Why FS2004 will fail

[Guest]

I understand your viewpoint, and believe me, I can empathise with it. But what I really hear you saying is that FS2004 will probably fall short of your expectations (and other's) as a hard-core flight sim. All this means is that MS is concentrating on the features that will make the product appeal to the largest audience, as you've already pointed out. Most business managers would simply call this good business practice. For this reason, I believe you have pointed out the reasons why FS2004 will succeed, not why it will fail.Mike Stone

[Guest]

Most business managers would simply call this good >business practice. For this reason, I believe you have >pointed out the reasons why FS2004 will succeed, not why it >will fail. >>Mike Stone Mike,Success is a very loose word :-) Will FS2004 be a financial success? the answer probably has to be yes.Will it appeal to the gamer, casual simmer who wouldnt know if something was realistic or not? again the answer is a probable yes.Will FS2004 be a success as a sim on the cutting edge of realism both in aircraft and weather dynamics? I dont know :-(Peter

[Guest]

I'm sorry, but I can't see how you come to the conclusion that FS98 had no 3D engine because the colour depth of the textures was only 8bit. That's like saying the 6502 was no micro processor.FS98 ran on Direct3D (DirectX 5.0).Sierk

[Guest]

Exactly my point. There is only one definition of success when it comes to a commercial product. Does it sell and make a profit for the company that made it? And its no less a "success" because its not geared to one particular aspect of the market. The Chevy Cavalier that I drive is a top selling product line for GM and a profitable one. Any rational businessman would say its a success. Does it appeal to high-performance race car fans? Are you kidding? It does 0-60 it 3 1/2 days. If I'm one of those race car fans, can I expect the next Cavalier model to perform like a Corvette? No way. But that doesn't mean the next model won't be a success. It just doesn't fill everyone's needs and wishes.Mike Stone

[ckukmale 27]

Well just a thought and I know its not positive and I know Im normally positive.Remember Flightsim 95, it was awful..then flightsim 98 was a fix of the problems of 95 really...and it was good..then they made a new 3d engine and FS2000 came out and it was awful and jerky and stutters everywhere so then they managed to fix the engine and out came Fs2002 which I think is great but of course over time people want and expect more so then screenshots for CFS3 comes out using maybe a new engine again...with different weather so basically Fs2004 will be based on that engine so it might be buggy .it might not be. Im just going on past experiences so I think that Fs2006 will be great as it might be a bugfix of Fs2004.Anyway thats my doom and gloom post over.Craig Kiltie

[Guest B52Drivr]

Hi All,I think if you believe that MS really cares what the 'hard-core' simmer is interested in, (other than perhaps pointing them in the right direction for the next issue), you are just fooling yourself.Things we are getting in 2002 are things we asked for before 2K was out. And, then only in a limited area. Microsoft is interested in profit, as they well should be. The main market for this sim is not the 'hard-core' bunch, but the weekend computer pilot who, this is as close to an aircraft cockpit as he will ever get. Walter Mitty, look out. Don't forget also, that MS bundles this software to computer Mfgr's on a pro rated basis for X amount of dollars, because it is successful.Microsoft already knows that the hard-core simmers will take care of themselves because we are obsessed with FS and will do anything within reason to improve it. Give it to us, sit back and listen to the grumbling, slight praise, and take notes . . . let the customers do the 'beta testing' after its release and patch accordingly if really, (meaning if it won't run at all on most machines) necessary.Now, I believe that the group who is responsible for FS is a bunch of really cool, dedicated and wacko guys, who, if, were allowed to do as they wished, would give us 'hard-core' guys exactaly what we want . . .however, the bean counters at MS still run the show . . . and that is the way that papa "Bill" wants it . . .and speaking of which, you have to admire the guy . . . he made it in a world which is tough as nails and made it big . . . and if it wasn't for Bill Gates and MS, we would still be flying wooden model airplanes outside or such. Profit is not a dirty word . . .I think 2002 is a great product for 70 odd bucks . . . and the aftermarket software guys take up the slack for the rest. Be glad that we have 2002, cause it's ton's better than 2000 -- and 2004, (if there is a 2004), will be that much better. Myself, I loved 98, hated 2000 and love 2002. I bought 2000, and went back to 98. So what! It's like anything else, a learning curve . . .and now we have 2002 and it's pretty much a work of art. I really have a hard time with individuals who 'poo-poo' what we have, and do nothing but gripe and complain about MS . . . hell, I'm glad that MS just produces flight sim . . .and yeah, I want it to be better, but I am also a realist, and it will get better in time . . . and when Microsoft wants it to be. So much for my .02 cents worth . . .I'm getting off my soap box...Best to allClay

