233 replies to this topic

[Prancer]

Montie, on Aug 17 2010, 01:16 PM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Aug 17 2010, 07:47 PM, said:

Montie, on Aug 17 2010, 12:35 PM, said:

I am sure MS are in contact with the leading 3rd party developers regarding the new title (as they were with FSX). MS is well aware, that it is the community and 3rd party developers that are responsible for the long lasting success of the franchise for over 25 years in the end. Should MS choose to make it anything other than a simulation, they are well aware of how many percentage of the users would change over to X-Plane.

On the other hand, making it something other than a simulation may add a new user base as well.

I'm still betting it will follow the Test Drive model in some way. They wouldn't be posting character art unless they intended to put them in the game...plus, that narrative in the trailer hints this will be more than just a simulation.

They could of course be targeting a new user base, time will tell what the final product is...

But I personally think MS has to much too loose to the competitors for them to do so. Keeping an existing customer is cheaper than gaining a new, plus other companies are showing interest in the market. If I had responsibility of the MS Games marketing strategies I would stick with simulation, because that is what the success is funded on.  X-Plane is their main rival no doubt, but who knows what developers like Outerra or even Aerosoft are planning. Of course Aerosoft would probably join Flight.  

Regarding the narrative trailer, I think it is down to story telling. Story telling is one of the strongest tools in marketing - "painting the picture", building the relations and make space for the user to create his or hers on impressions.

Of course in two years time I could be wrong.

Keep in mind, it may have traditional 'whole world' simulation in it for people to fly routes on their 747s or whatever, but it may not be the main driving point in it and may get a lot less attention. Commercial fanboys could be more than welcome to ignore the new features, though.

Edited by Wampa_Stompa, 17 August 2010 - 01:27 PM.

[pyruvate]

Montie, on Aug 17 2010, 11:46 PM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Aug 17 2010, 07:47 PM, said:

Montie, on Aug 17 2010, 12:35 PM, said:

I am sure MS are in contact with the leading 3rd party developers regarding the new title (as they were with FSX). MS is well aware, that it is the community and 3rd party developers that are responsible for the long lasting success of the franchise for over 25 years in the end. Should MS choose to make it anything other than a simulation, they are well aware of how many percentage of the users would change over to X-Plane.

On the other hand, making it something other than a simulation may add a new user base as well.

I'm still betting it will follow the Test Drive model in some way. They wouldn't be posting character art unless they intended to put them in the game...plus, that narrative in the trailer hints this will be more than just a simulation.

They could of course be targeting a new user base, time will tell what the final product is...

But I personally think MS has to much too loose to the competitors for them to do so. Keeping an existing customer is cheaper than gaining a new, plus other companies are showing interest in the market. If I had responsibility of the MS Games marketing strategies I would stick with simulation, because that is what the success is funded on.  X-Plane is their main rival no doubt, but who knows what developers like Outerra or even Aerosoft are planning. Of course Aerosoft would probably join Flight.  

Regarding the narrative trailer, I think it is down to story telling. Story telling is one of the strongest tools in marketing - "painting the picture", building the relations and make space for the user to create his or hers on impressions.

Of course in two years time I could be wrong.

Yup, and I'm guessing they know that FSX has been costing them some of their user base, and they hopefully won't risk it again.

Aerosoft is starting from scratch, they have a long way to go if they want to get there.

And I wonder if it'll really be 2 years till we know, with FSX it was about a year IIRC, and we had Demos before that.

[Ragtopjohnny]

Quote

Yup, and I'm guessing they know that FSX has been costing them some of their user base, and they hopefully won't risk it again.

Aerosoft is starting from scratch, they have a long way to go if they want to get there.

And I wonder if it'll really be 2 years till we know, with FSX it was about a year IIRC, and we had Demos before that.

FSX isn't really such a bad sim - it is actually far more detailed than most realize.  With the systems that are able to be modeled now and everything else that is included, When you think about it, the users of this new one will probably complain just as much too, making MS wonder, Why did we even bother????

