Flightsim

General

Having worked all my life in industrial simulations, powerplants and hydraulic systems, and now heavily into digital twins (made several in the last years, of entire plants), flight sims have of course always interested me. In principle what I do with powerplants is exactly the same as X-Plane do with aircraft. The goals and customers are obviously very different, but the core of the matter: simulation of physical processes using digital models, is the same.

However, my experience with flightsims is a little odd perhaps. Somehow I always seems to find something I "have to fix", and end up heads down into a rabbit hole. The only sim I actually played the way it was meant to was Warbirds in the middle of the 90s. After a couple of years, the company split up into 3 different entities, and I never got back to it except tried Aces High a few times.

X-Plane and a working Onex

Then came X-Plane. The good thing about X-Plane is it's made for "fixers". I made a few apps for X-Plane many years ago. One for making airfoils in X-Plane using XFOIL and JavaFoil. XFOIL has no relation to X-Plane by the way, except similar names. This application was called FoilTrans and probably still exist somewhere out there on the internet. I made the first real-weather application for X-Plane as well as a proper joystick scaling apps. Both functions are since long been done natively in X-Plane now, but that wasn't the case before. I even made a terrain following system at some point, but it was immediately made obsolete when the new terrain graphics model came in X-Plane 8 I believe (or perhaps 7?).

I also made some airplanes there, one of them a Onex :-) The reason I made it was to see how twisted my wing have to be before noticing it in flight. I was afraid it had twisted when I made it, LOL. The conclusion was that it would considerably twisted to be noticeable, and nothing rigging wouldn't correct anyway. I later measured it with laser, and found it was hardly even measurable after all :-) I only made the plane so I could fly it. The aerodynamics etc and the engine is as good as I could get it. The skin and panel is rather miserable though.

The files can be downloaded in a zipped file here. This is updated to X-Plane 12.0.8. There are two .afl files there. These are the airfoil files and must be placed in the normal airfoil folder in X-plane, or it will not work. 

The other reason was trying to figure out the pitch on the propeller for the ULPower engine. Prince at Prince Aircraft Company had a pretty good idea of what the pitch should be when I gave him the numbers of cruise speed, HP, RPM etc. However, I had to be more sure than that, and ended up with more or less the same numbers using X-Plane. When knowing what to look for, then X-Plane is a very fast and fun way to get the answers.

It's also a bit garbage in - garbage out, so isolating what you are looking for, focusing on derivatives rather than absolute values is a good idea. That means that the top speed of an aircraft is hard to predict accurately for instance, but the variation of top speed with respect to RPM, given other variables are constant, can be predicted with reasonable accuracy. The reason for this is the physical first principles approach X-Plane uses in the flight model. All engineering tools work that way. Absolute numbers may not be 100% correct (unless they are tuned to measured values, as you typically would do when recreating an aircraft and have the numbers), but the overall behavior is right, spot on I would say.

Il-2 and DCS

My youngest son, also a GA pilot, introduced me to Il-2 and DCS some years ago. I did know of them from way back of course, Il-2 is ancient, but never bothered to install them. He was continuously talking about how good they were, so I had to try. They have both been on my hard drive ever since :-)

I like Il-2 best, because the aircraft there behave more realistic compared with DCS (the WWII planes in DCS are just laughable). Il-2 is also simpler to use. Flying those WWI and WWII fighters, and bombers, in Il-2 is a pure joy. They also have a glider there.

DCS on the other hand is several levels up in the fidelity category, all the systems and buttons are modelled, and it looks a bit nicer, rather stunning at times. DCS is way too complicated for me to have any fun with playing it as a game/sim however, so I end up mostly just trying aircraft, making short flights. My son is much more into it. I guess you have to have a young brain to learn all the weapon systems and procedures, and then remember all of it for more than 2 minutes :-)

I complained to him that all the modules in DCS are very expensive. He then told me I should purchase the modules when they are on sale, which they regularly are. This I have done, and over 3-4 years I have ended up with every single module in the sim, many of which I have never even tried :-)

Another interesting part about DCS, it's a bit like X-Plane. You can even make your own aircraft there also. However, it's essentially more of a study in Lua scripting, 3D graphics modelling and "from scratch" low level flight-sim flight modelling, than what I would describe as modelling in an engineering sense. From a practical point of view, this means you have to re-invent the wheel, which is probably why new modules for DCS takes a decade to make by the looks of it. It is indeed, more or less fully open ended however, much like X-Plane. This makes it very interesting in my book.   

