79 replies to this topic

[jcovelli]

Kaotika, on Jan 18 2012, 01:53 PM, said:

They want to sell Flight, not FSX.

what they should be doing is wanting to please consumers........

[ChaoticBeauty]

jcovelli, on Jan 18 2012, 07:55 PM, said:

what they should be doing is wanting to please consumers........

What they want to do is gather a huge casual audience and make $$$.

[jcovelli]

Kaotika, on Jan 18 2012, 01:56 PM, said:

What they want to do is gather a huge casual audience and make $$$.

they wish. in reality they won't do either. and they will / already have pissed off their existing customers,

Edited by jcovelli, 18 January 2012 - 01:12 PM.

[ChaoticBeauty]

jcovelli, on Jan 18 2012, 08:02 PM, said:

they wish. in reality they won't do either. and they will / already have pissed off their existing customers,

What I really hope is that Microsoft Flight is a new start just like Microsoft Flight Simulator 1.0 and is going to evolve in the future.

[alainneedle1]

Rudolph-411, on Jan 17 2012, 11:14 PM, said:

I find it hilarious we all insulted alainneedle for months, calling his posts baseless speculation, yet in reality, he had been leaked inside information from ORBX.

Orbx info. is only about 5% of all I knew and know so far, I was not to revealed who my sources were   , and JV who told on himself...pffff...

jcovelli, on Jan 17 2012, 11:16 PM, said:

anyone here wanna pay for an atc package in flight?
i wouldn't pay 25 cents for something that should be there to begin with. and i do care where the addons come from and this the entire reason i refuse to touch flight. i did try the demo... until it stopped working do to a corrupt install... no option to repair or reinstall... no biggie though as i was bored of it already.

Why should this be there (not saying it's not) you can download Flight for free and you'r not happy because the ATC ain't there...

So it's better for somebody who will not care about the ATC to have it with Flight and pay $89.00 when released....you lost me here.

By the way was your Flight beta the whole sim? NO......so don't touch it and don't report any bugs to MS.

Spam, on Jan 18 2012, 11:26 AM, said:

Becasue when you make a game on behalf of a company like microsoft, microsoft own all the IP rights to the game itelf.

Exactly, fixed FSX (as much as they can) repackaged it, called it Flight and give some of it for free, "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar" don't you.....

MS knew they missed the boat with FSX and 3PD addons, they did not make any money with addons, they are not "gonna" make the same mistake this time.

Father_Jack, on Jan 18 2012, 11:28 AM, said:

It seems Microsoft have changed the philosophy and instead of providing a simulator for all age-groups, they are now only focused on beginner simulators to provide users with 'fun' rather than 'realism'.

True, they want to get as many peoples as possible using Flight, hardcore included (may not be everything you want at first or maybe you will)

As for why MS did not do anything for FSX just read my above post.

[jcovelli]

considering atc is a pretty big part of flying.... it should be there . (period)

and someone please tell me the point of reporting bugs to them? fsx still has the same bugs it had from day one.. even after 2 service packs. and with this whole new approach.. they obviously didn't listen to what people want to begin with. as far as i'm concerned this mass audience they want to attract can deal with the bugs.

it's not microsofts job to make money from addons. they don't have to f...ing monopolize everything!! it's their job to provide a good base that is stable and has the necessary features for everyone else to create the addons they want. this has been the model since day 1... and it's worked. it is very clear that they just don't care . (period)  and for that, flight will fail.

[jcovelli]

btw here's a fact:  flight runs on dx 9


which i find interesting considering when i told everyone how pointless the dx10 preview in fsx was and how everything there including bloom and cockpit shadowing could be done in dx9... everyone said no it couldn't.

this also raises another question... what was the point of the dx 10 "preview"?  they never fully changed over to it in fsx and it's not in flight so what is it previewing?????

Edited by jcovelli, 18 January 2012 - 05:54 PM.

[-Dexter]

jcovelli, on Jan 18 2012, 05:51 PM, said:

btw here's a fact:  flight runs on dx 9
which i find interesting considering when i told everyone how pointless the dx10 preview in fsx was and how everything there including bloom and cockpit shadowing could be done in dx9... everyone said no it couldn't.

this also raises another question... what was the point of the dx 10 "preview"?  they never fully changed over to it in fsx and it's not in flight so what is it previewing?????

95% of users won't notice a difference between DirectX9 and DirectX10 or DirectX11.

Go ahead, try.

[jcovelli]

i didn't say there was a difference or a noticeable difference. flight should use dx11 or at least dx10....  and i'm saying that everything that they did with dx10 preview in fsx that everyone of you said couldn't be done in dx9... they just did.

and dx 11 has advanced tessellation features which make a HUGE difference in games visual quality and depth.... posting some random image from some random game means nothing. the developers of the platform using the dx version need to properly incorporate it. and making it backward compatible with 9 or 10 is not the way to do that. play something using only dx11 and then play something using 9 or 10.

Edited by jcovelli, 18 January 2012 - 07:18 PM.

[-Dexter]

jcovelli, on Jan 18 2012, 07:13 PM, said:

and dx 11 has advanced tessellation features which make a HUGE difference in games visual quality and depth.... posting some random image from some random game means nothing. the developers of the platform using the dx version need to properly incorporate it. and making it backward compatible with 9 or 10 is not the way to do that. play something using only dx11 and then play something using 9 or 10.

I'm not saying the DX10-11 features are bad; they just aren't worth it to most people. A lot more development work for slightly better graphics supported by one or two generations of video cards just isn't worth it. At least not yet.

Edited by -Dexter, 18 January 2012 - 07:40 PM.

[alainneedle1]

jcovelli, on Jan 18 2012, 05:51 PM, said:

btw here's a fact:  flight runs on dx 9

Because Flight can run on XP.

