far. It's not that the platforms are inferior to FSX or superior to FSX that is the argument. The real decision point is does A2A give up 20 years of learned secrets, technologies, sweat, and money to jump to a new platform and start back at ground zero? This is a big decision and as an observer standing on the outside looking in, I just can't see any compelling argument at this point to justify such a jump.

My two cents worth...

[Rarebear]

Cowboy,

I think maybe why this thread is going in circles is you are outside of the nuts and bolts operation of what we do. This is seen with you mistakenly thinking Accu-Sim tech is mostly about wear and tear, when the maintenance, damage, etc. is just a minor part, maybe 10% or even less. So what you are seeing is just a sliver of what it takes.

The main point to understand is the sim platforms out there in their current form fall short in most areas for our needs, including flight physics. However shortcomings can be overcome, as we have done with FSX, but it's the process of doing it that matters.

Let me give you an example of what we would run into:
Let's say we're working with someone else's tools and can't recreate a certain characteristic under a specific power loading on a particular airplane. We now have to contact the developer of the host software and go through the process of explaining to them exactly how this particular airplane behaves in this specific condition. We have to make vids, diagrams, etc. and probably start engaging in a lot of testing back and forth. We are now burning what amounts to completely wasted energy hoping someone else delivers something with no guarantee. So we would be stuck. And you can multiply the above times on hundred (or more). And A2A would find themselves spending excess time and cost and be in a less capable position with a worse product.

I understand that other aircraft developers can move from platform to platform but that is because their products don't require the things ours do and the host software is enough for their needs. Now, with Microsoft and Lockheed Martin, we can just..... “make it happen”.

While from your vantage point products may just appear in our store from time to time and while the end result may be magical, there is nothing magical about what we have to go through to make it. It takes a well planned out strategy to avoid traps along with intense mental and physical work to make an Accu-Sim airplane. It's a winning formula which shows in the end result. Our community keeps getting bigger and last year marked our 8th straight year of growth.

Scott.

Maybe It is time to start thinking of creating yalls own sim. I know thats a massive undertaking but if there is a developer that could do it and do it with excelence, It is you guys.

JDW