I think it's time to pull the trigger!!

Good article Jim.  I agree with most of it except I don't envision the perfect simulator described by Jim Hall because it would be too limited.  I think FSX is the best example of what I'm talking about.  The strength of FSX, and the reason it remained popular well past its expiration date, is directly linked to the 3rd party developers and their addons that either added to or improved the original function of the simulator.

This goes back to the old saying I hear in my software development classes, "If you design a program so that any fool can use it, only a fool will".  A bit snarky, but it holds true - especially for complex software applications such as flight simulators.  This was exasperated by simulators such as X-Plane that moved away from keyboard shortcuts and the "look and feel" familiar to FSX and its earlier versions, making migration from one sim to the other more frustrating.

Unfortunately, in order to have 3rd Party addon options to a base simulator package there will always be inherent problems, especially when the base system is still changing as MSFS is.  Those changes made to improve the base often break the addons, leading to frustration for developer and user alike.

Another issue that will continue even with a stable base simulator is 3rd party addons that don't play well in the same sandbox along with other addons.  These problems don't appear until the offending addons come together on the right system.  This can be very frustrating again for users and developers as fingers are pointed in all directions.  Examples of this are already apparent with the MSFS. With so many changes happening simultaneously it's hard to diagnose where the problem is and who should be fixing it.

Our own recent example of this occurred with the compatibility of the FlyByWire's A320 Project and our ACARS (and any other addon relying on FSUIPC).  In this case there was an update to the aircraft model that caused the payload data to no longer transmit to the ACARS program.  Since this involved a change to an addon that affected other addons, it was clear (for a change) that it didn't involve the base simulator.  Still, the discussion continues as to what should be done.  Should FBW change their model to accommodate the other addons, should FSUIPC adjust their addon to meet the needs of their users like our ACARS program, or should the end users like us code around the issue and try to pick up the missing data.  It's likely that the changes will have to be made at the lower end (by SPA and other end users), as the bigger players are less inclined to be pressured unless there are enough complaints to justify the time to make the changes.

This is just one of myriad examples of the complexities of such a large software project involving many contributors.  But before pilots jump to the conclusion that Mr. Hall's utopian simulator is the way to go, I would ask you to consider how that would have worked for FSX if it had remained a closed proprietary package that didn't allow the Software Development tools and information, especially after it was no longer supported by Microsoft.

Let those FSX pilots who have never included a 3rd party addon to their FSX simulator cast the first stone.