Classic British Flight Sim

Time to get a grip here and remember that this part of the flight sim community (ie everyone who reads this) are in the minority. I am pretty sure we are in a minority, if someone has a market survey perhaps they can revise my view. Flightsim started out as a pretty open application, I started with FS4, and have been adding scenery and aircraft ever since. It is an odd product, I buy the app, and then spend 10 times as much on non-Microsoft addons, and download bags of freeware. Most simulations/games lock you out of this. There are probably major marketing discussions at MS over this sim. Microsoft may be going down a different path with flightsims. I actually thought that MS might be phasing out the desktop for X-box, a few years ago, look at the shelves of the software shops, pc is in the minority. The most frightening thing was when Halo came out and made a huge amount of money, in days. They can make it into a movie and have action figures! Our incredibly dedicated little group who love aviation, history, and the joy of flight, are not a big part of the market. Finally FSX is better than FS9, with better mesh support and textures, it is the successor to FS9. I agree with all the comments so far about this topic, but I think the hard truth is that there is little money for Microsoft to look after 3rd party developers, and cash flow is the final arbiter.

Firstly, hello! and welcome. xsmile

daedelus wrote:Time to get a grip here and remember that this part of the flight sim community (ie everyone who reads this) are in the minority. I am pretty sure we are in a minority, if someone has a market survey perhaps they can revise my view. Flightsim started out as a pretty open application, I started with FS4, and have been adding scenery and aircraft ever since. It is an odd product, I buy the app, and then spend 10 times as much on non-Microsoft addons, and download bags of freeware. Most simulations/games lock you out of this. There are probably major marketing discussions at MS over this sim. Microsoft may be going down a different path with flightsims. I actually thought that MS might be phasing out the desktop for X-box, a few years ago, look at the shelves of the software shops, pc is in the minority. The most frightening thing was when Halo came out and made a huge amount of money, in days. They can make it into a movie and have action figures! Our incredibly dedicated little group who love aviation, history, and the joy of flight, are not a big part of the market. Finally FSX is better than FS9, with better mesh support and textures, it is the successor to FS9. I agree with all the comments so far about this topic, but I think the hard truth is that there is little money for Microsoft to look after 3rd party developers, and cash flow is the final arbiter.

This is a very good point, but a good friend of mine who is a sector technical specialist at Microsoft Corp will happily tell you that Microsoft make a packet out of Flight Simulator given the comparitively little amount they invest. The other thing that they get from it is brand awareness in spades. Its also worth remembering that Microsoft don't develope flight simulator, they fund its development but they don't do it themselves, thats what ACE's do. After the huge success of Halo Microsft effectively outsourced it to the team who develope it, much the same as they do with ACE's.

I have to say FSX is great from an end user perspective (my opinion) but the way in which the SDK has transformed (I was careful not to say eveloved) has meant its very difficult for Developers to keep up, 3 significant changes in a year is above and beyond the accepted norm for any SDK (Not just in FS).

You are also correct in that our little Classic brigade are in a minority, but that is what makes the FS series successful, regardless of your era, you can recreate your environment, this helps generate a market income globally of several hundred million dollars, (albeit not all to MS,) someone told me the exact figure in 2006 and I was astonished, I'll try and dig it out.

What ever happens it sure will be interesting! xsmile

This is true mate, but as we all know (and I work in a very similar line of business) Fresh chalk and clean slate always have constraints put on them. I'm just being pragmatic. xsmile

-

I think a clean slate is definitely what is needed. A new version completely rewritten from the ground up. I doubt we will get this, but FS11 may very well shake things up. It will have big implications for the addon developers, especially commercial ones, imagine a big "RESET" button for the addon market if you will. Exactly what the long term effects on the hobby will be are unclear, but you can bet those companies who have made a lot of money out of the hobby won't abandon it!

Take a look at the Silent Hunter and Total War series - both of these have very busy and active modding scenes with lots and lots of new stuff being released all the time, including major projects that have taken many people many months to complete. What is interesting is nobody charges money for them! It's interesting to note that FS is not the only title that has such an active third party addon and modding scene, yet is the only one that has turned into a money making industry. Maybe a completely new version will help return the FS hobby to its roots?

As for MS supporting third party developers, well I'm willing to bet 95% of people who buy MSFS never download any addons for it. I think the kind of FS hobbyist who visits FS websites and downloads (or even purchases) addons is definitely in the minority. Having said that though there are still clearly plenty of us to support a thriving (and probably bloated) payware industry. The point is once you actually purchase a copy of FS in the shop MS has got what they want. They don't care if addon developers are doing well or not, or if they are producing quality addons, they've already got their slice of the pie when you handed over your cash in PC World!