-Dexter, on Jan 18 2012, 07:01 PM, said:

95% of users won't notice a difference between DirectX9 and DirectX10 or DirectX11.

Go ahead, try.

Here is a good example between DX...   Crysis 2, a game I play..

Also here is a vid. I just made testing DX10 with FSX, take off and landing were not the best as I added strong wing and a lot of FPS killer like Bloom, full overcast, 10 miles vivibility +++. DX 10 is very good if you know how to tweak Nvidia Inspector, not perfect but very good.

Taking a ride from KHQM on a cold morning.....

Edited by alainneedle1, 18 January 2012 - 08:22 PM.

[DeadPilot]

THBatMan8, on Jan 15 2012, 11:59 PM, said:

Somehow I doubt MS is making a full simulator as I don't know of too many 16-year-olds that could afford it. MS wouldn't profit off of it. That's why they always stuck with 'dumbed down' simulators so that they would appeal to the general public. If Joe-six-pack-of-beer-classic-hillbilly decided he wanted to fly a 747, he would never be able to fly anything the likes of PMDG.

So, according to you a 16 years old can't become a pilot? He's not able to fly a plane?

Did you know that you can get the PPL at 16?

Did you know that there are 10 years old kids who can fly the Cessna?

Edited by DeadPilot, 24 January 2012 - 06:50 AM.

[jcovelli]

DeadPilot, on Jan 24 2012, 07:49 AM, said:

So, according to you a 16 years old can't become a pilot? He's not able to fly a plane?

Did you know that you can get the PPL at 16?

Did you know that there are 10 years old kids who can fly the Cessna?

yeah... that's not at all what he said. thanks for the try though

Edited by jcovelli, 24 January 2012 - 12:52 PM.

[THBatMan8]

DeadPilot, on Jan 24 2012, 04:49 AM, said:

So, according to you a 16 years old can't become a pilot? He's not able to fly a plane?

Did you know that you can get the PPL at 16?

Did you know that there are 10 years old kids who can fly the Cessna?

Woooosh!!!

That was the sound of my post going over your head.

[nosalis]

I'm sorry to be firing away out of nowhere

but I must say that reading some post here make me sign up and tell you something

I'm bit disappointed about what some of you people are saying. I've been "playing" FlightSim since one of the earlier versions, ..and then spending good amount of time in FSX, but I'm not a hardcore simmer .. and I don't plan to be

the thing that pissed me off the most is that the developers are complaining about not being able to sell they stuff, and that for the new game they would have to pay MS a cut

well..let me tell you something,
I work as a digital artist for about 9 years, started in computer games and now working in movies. And as a "hobby" I still do some 3d assets which I'm selling over the internet ... and recently, one of the biggest 3d store decieded to eliminate their competition, forcing people selling there to sign exclusive deal with them and if not, they take 60% out of the product... let me write that again .. 60% !!! and they don't do .... and it takes me even a 1 month to do a single asset, so what's fair in that?

so I can't but feel angry about these poor developers doing their thing, .. selling a SINGLE plane for $60.00 (which is equal the price of whole FSX game!) .. and now they would be angry if they would have to pay a cut?
if there wasn't FSX, they would have no market, no customers to buy their planes/add-ons .. so from a point of view, it's not fair that they could have been doing that for years . I believe they must pay licence to the aircraft owners, but it's only fair to pay some small $$ to MS as well!

yeah, everybody would love to have a big business earning lots of $$.. but it's not always that easy.

but I understand the frustration of being in good business and sudenly you lose most of your profits .. yeah, been there done that that's life .. get used to it

[Heimi77]

Beta Testers now have more planes to test.
Autopilot is there but not useable until now..
Good News: There is IFR, they have VOR,NDB and ILS, and associated instruments.

[ChaoticBeauty]

Heimi77, on Feb 5 2012, 02:46 PM, said:

Beta Testers now have more planes to test.
Autopilot is there but not useable until now..
Good News: There is IFR, they have VOR,NDB and ILS, and associated instruments.

So now there's ATC? And what planes got added?

[nosalis]

beta testers are not supposed to talk about beta anywhere other then the official beta test forums

IFR, VOB, NDS and ILS have been there since the start... that someone couldnt see them doesn't mean they weren't there

[ChaoticBeauty]

nosalis, on Feb 5 2012, 09:00 PM, said:

beta testers are not supposed to talk about beta anywhere other then the official beta test forums

IFR, VOB, NDS and ILS have been there since the start... that someone couldnt see them doesn't mean they weren't there

Everyone has broken the NDA. Not to mention that someone leaked the beta build itself.

[162db]

nosalis, on Jan 31 2012, 07:26 PM, said:

so I can't but feel angry about these poor developers doing their thing, .. selling a SINGLE plane for $60.00 (which is equal the price of whole FSX game!) .. and now they would be angry if they would have to pay a cut?
if there wasn't FSX, they would have no market, no customers to buy their planes/add-ons .. so from a point of view, it's not fair that they could have been doing that for years . I believe they must pay licence to the aircraft owners, but it's only fair to pay some small $$ to MS as well!

yeah, everybody would love to have a big business earning lots of $$.. but it's not always that easy.

but I understand the frustration of being in good business and sudenly you lose most of your profits .. yeah, been there done that that's life .. get used to it

You're missing something. These are not multi million dollar companies getting rich by selling their products. These are people taking time out of their day or devoting their day to this work. For some people, it is their ONLY source of income. Yes they may charge $60 for a single plane but it may have taken 2 years to develop that plane. The art is only a very small aspect of it. Think about how much time these developers invest in making these products, then try to say it's fair that they pay MS a small cut which really isn't small at all. I believe it was something around 60% of earnings + licensing fees.

Edited by 162db, 05 February 2012 - 05:08 PM.