188 replies to this topic

[BlueVanGogh]

From Flight's FAQ:

"Microsoft Flight builds off its heritage of deep, immersive simulation and is redesigned to make the experience easier for virtual fliers of all interests and skills."

"We believe the simplicity of “Microsoft Flight" perfectly captures that vision while welcoming the millions of existing Flight Simulator fans."

Contrasting vocabulary. A developer for Eaglesoft has stated Flight will not have AI aircraft or even ATC. How can one have a flight simulator without those?

If Microsoft introduced airliners to Flight without any AI, ATC, approach patterns, etc....what would be the point? Can anyone here imagine console gamers or young pc gamers getting excited to fly a big 747 "realistically" for an hour or more? Perhaps it would be more fun to fly a 747 through some rings in the sky instead.

[pyruvate]

BlueVanGogh, on Jan 6 2012, 10:14 PM, said:

Contrasting vocabulary. A developer for Eaglesoft has stated Flight will not have AI aircraft or even ATC. How can one have a flight simulator without those?

If this is true then Flight will be more useless than a CPU with broken pins.

[162db]

This entire sub forum might as well be removed

[ChaoticBeauty]

BlueVanGogh, on Jan 7 2012, 08:14 AM, said:

A developer for Eaglesoft has stated Flight will not have AI aircraft or even ATC. How can one have a flight simulator without those?

...what?

[MattGarner]

The whole AI aircraft business, there is probably going to be AI. There is a big clue somewhere but I'm not going to mention it.

[ChaoticBeauty]

More arcade:

Enjoy!!!

[MattGarner]

Another post by Robert at PMDG: http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__2217012

Also mentions how they are getting a guy in to port one of their existing planes over to X-Plane sometime.

[ChaoticBeauty]

Just had a flight from S87 to KLWS, with a Beechcraft Baron 58, and it lasted 1 hour. Even though it's vanilla, the scenery impressed me sometimes (though some parts were glitchy), and it was really fun flying with the ATC and AI, making a VFR flight plan and looking for the airport. I enjoyed it a lot.

I'd say I'm satisfied with FSX. An add-on and some tweaks would make things even better too. I don't really need Flight.  

[n4gix]

444Pilot, on Jan 5 2012, 12:49 AM, said:

I am guessing this new "game" will not be able to run on Windows XP platform  

It will run just fine on WinXP SP3 systems. After all, why not? There ain't all that much of a much to run!  

[n4gix]

MattGarner, on Jan 7 2012, 05:54 AM, said:

The whole AI aircraft business, there is probably going to be AI. There is a big clue somewhere but I'm not going to mention it.

It is "possible" that at some future point MS might make some modular additions available as DLC for some unspecified cost in "LIVE points."

Such modules could be the currently missing ATC, AI, Living World, road traffic, navigational aids, GPS, et cetera.

As for third-party involvement, unless something changes radically with their current terms, that is of no interest to me. I certainly don't mind forking over some reasonable percentage for inclusion in their download marketplace, but...

...their insistence on me signing over my IP rights -including all source code- along with the prohibition of using the same source code to release FS9 and/or FSX versions as we've been doing is a complete deal breaker for me.

Bill
Eaglesoft Programmer and Modeler

Edited by n4gix, 07 January 2012 - 11:37 AM.

[sinjun]

I see lots of complaining about MS charging to expand the new Flight World.  Also lots of comparisons to the way it looks next to Orbx as an example.  While I am not happy about it can you blame them?  How many addons are free these days?  To buy all that Orbx has to offer you are into it for $100s of dollars.  MS wants a piece of the pie.  Why provide the whole world for one low price when the market clearly is willing to pay to upgrade?

[MattGarner]

sinjun, on Jan 7 2012, 06:22 PM, said:

I see lots of complaining about MS charging to expand the new Flight World.  Also lots of comparisons to the way it looks next to Orbx as an example.  While I am not happy about it can you blame them?  How many addons are free these days?  To buy all that Orbx has to offer you are into it for $100s of dollars.  MS wants a piece of the pie.  Why provide the whole world for one low price when the market clearly is willing to pay to upgrade?

I see where you are coming from but If the companies who create the addons I like to use such as PMDG won't be developing for Flight then I don't see a point for me to switch over to that platform. I feel this is also the same view as many others but maybe not just for PMDG but the way they are wanting to control user created content and so on.

[Brandon-M]

sinjun, on Jan 7 2012, 11:22 AM, said:

I see lots of complaining about MS charging to expand the new Flight World.  Also lots of comparisons to the way it looks next to Orbx as an example.  While I am not happy about it can you blame them?  How many addons are free these days?  To buy all that Orbx has to offer you are into it for $100s of dollars.  MS wants a piece of the pie.  Why provide the whole world for one low price when the market clearly is willing to pay to upgrade?