[Guest]

Seems like a troll post so i'll just say LOL! ;-)

[Guest]

The one point being missed here that is probably the most important to me is that 2004 will likely only support GMAX planes. Get ready to sweep out your hanger and retire such gems as PIC 767 and the DF 737. I can't imagine that these companies will come out with GMAX patches for these products four years down the line....

[Dewey 0]

From a marketing standpoint Flightsim has to try to be all things to all people. Therefore, it can never be everything to anyone. It's another case of individuals wanting more of exactly what others want less of and vice versa.If Flightsim2K4 "fails", it will only fail with those who didn't get the features they wanted, while it will be a grand success in the minds of those who did.The mistake we flightsimmers continue to make over and over is deciding the "right" and "wrong" way to use flightsims, and then trying to convince others that our personal opinion of "right" and "wrong" should be the same for everyone.Dewey

[Guest]

I keep hearing this, but I've never seen a statement from MS saying it. Sounds like a bunch of Chicken Little talk to me.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"The mistake we flightsimmers continue to make over and over is deciding the "right" and "wrong" way to use flightsims, and then trying to convince others that our personal opinion of "right" and "wrong" should be the same for everyone."Very well said, and in fewer words than my long winded post :)

[LAdamson 240]

> The main >market for this sim is not the 'hard-core' bunch, but the >weekend computer pilot who, this is as close to an aircraft >cockpit as he will ever get. Walter Mitty, look out. Don't >forget also, that MS bundles this software to computer >Mfgr's on a pro rated basis for X amount of dollars, because >it is successful. Obviously, MS has to go after much more than the "hardcore" market, but at least they do go out of their way to include navigation, airport/runway/taxiway, & topography data bases which are of interest to real pilots & hardcore simmers alike!>It's like anything else, a learning curve . . .and now we >have 2002 and it's pretty much a work of art. I really have >a hard time with individuals who 'poo-poo' what we have, and >do nothing but gripe and complain about MS . . . hell, I'm >glad that MS just produces flight sim . . .and yeah, I want >it to be better, but I am also a realist, and it will get >better in time . . . and when Microsoft wants it to be. > So much for my .02 cents worth . . .I'm getting off my >soap box... >yep!!!L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

It was different for me! Although I liked FS98 when it first was released, it was still apparent that it was based on MS's old "flat world" technology. For us simmer/pilots who live west of Denver, the lack of airports and very "un-realistic" mountainous areas just didn't work out. Many IFR approaches ended with slamming into huge rocks at 10,000' that just shouldn't have been there!I personally took a recess from FS98 to enjoy the much more accurate topography of Sierra's Pro-Pilot. It took Microsoft's CFS1 & the Pacific Northwest Mega Scenery to get me back with FS98 aircraft.FS2000, dispite it's "jerks" at least brought a realistic nav & topography data-base with it. The textures, including seasons were also vastly improved. Same goes for clouds, although "grainy" at times. But once again, it was a combo of CFS2 & FS2K that got rid of the jitters as well as constant "morphing". All in all, I look forward to FS2004, since I don't agree with the good/bad years anyway!!L.Adamson

[Guest]

I read something a while ago, similar to this thread, it was either an interview with Bruce Artwick or similar. The article, said about the various release's of FS, being good / bad /good / bad. I guess the next version will be a sad number. Typically (for me) I get worse frame rates from 2002 than I did with 2000 on my steam powered machine.George

[Chris Willis 8]

"get worse frame rates from 2002 than I did with 2000 on my steam powered machine."fs2000 don't have autogen, AI Aircraft, Atc, detailed airports water animation, scenery shadows,32bits clouds, reflection etc.. Remove those and you will get better frame than fs2000 with NO stutters like fs2000 have. There is slider and on/off switch for this.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFshttp://fsw.simflight.com/fsw.jpg