[FSXman]

For some reason I expect this to be an online "live" game like "World of Warcraft" that you pay a monthly fee and can access with either a PC or Xbox.
Nothing to substantiate this, it's just a feeling in my bones.
If that is the case, I believe I will pass.  I'm happy with FSX.  I believe it is as close to "simulator" as Microsoft will take us.  Now they are heading for "game"

[Montie]

FSX looked like a disaster back when it was released because of bad performance. I know some users jumped the X-Plane bandwagon because of that. I remember some users on the web said FSX was designed for future hardware...a pretty ridicules statement if you ask me. FSX was designed, at first, to be backwards compatible with FS9 (to some degree) which meant FSX was based on the same engine as FS9 which ultimately meant FS8 as well. I believe that putting eye candy on an old game engine was the cause of FSX troublesome debut. SP1 and SP2 of course curred a lot of the errors, no doubt. Thats why is am hoping for a new game engine this time as well last time...

There are always users that will complain, regardless how good or bad the ultimate product is. MS just showed the community that they are ready to support them when you look at the SP's there were released and many from the MS/Aces staff that was in contact with the community...even here at FSW.

[pyruvate]

Montie, on Aug 18 2010, 12:26 AM, said:

FSX looked like a disaster back when it was released because of bad performance. I know some users jumped the X-Plane bandwagon because of that. I remember some users on the web said FSX was designed for future hardware...a pretty ridicules statement if you ask me. FSX was designed, at first, to be backwards compatible with FS9 (to some degree) which meant FSX was based on the same engine as FS9 which ultimately meant FS8 as well. I believe that putting eye candy on an old game engine was the cause of FSX troublesome debut. SP1 and SP2 of course curred a lot of the errors, no doubt. Thats why is am hoping for a new game engine this time as well last time...

There are always users that will complain, regardless how good or bad the ultimate product is. MS just showed the community that they are ready to support them when you look at the SP's there were released and many from the MS/Aces staff that was in contact with the community...even here at FSW.

FSX has still been a disaster, the performance is still horrible.  We were able to get FS9 maxed out on affordable hardware ($500) about 2-2.5 years after the sim was released, and we can't even get FSX maxed out almost 4 years later.  And DX10 which MS told us all about, they left us blank.

Edited by pyruvate, 17 August 2010 - 01:59 PM.

[bigflyersmallbyer]

I don't believe FSX was made "for future computers" so to say. But when you put it that way, the game engine doesn't look so bad.

[niteye]

The biggest drawback in FSX is that despite being made for future computers it has no executable for 64bit so no matter how many terrabytes of RAM you put in you will always get out of memory errors if you have too heavy addons that take up 3Gb+ of memory.

[pyruvate]

niteye, on Aug 18 2010, 12:38 AM, said:

The biggest drawback in FSX is that despite being made for future computers it has no executable for 64bit so no matter how many terrabytes of RAM you put in you will always get out of memory errors if you have too heavy addons that take up 3Gb+ of memory.

And it can't use multi-cores properly, nor new graphics technologies, plus gives the CPU work which the graphics card should actually be doing.

And SLi/Crossfire.

If I make a 48 core Magny Cours setup with 480GTX's in SLi and 24GB of RAM, FSX would still be the   Hopefully this thing is coded well and it would play like a dream on such a system.

Edited by pyruvate, 17 August 2010 - 02:14 PM.

[altahaz]

Ragtopjohnny, on Aug 17 2010, 10:26 AM, said:

One way to look at it what my system programmer and developer said, there's no way they could have rewritten the FSX code in the 18months since Aces was abolished - no way.  

If they did, it's pure and utter garbage that's coming - I don't even want to see it - so there's hopes that it is still more like FSX - maybe now its time to start hoping those wish lists do actually come true....

I mean no disrespect, but as a programmer, I would say your friends assessment is that of someone who lacks a great deal of knowledge concerning coding and programming.

But why would they want to build off of original code when its outdated anyway?