MSFS 2020

I have never tried MSFS 2020. I remember how poor the flight model of the old MSFS was when compared with Warbirds, and as I understand, MSFS 2020 still use the same approach. For GA, I have real aircraft anyway, and except hopping around in X-Plane with the Onex from time to time (all the time the real one is still not finished), I find no urge for any other civilian sim. I certainly have no urge to fly straight and level looking at digital landscapes, no matter how nice they are. In my book MSFS 2020 is merely an odd way to look at "Google Earth".

Joysticks

A year ago I bought a set of more expensive Joystick, throttle and pedals. I had previously only used cheap simple stuff. I thought it was good enough at the time, but for a bit more money, the quality is on a whole different level. The stick is a WinWing Orion 2 with F-16 handle, and the throttle is also from WinWing and is called Orion 2 as well. It has F-18 handles (two separate throttle levers). "The highest button count in the industry" was the PR slogan for the setup. The rudder pedals are VKB T-Rudders.

I really like the rudder pedals. The ergonomics are perfect when sitting at the usual PC desk with the normal PC chair, and it's all metal and very professional looking. I tried some Thrustmaster pedals, but couldn't use them due to poor ergonomics. The problem with the VKB rudder pedals is the lack of brakes (toe brakes). There is no way to mount toe brakes in an ergonomic functional way. The reason is perhaps not all that obvious. In an aircraft, the chair is fixed to the floor, and kicking rudder is done by moving the knees (not only, but still). This will be impossible if the chair is not fixed to the floor, and preferably the feet should be elevated more than in a ordinary office chair. The pedals have to be firmly fixed too of course, which is perhaps even a bigger problem at a normal desk. Going the route of adequate chair and desk setup, is just too much for me. It will require a separate rig that can be used for nothing but flight sim (well, maybe some day :-)

Another way of designing brakes is as a lever on the joystick. This was used in Russian WWII fighters and also in most British aircraft. The key to this was that the brakes was mixed with the rudder. Applying brakes and left rudder at the same time will apply increasingly more left brake and decreasingly less right brake with increasing brake force. Full differential brake control can be had also with this method, which is essential for taildraggers with free swiveling tail wheel for instance.

Il-2 has all this modelled as default. If you happen to have toe brakes, you can use that, but if you don't, no problem, just use the other method. In DCS, the "fidelity requirement" prohibits this. Aircraft with toe brakes have toe brakes, and aircraft with hand brake have hand brakes, period. X-Plane also don't have any way to set up hand brake - rudder mix, which is odd but a fact.

"The highest button count in the industry" works well for DCS and X-Plane, but not for Il-2. Il-2 can only handle 64 buttons, and the throttle has a whopping 111 buttons. It is possible to put both the joystick and the throttle in what is called 4*32 mode in the joystick software. What this does is to divide the controller into 4 units with 32 button each. This is the "standard" Windows configuration, 32 buttons is the max number of buttons recognized by Windows. Most software can however handle 128 buttons on one controller, but not Il-2. Why 64? no clue. For the WinWing system, going to 4*32 button mode also removes some functionality, so it is really not a good way to go.

But then there is another limit. Il-2 can handle only 8 units. 2 times 4 + rudder is 9, so this wont work either.

I was not satisfied with this. I wanted full rudder-brake control and all the buttons. This had to be fixed. I then ended up in yet another rabbit hole :-) The solution is however rather nice, as this problem is something very clever programmers have entered into long before I did. It's solved in software, and with lots of added goodies that opens up unlimited possibilities. 2 or sometimes 3 pieces of software is needed for this. When that is installed you have full control and can do lots of additional cool stuff.

vJoy

vJoy is one necessary piece of software. There are some versions of it around (google it). I use this version, and it works just fine on Windows 11. Download the "Release" on the right side of the page.

What this program does is to make one or several virtual joysticks and install them as if they were any other physical joystick. Windows and all other programs will see them as physical input devices and use them in the normal fashion.

These virtual joysticks can be configures as needed. However, these virtual joysticks will not do anything by themselves. They need some input, and that's where the other necessary piece of software comes in.