Hundreds of dollar dollars?

[Peter797]

There is really nothing to exceed in PMDG aircraft to be honest. It's got everything you need.

And if PMDG went to X-Plane 9 back in the day, I probably wouldn't switch, no.

[MikeySM]

Something thats been floating around other forums:

http://www.change.or...s-studios#share

Cant see what good it will do but its worth a try I guess  

[Cortez]

I've been away for most of the week, and I haven't been on FS world for a few days. I came across this via PMDG's facebook page, and I apologize if this has been discussed or posted already (don't want to read through 9 pages of things since I pretty much read everything I needed to know via this post)

Quote

by PMDG on Friday, January 6, 2012 at 8:03pm
Captains-

I've let a few days go by without commenting on the topic of MS Flight not because I haven't anything to say, but because I have been rather engrossed in all the year end/year begin administrivia required to keep both PMDG and my aviation consulting business in compliance with all the various regulations and tax codes... (Translation: If you want to know how to have fun, hang out with someone else. )

The topic of FLIGHT has been an interesting one. When I was a kid, I recall watching a movie or TV show about the airship Hindenburg catching fire. I was fascinated that the participants were enthusiastically waiving even as you could see their ship beginning to consume itself in flames. The image was horrible- and it left me wondering how those aboard could have been so happily distracted that they remained blissfully unaware of their impending doom...

I find myself equally curious about the topic at hand.

Let's just get something right out on the table: If you are reading this, then you are not likely to be the target audience for FLIGHT- and this is why the reaction by this community has ranged from tepid acceptance to outright bewilderment at the unveiling of MS's newest game.

You see, FLIGHT has gone through a number of changes during the course of it's development. I was initially "briefed in" on the project that would eventually become FLIGHT all the way back in August of 2009. At that time, it seemed to me that a good faith effort was being made to get MS back in the genre, and that a significant amount of effort was going to be put into creating the simulation that FSX should have been when it was prematurely released in 2006.

Since that time, I have watched (at times in dismay) the project transitioned from "modest proposal" to "green-lit console-style game" to "resurgent FSX replacement" and back to the console-ish game that the product seems to have become in it's final format. Love the idea, or hate it, it appears to me that the marketing people have once again won the battle of demands and the end result is a fast-action point-and-score type game that is envisioned to ring in unit sales by appealing to those who are interested in action, leveling-up and point scoring rather than true simulation as it is known to all of us in this community.

Again- you are likely not the target audience, so any similarity between FLIGHT and the hobby we know as flight simulation is purely coincidental.

I mentioned that we have been watching this process in earnest for quite awhile now. Early in the process, our opinion was solicited on a wide range of topics, and semi-occasional updates seemed to indicate that strides were being made on a project that had some potential to give us all a next generation platform to work with... Something all of us in the development and sim-consumer community would LOVE to see.

But there were undertones that caused us some concern. Namely, there was a theme that continually floated to the surface that seemed to indicate that MS was looking to "monetize the secondary development market" in order to increase the long term revenue stream upon which development of the platform would be based.

To put it a bit more bluntly: It became obvious to me very early-on that MS was looking to get a piece of the secondary market in which companies like PMDG, Aerosoft, Flight1, Level D and the like make our living. This idea has been looming over the horizon since at least late 2005 when a gaggle of FS developers were invited to Redmond to view the upcoming FSX. There were hints dropped at the time, and behaviors that, to me indicated a growing desire on the part of MS to learn just how much money the secondary market was generating.

There could only be a single reason why they would want to know this information...

I am not generally swayed by fear or hysterics, so when the same behaviors were present at the 2007 meeting hosted by MS, I began to expect that whatever version followed FSX would come with some licensing requirement in order to help MS generate revenue from the secondary market. This in and of itself wouldn't be a terrible thing, especially if it kept the platform vital and moving forward- but as we all saw there was a decision to cut ties with the ACES development team, followed by a brief period of quiet, and then the word of FLIGHT came along.

In our conversations, the inevitable discussion of "monetizing the secondary market" finally came about. The talk was faint at first, but approximately a year after being initially briefed into project, the talk became more solid, more definite. Requests for information were not immediately answered, or they were answered obliquely in a fashion that any negotiator will tell you is designed to mask the true answer.

Then the product details began to dribble out. I won't repeat them here as many of them changed and many other details have already been published in other places, but a couple of developers, including PMDG, were asked to make a strong commitment to FLIGHT in order to help get the secondary market up and running in a manner that would generate buzz and entice users to move to the new platform. At PMDG, we demurred....

