This should help you untangle the mess.
3 Likes
Basically Microsoft used to publish a new version about every two years since the late 80s. That basically meant that you had to buy a completely new full-priced flight sim every 24-36 months, and that often addons you had bought (or later downloaded) didnât work anymore.
So in comparison to those times weâd be between 1/3 and half through the product life already.
Still most new (PC-) versions brought major improvements due to new technologies and better hardware:
FS1: first version. Color in composite monitors only. RGB monitors only greyscale
FS2: CGA graphics (4 colors from a 16 color palette), joystick support
FS3: EGA graphics (16 colors from a 64 color palette)
FS4: VGA graphics (max 256 colors) and resolution up to 800x600, plane design software, first 747-400
FS5: completely new graphics engine with textured ground and aircraft (introducing *.BGL format) Digital sound effects
FS5.1: more or less a large service release
FS95: no longer MS-DOS based. Higher resolutions and color depth.
FS98: support of 3D graphics cards and more detailed cities. First attempt at 3D cockpit
FS2000: 3D elevation (what we call DEM today)
FS2002: Virtual Cockpit, AI traffic and ATC, autogen scenery (thanks to FlyingBear01 for adding that)
FS2004: 3D clouds, downloadable real world weather
FSX: basically everything improved
The situation today is different: the performance of computer hardware of course still continues to change and improve, but changes in operating systems and interfaces (like DirectX) havenât changed that much in the last 20 years - they have just evolved. In the 1990s computer gaming technology basically was still being developed and reinvented all the time, so every few years a lot of stuff changed making software completely obsolete very fast. As we can see now: FSX and P3D are old, but theyâre not really obsolete even though FSX is now 15 years old.
2 Likes
FSX essentially became âAbandonwareâ once MS dumped Aces Studio. At the time, I was pretty surprised; the game (yes⊠itâs a computer game that simulates the experience of flying) had never been better and the third-party development market was robust. Think of all the goodies you could get like ActiveSky and Reality XP, not to mention the range of payware aircraft that were very good. Also, because the code was âstaticâ (read not in the cloud) the base code was not a moving target. That encouraged non-professional coders to try their hand at scenery and aircraft. Once built, the add-ons were stable or patched/upgraded until they were. It was a different time.
MSFS 2020 is entirely dependent on a steady, reliable internet connection. It helps if it is a fast connection as well. Distribution of software is entirely over the 'net. The model is SaaS (Software as a Service) just like Office 365 or SalesForce. Except this is gaming software, with rigorous performance demands unlike anything else I can think of. Sprinkle in code changes each release and it is astounding that the third-party folks can even keep up. SU5 really broke some things; Carenadoâs aircraft remain broken. On the other hand, PMDG has released three (four?) patches for the DC-6.
Comparison to âthe old daysâ is a fun exercise I suppose, but itâs sort of like comparing the acceleration and stopping distance between a 1950 Buick Super and a 2020 Buick Regal. They both have four wheels and similar controls, but thatâs where the similarities end. In 2006 we all had CRTs on our desk and spinning hard disks inside our computers. My current phone has more computing power.
MSFS2020 is a different animal, in a different era.
6 Likes
And autogen scenery, a dramatic improvement in visuals. FS2000 just had textures on mesh save for a few hand placed landmarks here and there (Eiffel tower, that kind of stuff).
2 Likes
How many flight simmers does it take to install an new flight sim? At least 5! One to install the sim and four to complain about how great the old one was! 
7 Likes
Right. I didnât remember when autogen was introduced. Thanks. Iâll add it.
FS2002 models could be dropped into FS2004 (âFS9â) with virtually no modification. The only real difference was that there was more to the .air and .cfg files. Also, FS2002 included a Sopwith Camel and F4U1 Corsair from the CFS series. The Corsair had a VC, but like all the other planes in FS2002, it was looks only - nothing was clickable. But when I got FS9, I dropped that same Corsair straight in and not only did it fly perfectly, the VC was now clickable - go figureâŠ
2 Likes
And that group would still be considered âcomplainingâ.
Letâs face it, a lot of members here declare ANY criticism of this release on this forum as complaining. Whether itâs someone trying to troubleshoot an issue or full blown irrational trashing of MS, Asobo or the Sim itself.
Thus is social media, sometimes useful and even inspiring.. but mostly meaningless and irrelevant gibberish.
And yes, this (my) post is an example of the latter.