Joystick Gremlin and Joystick Gremlin Ex

Joystick Gremlin can be found here. This is rather old. It uses older libraries and an old Python, it will not work with my plugins (further down). Just download and install it though. It looks like the newer version, Joystick Gremlin Ex, needs it to be installed, but I'm not 100% sure. The Ex version is fully up to date, lots of bug fixes and much extended capabilities, and much faster as it uses new Python. This you just have to unzip into a folder on your hard drive (not in any of the Windows system folders though). Joystick Gremlin Ex can be found here. Download the Release on the right side of the page.

This software does a whole lot of stuff as explained in the help file. For the purpose here, the main function is to map axis and buttons on to a virtual device, created by vJoy. It creates a mirror of the physical device. This enables these virtual joysticks to be used in games. It does a whole lot more though, and it's the plugin functionality that is of interest further down.

The mapping alone solves one problem, the 64 button problem in Il-2. What I did was to map all the axis and the 64 first buttons to vJoy number 1, then map the rest of the buttons to vJoy number 2. This is done without losing any functionality.

However, this creates a new problem (for Il-2, not for X-Plane or DCS due to much better joystick interfaces in general). Il-2 will now see both the physical device and the virtual device(s), and becomes utterly confused when both of them gives out signal simultaneously. The solution for this is the last piece of software.

HidHide

HidHide is also out there in different version. I use this one, as it is completely up to date. HidHide will as the name suggests, hide "HIDs", Human Interface Devices from Windows and other programs. It's fully configurable, so you can filter which program shall be able to see a particular joystick, and which program is shall be hided from.

What I did was to hide the physical throttle from Il-2. Il-2 will only see the two virtual devices instead, thus it will have all the axis and all the buttons and not become confused. For Il-2 all my problems were solved.

Now, this may seems like a lot of "hacking", lots of software and stuff. But once set up, it really is completely transparent. HidHide and vJoy starts with their configurations automatically when Windows starts. The only thing that needs to be started manually (at least that's how I do it) is Joystick Gremlin Ex. Everything can be re-configured at any time.

I cannot guarantee that any of this will work on your PC, or that it will not mess up your PC or anything like that. All I can say is it works perfectly for me.  They use virtually no additional resources as I can detect, and there is no detectable lag or anything like that. I have a fairly new PC though.

Then onto the brake problem and other goodies.

Plugins for Gremlin Ex

These plugins I made will NOT work in the original Joystick Gremlin. They will only work in the Ex version. Probably due to older libraries of Qt and older Python not fully compatible with Windows 11, but not sure. Could be a simple bug in the original Gremlin software also.

The plugin architecture of Gremlin is really smart, but very poorly explained. It IS explained though, but in so few words, and with no figures, it is literally impossible to understand it before you just try and see for yourself how it works. Which axis and buttons you want to use are not configured in the plugin itself, but in the Gremlin software when when configuring the plugin. The plugin only creates the functionality. This is explained further down.

The plugins I have made are general and not dependent on any particular sim. Some sims have some shortcomings, others have other shortcomings.

Brake-rudder mix  

This configures a brake lever of choice with the rudder pedals so they act exactly as in the Spitfire or older Russian planes. Or essentially as the brake system in Il-2. This enables me to use (the truly excellent) VKB rudder pedals and still have full differential braking. This is essential for free wheeled taildraggers. Important/essential for some free wheeled nose wheeled planes, and more or less unimportant for nose wheeled planes with nose wheel steering.

This plugin is essential for German and US warbirds in DCS, and in general for X-Plane. Il-2 has, as mentioned, all this implemented by defaut.

Magneto-fix

In DCS some planes have the standard magneto switch with OFF, 1 (left), 2 (right) and both. Unless you have a physical 4 way switch, this is impossible to implement in any meaningful manner using other buttons. The other way this is done (physically) is by using two two-way switches (as in many GA planes). There's no 4 way switches on the Orion 2, but a whole bunch of 2 way switches. The physical logic is exactly the same though. It's just two mags/ignitions that are independently turned on or off. What the plugin does is to remap the 4-way switch to two two-way switches using simple bit logics.

This plugin is essential for all planes in DCS with a 4 way magneto switch (and you don't have one on your controller). Unimportant in X-Plane because it already has the choice of both, and irrelevant in Il-2 because there are no human operated mag switches implemented.