You see- we nearly put PMDG out of business by adopting our entire development process for 2006/2007 around the release of FSX. When that platform proved to be unready for the market it had disastrous consequences- and while we were very much excited by the idea of a new and more capable platform- there remained the obvious fear of "going down that road again" with FLIGHT.

Eventually we were presented with a picture of how our lives would have to change in order to support FLIGHT:
All commercial products would be marketed exclusively by MS and we would not be allowed to sell our own products from our own sites.
No freeware, not even free expansions to our own products. (Think: liveries)
Unclear controls regarding pricing.
The inability to market our own products in the brick and mortar retail market without purchasing licenses to our own products in advance of production. (This would increase our costs dramatically, making it impossible to support a retail operation...)
All developers would be required to pay a sizable per-unit license fee on all FLIGHT products.
If the sales figures we were being promised were to come true- then all of the restrictions above would have been a minor inconvenience- but as one of my favorite pilot friends likes to say: "I didn't get to be this old by being stupid." PMDG has been in this business for nearly 15 years- and while we do occasionally make mistakes, I feel that we have a pretty good feel for the simming marketplace, its size and how it operates- and this new business model gave me pause.

PMDG has always had a good, honest, open relationship with the team at MS- so we provided them with open, honest and candid feedback that we felt was respectful, and candid. In spite of repeated requests for a commitment, we demurred. Shortly there-after the communication channel went dead. Calls and emails went unanswered, and advance alphas stopped arriving. Shortly there-after we received a perfunctory email advising that our input was no longer desired.

I wish I could tell you that I was surprised- but I was not. After all- we were being asked to effectively surrender years of very delicate and careful work to build a brand and a relationship with all of you. This was not something to be taken lightly...

So at the end of the day, I was surprised and disappointed to see that the developers of FLIGHT elected to bring in a bunch of people to see FLIGHT, while very noticeably keeping out many of the same folks who have supported MS and the genre for years. The message was made loudly and clearly that our input was not desired and that the strategic objectives of FLIGHT do not involve the community that companies like PMDG, Aerosoft and the like represent.

In other words: This game is not supposed to replace your FSX simulation.... You are not the target audience.

So where do we go from here?

Well- first- I'm not overly concerned. As hardware advances- FSX is really just coming into its own on the average consumer's hardware- so we intend to continue FSX development for the foreseeable future! There are a number of directions in which we can go- and PMDG has already been taking steps to sort out what platform our future products will feature. There has been some loose talk about PMDG and Xplane10- but I must tell you that while we are evaluating that product, and while we do have someone on staff helping to map out the process by which our products wind up in Xplane10- we are still some way out on that project line... From a developers standpoint Xplane10 certainly seems to be a good solid platform that will help our products to shine- but, like FSX it has some weaknesses and we need to evaluate whether it makes sense to allow XPlan10 at this time.

I don't yet have an answer to this question.

In the mean time, we continue at full steam to put the 777 together for you. I am not sweating the small stuff at this particular juncture- but I promise that whatever direction we go- you will be welcome to follow!

Happy New Year- everyone!

Robert S. Randazzo
Precision Manuals Development Group
http://www.precisionmanuals.com

I did have a lot of hope for MS Flight. Looks like I'll be sticking to FSX

Sorry, I think Matt posted this a few posts up. But for those who didn't read it lol.

[danielisaiah]

begin rant -

I run one of the most trafficked websites in the planet supporting one of the most successful cable channels on television (home of a certain 3 sisters, one is married to a former Laker) Anyhow, we are CONSTANTLY aware of who uses our site. We want them to stay on our site and enjoy our web products.

I understand MS's desire to make a new business out of flight simulator. I understand their desire to get in on the action for add-ons. What I don't understand is why they basically decided to destroy their base. They absolutely swung the pendulum way to far. I have been running digital business for over 15 years now....here's my MBA assessment of this product and its lifecycle:

three users or "personas" of this prodcut: the Arcader, the Simmer(casual) and the Simmer(hardcore)

1) The product will be released in spring and people on PC and XBOX will download it....but to underwhelming traction.

2) Very few Arcaders will add more areas of the world because the Arcader crowd doesn't really need another area to fly through hoops and collect imaginary golden floating stars. they also won't spend much time free flying, because they don't usually play those types of games. the Simmer(casual) might purchase more areas but he/she will probably grow bored after a while and go play Skyrim because THAT'S WHO THAT TYPE OF PERSON IS.

3)The Simmer(hardcore) will download the free product just to check out the "modified" FSX engine, but will just sigh and then go back to FSX with REX, UTX, some ORBX sceneries, FLIGHT1 Mustang, RealAir duke, some Carenado planes installed...all controlled by their Seitek throttles and yokes with track IR running on a fast rig that they built specifically with FSX and all these add-ons in mind. At that point the user will realize that they need not see FLIGHT ever again...because they have all they need.