This is a PC exclusive title. Many of you are forgetting the biggest benefit of this. It is a good thing!

[Alaska_MD-83]

ACES Probably still exists in some shape or form and it's most likely that the old ACES team is working on this new sim.

It hasn't been 18 months, it's been almost 5 years since FSX was released, and with that means that there have been 5 years to work on the generation of a new engine. I could also see Microsoft buying the rights to another graphics engine, and then porting it to into a FS.

[SwitchFX]

Alaska_MD-83, on Aug 17 2010, 12:35 PM, said:

ACES Probably still exists in some shape or form and it's most likely that the old ACES team is working on this new sim.

You mean Cascade Game Foundry, a company completely unrelated to Microsoft?

http://en.wikipedia....me_Foundry,_LLC

signmanbob, on Aug 17 2010, 11:49 AM, said:

For some reason I expect this to be an online "live" game like "World of Warcraft" that you pay a monthly fee and can access with either a PC or Xbox.
Nothing to substantiate this, it's just a feeling in my bones.
If that is the case, I believe I will pass.  I'm happy with FSX.  I believe it is as close to "simulator" as Microsoft will take us.  Now they are heading for "game"

Read back several pages. Not understanding the LIVE network and its useful capability are the result of posts such as yours.

[ian]

Alaska_MD-83, on Aug 17 2010, 02:35 PM, said:

ACES Probably still exists in some shape or form and it's most likely that the old ACES team is working on this new sim.

It hasn't been 18 months, it's been almost 5 years since FSX was released, and with that means that there have been 5 years to work on the generation of a new engine. I could also see Microsoft buying the rights to another graphics engine, and then porting it to into a FS.

...This Is Very True  

I am Also Excited To See What Aerosoft Give Us

LET THE FLIGHT.....SIM WARS BEGIN!

[SwitchFX]

Wampa_Stompa, on Aug 17 2010, 11:14 AM, said:

Here's a quote I think that elaborates...
Notice some key words.

Inventive
Reinventing
Social
Bold new ways

You learn this if you take a career in marketing.

Wampa_Stompa, on Aug 17 2010, 11:08 AM, said:

I don't recall seeing any of the pilot models being used as a front page image for FSX....or FS9...or FS2002...or FS 98...or FS 95....hmmm...

In the game...

I don't see how she becomes an integral part of the game if she's on the front page.
Refer back to my earlier posts on this being a social game, which it was confirmed to be, and the possibility of making avatars.

What post was this? I've been following your posts in this topic, you've said no such thing. If you're implying the LIVE network, then you just summarized what LIVE can do. For it to be a social game, it would have to be internet only or a web-app, which I doubt it will be either of those two.

ian, on Aug 17 2010, 12:55 PM, said:

...This Is Very True  

I am Also Excited To See What Aerosoft Give Us

LET THE FLIGHT.....SIM WARS BEGIN!

http://en.wikipedia....me_Foundry,_LLC

[pyruvate]

ian, on Aug 18 2010, 01:25 AM, said:

...This Is Very True  

I am Also Excited To See What Aerosoft Give Us

LET THE FLIGHT.....SIM WARS BEGIN!

Competition is certainly awesome for us customers, keeps the developers busy.

[niteye]

Perhaps MS released the trailer just to discourage Aerosoft or former ACES devs from trying to compete.

[pyruvate]

niteye, on Aug 18 2010, 01:38 AM, said:

Perhaps MS released the trailer just to discourage Aerosoft or former ACES devs from trying to compete.

I wonder what Aerosoft's thinking now, they really just jumped the gun!

And, if MS is keeping in touch w/the 3rd party developers, do they know of they new FS development only after it's announced the public as well, or before?... Because if before, Aerosoft would've known about it and not make their own sim perhaps?

[Toyuko]

Interesting...

[Ragtopjohnny]

I like the social flight sim in a way.  But one little twist to it, would be that it could use a microphone with a unicom frequency - that'd be sweet!

[Colonel-Hogan]

REJOICE!