Encoder to axis

Many throttle setups have these encoders. These are stepped rotating switches that can be rotated indefinitely. The function is to give a button press signal for each step. The same kind of encoders can be found in many EFIS'es and other avionics and radios. They usually also have an ordinary button functionality by pushing them down. The joystick software usually have the ability to reconfigure these as an axis, but not always. On the Orion 2 there are 4 of these, but only one can be reconfigured to an axis because there's only one axis left (only 8 axis in total for any device). An axis instead of an encoder is often much more practical, and will certainly increase the possibilities for what these encoders can be used for.

I have made 3 different version. One is the basic version. It is essentially equivalent to the one in the joystick software of WinWing. Each step will move the axis one increment. The size of the increments is configurable.

The second one is equal to the first, but where the push button will reset the axis. The reset position is also configurable.

The third is equal to the first, but where the push button function is an amplifier. Pushing the button while turning will produce larger increments than not pushing it. Both pushed and un-pushed increments are configurable. I have also made it so that it mimics the degrees in a circle, for heading or course settings. Each step is by default 1/360 of the axis throw, or one degree. Pushing the button will do 20 degrees for each step. I have not tried this one for heading/course setting, so I don't know if this "mapping to degrees" really work in practice. It main functionality will work regardless though, only the scaling will then be a bit odd perhaps.

These plugins work for one encoder. If you want to use it for more than one, then simply copy the plugin file with a different name before configuring it in Gremlin EX. Then add as many of them as needed (they all need to have different names).

Loading and configuring the plugins

The plugins can be downloaded below. The are short Python scripts and fully editable should you want to change it, or use them as a template for other cool stuff. Just note that even though I have done lots of programming, this is the first time ever I use Python. If I have followed proper "Python etiquette"? I have no clue, probably not :-) They work just fine on my PC though. Download them and place them in a folder.

brake_sticknrudder_v02_EX.py

magneto_fix_v00_EX.py

encoder_to_axis_basic.py

encoder_to_axis_reset.py

encoder_to_axis_2speed.py

To load and configure the plugins into Joystick Gremlin Ex, do as follows:

Make the virtual joystick you need and map the axis and buttons as needed. (These plugins don't need the axis and buttons to be mapped up front, as they essentially will map what's needed for the plugin, but it doesn't hurt)

Open Joystick Gremlin Ex and open the Plugin tab. It should look something like this:

Press the large Add Plugin "button" at the bottom. Chose the brake-rudder plugin to get the same figures.

Now it's time to configure the plugin. This is done by pushing the configure button on the right side of the newly made plugin field. The flower/star shape.

Lots of fields pops up. Now we shall register the physical axis that shall be used as input. The virtual axis we want for the output, as well as some scaling parameters. vJoy and Gremlin us the value -1.0 as minimum, and the value 1.0 as max for all axis. If you are not sure how your axis run, if left rudder is -1.0 or if right rudder is -1.0 and so on, the viewer in Gremlin is very nice. This is found in Tools Input viewer. However, this will not show before the program is "activated". We will activate it later, for now just go with the default scaling, it will most probably be just fine.

For the physical brake axis, push the button, then move the physical axis as asked by the program. The button will be populated with the name of the joystick and the axis. Do the same for the physical rudder axis. The physical axis are now mapped, and we move on to the virtual axis.

I use vJoy device 2 on my setup, and the X and Y axis for left and right brake. If you have only one vJoy device then chose that.

That's all the setup that's needed. Now save the configuration with File Save or Save as.

To see if it works, first push the activate button. The activate button is the image of a controller at the top left. Then go to Tools Input viewer and select the appropriate vJoy devise and watch the magic :-)

The other plugins are configured in the same manner, but with different parameters.

It can be a bit confusing to start with, and Joystick Gremlin has it's own logic that one has to get used to, but overall it's pretty straight forward after some tries. Just remember that Joystick Gremlin Ex has lots and lots of more functionality, like splitting axis, scaling axis, macros, sending axis over the internet and so on. It is also possible to have several modes that are changed on the fly. This is particularly useful if you don't have "The largest button count in the industry" but too few. I have not tried Modes though (not necessary with "The highest button count in the industry" :-), but as I understand it is one of the major benefits with Gremlin.

Anyway, this is one of the nicer rabbit holes to fall down in I think. It solved all what I needed to fix in my setup, by using a set of software which to me looks like magic. Back to building aircraft I guess :-)

Simulation rant

As a sort of an epilogue, this is a rant of how I see the flight sim world today. It's obvious that flight sims are different things to different people. This will also change with age and the situation of life in general. The words good and bad are therefore two words with highly subjective meaning. 