1 Like
Sub Logicâs FS II on the commodore 64 was the best one in my opinion.
Graphics were stunning. Just look at downtown Chicago, Itâs like you were actually there. All joking aside, this was cutting edge computer graphics back then. I mean this was only a few years after âPongâ.
And yes, I actually owned this game. In 1983 or 84 I believe. I spent hours facinated by a home computer flight sim. Owned every one since (ok, maybe not every one but most). FS5 - MSFS 95? 98, 2004 or 2002 and FSX
3 Likes
Just to add to the nostalgia. I remember my very first pc which was an Atari pc3 8088. With 8087 co processor! And have been playing a flight sim. But my god i do not remember which one.
But to relive the old days:
1 Like
Thanks for posting the link. Will be an interesting read.
If it wasnât for the community, FSX wouldâve of died the day Mico$oft pulled the plug on ACES.
One of the big things left unfinished in FSX was the switching over to DX10. We had a âDX10 preview modeâ which gave us a sneak peek at some of the DX10 features. When ACES folded, the community stepped up to âfixâ DX10 for FSX. Thus Steveâs DX10 fixer was a âmust haveâ tool, along with FSUPIC as well. That DX10 fixer opened the door to enable more sophisticated add-ons.
1 Like
The beauty of FSX, X-Plane and previous is/was that updates were voluntary. You could read the various forums before you updated and if there were problems you could wait until they were sorted but could still fly anyway. In other words you could volunteer to be a âBetaâ tester unlike MSFS. The excuses I have read for making MSFS updates mandatory did not seem to effect the other sims?
You can play it ⊠there are several sites that have downloads for the TRS80/Apple 2, and you can play FS1 in DosBox.
Though I do think Asobo should have kept the âdeclare warâ button in MSFS for multiplayer
I was slightly surprised they didnât chuck a basic scenery set, say about the level of FS2004 or FSX in with MSFS, as a fallback for the internet connection issues. It wouldnât be huge - the whole FS2004 download is only a couple of Gb I think. Detail would be bad, but then it would still have the advantage of the âMSFS lookâ and itâs better than nothing.
1 Like
Newbie 
I have used an original 4.77Mhz PC ⊠for developing. It was so slow that you could type commands on it LIST (it was a specialised form of BASIC) and the characters would echo at about 3-4 a second back at you.
Didnât have it for long. I politely pointed out to my boss that I had no problem with not having a brand new machine, but a machine that couldnât keep up with my typing basically destroyed productivity.
2 Likes
The only thing that bothers me slightly wrt to the future of MSFS is that if MS get fed up again, as they did with FSX and very obviously Flight, the community canât keep it going because of the servers. The original user ATC system on FSX is dead because of the servers. Now, that doesnât matter because of VATSIM/IVAO/PilotEdge
FSX was sold on to be Prepar3D and for Dovetail (?) to support it and sell it. Doing this for MSFS is a whole different level.
Assuming that MS donât abandon it, then I donât doubt you are right.
Iâve been reading up about the history of Sublogic/MS and virtually every release (once you get away from things like the C64 which have an effectively fixed spec) had much of the same problems - state of the art graphics, but needing hefty hardware (for the time).
X Plane has mandatory updates , I think.
I think the problem is the rush. SU5 is unique, hopefully, in that itâs not just us, itâs the XBox release as well. Thereâd be a lot of reviews, interviews, PR stuff, advertising and so on set up for this specific date, so it probably had to go whatever. I reckon Asobo knew that it wasnât up to standard judging by the rapidity of the hotfixes.
It is noticeable now that Asobo, very sensibly, are saying âsorry folks, WU6 will be another fortnightâ, which is indicative that they want to get it right rather than get product out.
I do wonder if they should drop target dates specifically now and aim for general targets âHelicopters should be Spring 2022â and progress updates.
2 Likes
FSX gave plenty of breathing space to 3P devs to develop without having to look out for SDK or platform changes etc with no release post the acceleration pack.
In case of MSFS, it is a moving target and that leads to the devs having to invest extra effort for keeping pace with the changes. Rapid pace of updates, both content and sim is something that I did not anticipate and I suspect it may be the same for a lot of folks. That has been a pleasant surprise with its own challenges.
1 Like
Itâs a budgeted ten year development project, that says a lot allthough itâs no guarantee they wouldnât pull the plug. I guess it all depends just how serious they are about this Metaverse thing which according to my suspicions is very.