Overall, MS should have released TWO versions: The free and light version for the Arcader and Simmer(casual) as a business experiment and a full version the caters to the Simmer(hardcore)

Now that we know that the developers were in the loop for over 2 years, MS could have offered an 10% pass through share for the SDK - with Add-ons to be sold through some sort of download center. Once a 3rd party add-on hits a certain performance indicator, it drops to 4%. This makes developers make a quality product. They could have partnered with the major developers in the community to help them make something special.

It's been said that the ultimate product owner /executive is the VP of the XBOX platform as well - and I think I read that he/she swung in mid-project? That VP obviously has their own agenda and its clear (now) they never understood the subtleties of what the flightsim market has become since FSX was released back in 2006

Ultimately, if allof the above is true, executives will distance themselves from the "failures" of this product and move on...the team will sadly be downsized or disbanded. Hopefully, when MS finally realizes their mistakes with the flightsim community - they may make amends and release the SDK and a full version of the platform.

hope springs eternal

end of rant

[erick]

Hi Guys

I have been lurking in the shadows for a last couple of months sort of assesing the status of the current flight sim community, the current tech, the current add ons and of course what is coming down the pipe in the not too distant future. The reason, simple, I have been gone for a long time and I wanna come back. (My old fsx/fs9 rig kicked the bucket - Alienware area 51 died many years ago!) I did return to fsx a few years after that for a short stint with a cheap system from a big box store (probably listed in my profile) I was here just long enough to buy and appreciate some rex/orbx stuff but the system was too slow and my life was too busy. I left again for the last few years. While I have once again found myself getting the itch!! So YES I am sort of STALKING you guys!! haha

Anyway, I have been getting up to speed on Flight/x-plane/prepared, etc. as well as the current state of FSX. I am extremely interested in building my own system and jumping back into the hobby that I miss so much. In the past I was part of the "more money than brains" club and just went out and got the best system I could find. Now I am older, a little wiser and a little more tech savvy than I once was. Thats the reason I would like to build a system rather than go throw all of my hard earned cash at an "alienware" or what have you.

I am pretty sure I have a decent knowledge of the current hardware available but regarding the current (and tba) simulators, well, that is where I need YOUR help. Obviously I would like to build a system that is a little bit future proof, which is the reason I have been waiting on news regarding FLIGHT. I was intending on preparing a system that would be running FLIGHT as the base and going from there. WELL, THAT HAS ALL CHANGED SINCE I WOKE UP THIS MORNING!!!
I am not going to rant on and on about my dissapointment but.......wth.

Well, thats where I am at. I am about to build a $2000 + system for .......FSX ?!?!, a game that came out OVER HALF A DECADE AGO!!!!

My question to you guys is - AM I INSANE???  or should I go back into the closet for a while and come back when SOMEONE actually releases a new and improved ..... and complete flight simulator???

Thank you for looking and also, I share your pain!! haha

Eric

[162db]

erick, on Jan 7 2012, 01:29 PM, said:

Hi Guys

I have been lurking in the shadows for a last couple of months sort of assesing the status of the current flight sim community, the current tech, the current add ons and of course what is coming down the pipe in the not too distant future. The reason, simple, I have been gone for a long time and I wanna come back. (My old fsx/fs9 rig kicked the bucket - Alienware area 51 died many years ago!) I did return to fsx a few years after that for a short stint with a cheap system from a big box store (probably listed in my profile) I was here just long enough to buy and appreciate some rex/orbx stuff but the system was too slow and my life was too busy. I left again for the last few years. While I have once again found myself getting the itch!! So YES I am sort of STALKING you guys!! haha

Eric

If anything, build that system for X-Plane 10. I stopped flying FSX years ago because I was tired of other games continuously improving graphics and utilizing new hardware while FSX was left in the dust from a technological perspective. I can't see the point of building a system of that caliber just for FSX. That said, however, this really isn't the forum to discuss this in. You should make a new thread in the Technical sub forum.

Edited by 162db, 07 January 2012 - 07:47 PM.

[erick]

162db, on Jan 7 2012, 07:45 PM, said:

If anything, build that system for X-Plane 10. I stopped flying FSX years ago because I was tired of other games continuously improving graphics and utilizing new hardware while FSX was left in the dust from a technological perspective. I can't see the point of building a system of that caliber just for FSX. That said, however, this really isn't the forum to discuss this in. You should make a new thread in the Technical sub forum.

Thanks for the input 162db. And you are right, I guess my post was a little more related to the technical forum. I just feel at a bit of loss with this latest news about Flight and wanted to chime in with my 2 cents. I will continue any discussion about a new system in the appropriate forum. As far as Flight goes........... still feeling bummed!! haha