MSFS 2020

Obviously MSFS 2020 is the undisputed leader of the pack today. I know many people who use it for training VFR, which is possible due to the insane graphics and accuracy of the entire world. Well, they say they use it for VFR, but doing that "training" in a B-737 is probably more correct :-) The sheer numbers using it, also makes an active online community and lots of third party development. It will probably stay with us for all foreseeable future as long as it is being developed. I have no interest in it though, and never had since I discovered WarBirds in the mid 1990s. The good thing IMO is it's open for IO to other stuff, such as simulator platforms and similar things as well as third party and DIY projects.

War Thunder

War Thunder is another sim. It's fully online. I have never really tried it at all. I guess it's more for the younger people and more of an arcade game than a simulator as I understand. It is however huge, maybe even larger in numbers than MSFS. As with MSFS it draws people into the genre, and what I hear from my son is that there are online communities, smaller groups of people, and they play War Thunder, DCS and Il-2 together, depending on the mood. Perhaps a different mindset than the core MSFS player, I don't know. My son also has zero interest in MSFS, even though he also flies real aircraft. It was he who put me on to Il-2 and DCS, not the other way around :-)

X-Plane

X-Plane is my favorite. In the last 10 years however, the only thing I have used it for is with the Onex project. When thinking about it it's pretty amazing it can be used in such a way. The reason is of course Austin Mayer. He is a aeronautical engineer, and all things in X-Plane is based on science and engineering. It's fully open ended as well, more so than MSFS regarding IO, so it can be used for lots of stuff, both professionally and for more DIY projects. The ability for anyone to build aircraft from scratch based on physics is of course unequaled by any other sim. One can of course discuss the validity of using blade elements this way, but as far as the end results go, it works just fine.

Il-2

As far as FM go, and the ability to fly without too much fuzz, it's number one in my opinion. I have never flown a real Spitfire or a Me-262, but it sort of feels right and what I would expect from my GA experience. It seems to me the core interface is too limited today though. There is no IO API, and there is no way for DIY model builders to make stuff. 20 years ago this was probably not a big factor, but then there were no DCS or War Thunder to compete with. The interfaces are also too clumsy and limited. Why on earth put a limit on the number of controllers and buttons?

They have lots of planes, also WWI planes. These behave more or less like the lightest ultralights. Hands down, Il-2 is the simulator that gives the most realistic feel of flying on a PC. I hope they manages to do what's needed to survive. A flight sim in 2024 that cannot handle modern joysticks and other equipment out of the box, has a problem that needs fixing ASAP, that's for sure.

DCS

DCS is something different in many different ways. It is very open ended, possible to create lots of "stuff" to it. At first I thought it was completely weird, but with only a rudimentary knowledge of Lua, you can do lots of stuff. However, where X-Plane has "Plane maker", "Airfoil maker", UDP and plugin interfaces set up by default, DCS requires that you essentially start from scratch and create your own interfaces and flight model. It is possible to use the "standard" flight model though, as I understand.

Apart from the weapon systems, which X-Plane don't have, then X-Plane has higher fidelity and using proper physics on every single detail. This is true for the flight model, the engine, the atmosphere, the winds, and every little system in that airplane. Not to mention avionics, navigation, GPS, VOR, ILS, LPV etc etc. and ATC, which all are a complete joke in DCS. DCS don't even have a spherical earth model. They are all flat earthers :-)

The YouTuber Enigma had a very good visualization of this problem in one of his videos, don't remember exactly which though. The F-4U was announced more than 8 years ago. It's still not available. In that timeframe the US would have fought WWII two times, and built countless real aircraft :-) When thinking about the less than mediocre flight models in DCS for the other WWII aircraft, one starts to wonder what exactly is going on. There is way too much "from scratch" for every single module it seems, with all the weirdness that follows, particularly regarding the flight models.    

In X-Plane, for a thoroughly known and documented aircraft like the F4U, a rather excellent flight, systems and engine model is made in a matter of hours. This can be refined and tuned over say some months while the 3D graphics objects are made. 

In most aspects though, DCS is truly shining. They know the concept of cool like no other, and cool is definitely good no matter how you look at it. This is probably best visualized in their latest video, which is amazing. Also the IO and third party/DIY aspects are taken care of, partly by the community, but that's a strength in itself. The ability for the community to do it.