I'll start this by stating that I'm not a developer - I wouldn't even know where to begin. But this is how I see things.

FSX is finally coming to a point where it is half-useful to those lucky folks with reasonably current hardware. Saying this, my new Q6600 still doesn't like much Autogen, or even a few seemingly simple airport buildings some of the time. I'm SURE FSX could have been implemented MUCH better than it has been.

But it seems that ACES are now trying to push pure FSX models more, by reducing backwards compatibility. This must have been done mainly due to the slow uptake of pure FSX models by 3rd party suppliers (be it freeware or payware). Clearly, models developed to FSX standards give much-improved performance, and no doubt ACES are sick of taking the flak for this. The Mustang included with Acceleration is a good example - excellent framerates and visuals (although it flies like an arcade game). The fact that RP gets 3x the framerate for his new Hawk than the JP speaks volumes to me.

Would the uptake have been so slow without the backwards compatibility previously mentioned? I doubt it. Let's face it - most of the payware providers are still selling FS9 models for FSX, even a year after release. And for one reason - because they can!

Backwards compatibility was never OFFICIALLY mentioned in the specs for FSX (AFAIK - please feel free to correct me!). And clearly M$/ACES feel it is now LIMITING FSX rather than encouraging it. Things have to change to improve - it's only natural. Why not go with the change rather than plump for the same old as before?!

Saying that, it's naughty to change the FSX specs this far into it's life. But are those changes really significant? Maybe one of the excellent devs here can shed some light on just what the changes are, for us non-technical folk to understand.

James

Own point of view.

I really likeFSX.

But.....

and it is a big BUT.

I purchased the FSX DeLuxe Version and then was pressed to purchase the Acceleration pack, which I did, because I'm a generous kinda guy......

Imagine my total shock and horror when I discovered that the acceleration pack turns out to be some kind of WARGAME sh*te totally removed from the kind of flight-simming most of us are used to (I should add that I was only badgered into buying it because I thought it would counteract all the well known problems associated with FSX) Add to that, that it prevents you from using the (FANFARE) heralded multiplayer features of the ALL new FSX.

So here I go with the crux of my complaint.

Whilst I have managed to overcome the problems that the AVERAGE flightsim user encounters, I fail to see how an organisation like Microsoft can release, for retail, a programme which not only is full of flaws, but also, can potentially crash your whole system in such a way that it takes an act of God, or, a costly visit from a computer expert to get it working again.

Sorry, but coming from the North I have an aversion to being ripped off!

I spit on Bill Gate's grave....yes, I know he's not dead yet......I mean when he is.

And everyone he has ever known.

Kiss

Johnny

PS. and I just read the previous post in its entirety and it makes me want to hurl the contents of my guts!!!! You should not be defending this kind of corporate grand larceny!

These people are making millions of dollars everyday.......from the likes of us! How can you defend people who are no better than 'muggers'?

They released for sale and on a disc 'for christs sake' a programme that still needs work ( a lot of work) how can you possibly defend that????

As some of you know, when I bought FSX SP2 (you know the one with the F18 in), I was given two FSX (cheapo version) discs in error by a dopey sales person in the UK, which (whilst doing something else), I stupidly installed and mucked up my FSX for ever on this PC (it seems the security patch thinks it is wrong and will not let me change it in any way ), so I have decided not bother with it.
I know over the next few months I might miss out on a few aircraft that are not compatable, but I have about 400 odd (including hundreds of quids worth of payware ) I am not going to give up on, just to be in FSX.
PS, I still think the look of FSX is a backward step, even on good machine without a lot of extra cash being thrown at it..again!!

johnsmithe15 wrote:I spit on Bill Gate's grave....yes, I know he's not dead yet......I mean when he is.

And everyone he has ever known.

Kiss

Johnny

PS. and I just read the previous post in its entirety and it makes me want to hurl the contents of my guts!!!! You should not be defending this kind of corporate grand larceny!

These people are making millions of dollars everyday.......from the likes of us! How can you defend people who are no better than 'muggers'?

They released for sale and on a disc 'for christs sake' a programme that still needs work ( a lot of work) how can you possibly defend that????

I think you need to calm down a bit! Nobody mugged you. And there aren't many posts ANYWHERE on this board which are totally positive about FSX. Mine certainly isn't.

James

This should tell MS a thing or two, the recent Simflight poll shows the following...

Which sim do you use MOST of the time?

FS9 (FS2004) 57.14% (24)
FSX 40.48% (17)
X-plane 2.38% (1)
Other 0.00% (0)

After 14 months, this bias to FS2004 should have long gone.