Aces High

Aces High was one of the three entities coming out of WarBirds when it sort of broke apart in the late 1990s. It's the most successful one, but success is relative here. Most people have no clue it even exists. I have it installed mostly (in practice exclusively) because playing WarBirds online in the 1990s was the most pure fun I have had with a flightsim. It's a bit similar to Il-2, but with over simplified flight model and other strangeness. A new and much improved graphical version came in 2016, but too little too late by the looks of it. Today it's merely a shadow of what it could have been. The development has stopped.

Others

There are probably countless others that I know nothing about. I have seen the name Prepare3D pop up from time to time. Some MSFS clone? don't know, and not interested.

My personal opinion

I think MSFS will continue on forever. The graphics alone is unequalled by anyone else. That graphic is cool. Cool is good, and the muscle of Microsoft doesn't hurt either.

I know almost nothing about War Thunder, but they obviously have hit a nail with their solution. I can only imagine that people have fun there more or less in the same manner as I had fun in WarBirds a long time ago. As long as they manage to keep that, it could also go on forever I would think. I was thinking in the same direction about WarBirds as well at the time, so who knows. The company itself may be break up due to all sorts of reasons, which was what happened to WarBirds.

X-Plane is what is closest to my heart, and always will be. It seems to be very dependent on one single person though, and it's not clear where exactly it is heading at any given time. As long as it lasts, it's the best there is in my opinion. It has a large and active community, so it's not likely to die anytime soon.

Il-2 as a flight sim it is extremely good, the best flying experience possible on a PC today. I mean the flight model here, the feeling of controlling an aircraft. It's all the other stuff they have to get up to date, or they stand the risk of simply wither away. As I understand, new stuff is already in the making, in a year or two perhaps?  

DCS could simply suffocate due to the self inflicted demand for "fidelity". That "fidelity" is not a problem in itself. But, without a proper system to obtain that fidelity in anything resembling an efficient manner that will obtain the goals within a reasonable time frame? It's a recipe for death for sure, and the only reason it's still alive is in my opinion the combination of lack of competition (from Il-2 for instance) and the fact that it's very different from War Thunder. The questionable flight models, lack of navigation and so on in DCS must also be addressed at some point. As of today though, it is overall the best military aircraft sim out there, and it has tons of coolness to boot, and is fully open ended.

What people use there favorite sim(s) for, is an important question. My usage is perhaps not how the majority use sims, but there are surprisingly many that use the sims in a similar manner. Most people seems to fall into two categories.

1. A straight out peaceful simulation of flight with good graphics : MSFS
2. An arcade-ish online shooting game : War Thunder

X-Plane is a variation of 1, but with additional tons of more functionality, like creating your own aircraft based on physics principles exclusively.  DCS/Il-2 are both variations of 2, but vastly more realistic. DCS is so detailed it's insane, and the weapons modelling is mind boggling (way too complicated for me to enjoy though :-).  

What seems more and more important in later years, is the ability to connect to instruments and so on. IO to other physical devices and the rather large community of "fixers and tinkerers" out there. Another thing is VR. VR has been around for ages already, but still hasn't got a real foot hold. It's still more of a curiosity or some kind of show piece, than a practical device, at least for flight sims. There are several reasons for that. One reason is it doesn't really work all that well due to practical/ergonomic issues. This is a bit similar to the reason why rudder pedals with toe brakes just doesn't work in an office chair/desk setup.

To fix the rudder pedal and toe brake "issue" requires a complete re-work of the seat arrangement. That re-work will also facilitate other hardware rather than VR. You would be more likely to install separate buttons and knobs and levers and screens than to use VR once that "sim pit" is created. Therefore the sim's ability to utilize IO is becoming more and more important. Without it, the sim is dead, unless you are War Thunder and focus on completely different aspects than the simulation aspects.

Anyway. What surprises me most is how little has happened the last 20-30 years. It's really only the graphics that has become better for most of it. The largest change is in fact X-Plane as I see it. The X-Plane engine, Plane maker and the simulation of the plane in X-Plane itself with all the aircraft systems and environmental variables, represents a huge untapped potential. It's a bit odd that this has not been exploited more. But it's perhaps good in many ways also. Diversity is good, and new stuff is bound to come from people with fresh new eyes.