Microsoft

[Guest]

Microsoft

[Guest]

Thanks for the heads up. If that is the way it is going to be, then I think MS is going to lose a lot of revenue due to its ignorance. I guess I would have to stick with FS2002 or at least until someone designs something similar to 2002. What a shame if this all is true!

[Guest]

If you want a dose of added realism, why don't you try flying online on Vatsim, with live controllers, and live pilots, and live weather ? Why insist on flying pre-programmed ADV's for it ? I believe this is why Microsoft is devoting thier efforts elsewhere because most of us do fly online, and don't care if the old adventures work or not ;-) Just playing Devil's advocate here, I personally havn't flown an adventure for the sake of having ATC or weather for years now, because I have it always online on Vatsim. Just food for thought, because it sounds as if you don't fly online, and DEPEND on adventures for ATC and weather and realism. Give online flying a chance, and if you do, you may not care about adventures for ATC and Weather missing either. Gary Hall

[barryward12345 0]

G'day RalphAs an enthusiastic supporter of the work done at http://fsadventures.net/ ,I can see where you are coming from.I have recently been thinking of what I shall do when I get the new FS2004.Shall I delete FS2002 and everything that I have installed/downloadedpertaining to it -- or shall I leave it installed and run FS2004 alongsideit? Perhaps, in the light of what you have posted, APL adventure programmerswill continue to programme their adventures to run in FS2002 - for thosesmall band of Fsimmers who enjoy the challenge of these adventures. In thatcase, I would leave FS2002 on my HDD and only use it to run theseadventures. Only time will tell.With regard to "reality" when using the Sim -- I think there are a number ofdifferent levels that apply to different simmers. These start at the pure"gamer" who happen to like aircraft -- they enjoy simply allowing thecomputer to fly the aircraft and gaze lovingly at it from an external view.The next level is people like me - who will never fly in real life - but whowant to get a "feeling" of what it is to fly in real life (without gettingtoo serious about it all) . Hence , I like to fly in different weatherconditions and use all the navigation and ATC training/lessons that I canget. So I search out the APL lessons and adventures. Then there are thepeople who go one step further and fly online using Vatsim -- while"thinking" that this is in fact as real as you can get. Then finally thereare the people like yourself -- who really do want to fly "as real as itgets" -- and become involved in the APL adventures.Just my .02 cents (Australian dollars -- that's about .01 cents US) worthBarry

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

"Microsoft is devoting thier efforts elsewhere because most of us do fly online, and don't care if the old adventures work or not"...Well the truth of the matter is that less than 35% of flight sim enthusiasts fly online via VATSIM or IVAO. That is from a survey of over 10,000 flight simmers that you can view at:http://www.avsim.com/nabopoll/result.php?surv=3See question number 15.

[Guest otter55]

in all of the hundreds of hours i have spent with the fs series i have never yet flown an adventure. i spend all my time tooling around the countryside in ga or ultralight aircraft "looking around", just as i do in real life.don

[barryward12345 0]

Well-- this is not strictly true. Flying online MAY or MAY NOT be "as real as it gets" . I have flown online with Vatsim -- and yes, I have interrelated with real virtual controllers and real virtual pilots :) -- but , while flying, I did not have any clue at all as to what I was doing. I was not using real charts, I did not know the real flying area restrictions, etc, etc. BUT, by using a number of APL adventures that have been published , such as those at FSadventures.net, I have been able to fly as real as it can get. Because, these adventures include all that is required to fly a particular flight as it would be done in real life.You may not feel that the ability to programme adventures is important -- but to some , it is. The "lessons" that were included with FS2002 were absolutely abysmal. The APL adventures that have been created are profoundly superior to them -- and I just wish that there were many more of them. For virtual flyers who really do want to "learn" how to fly properly as in real life, you will learn far more using the APL adventures than just flying online and "thinking" that you are flying "as real as it gets".Barry

[Guest kurtj]

This seems a little confusing to me. Does this mean no more addon planes for Century of Flight, No dynamic weather, or just the adventures are given by default would be gone. I could live with the later because I hardly use the adventures. I generally create my own flights. This Apl and Aplc32 seem to be quite technical.What about ATC? Will it be improved or not?Just how far a step backward is this new version going to be?The clouds look great in 3d so in my book that is a step forward with weather.Ground textures are about the same as fs2002 or maybe better, that I can't tell yet. Any info would be helpful on this matter.Thanks,

[turner112 52]

Hi Ralph, and thanks for the info.While I appreciate your efforts here as well as the adventure programmers everywhere, I'm afraid I don't have the technical knowledge to completely understand where you're coming from - You said"The fact of the matter is that this new programming language does not and will not allow talented adventure programmers to do the same things they were able to bring you through APL or APLC32. While it interfaces well with the current AI, gone is the ability to be random with phrases or selections, keyboard input to allow users choices within the adventure or flight or the ability to control weather from within the adventure - just to name a few things that are lost."But as with most of the rest of your message (combined with my absolute lack of an understanding of the programming languages) I fail to understand why the new language would not allow programmers to create new adventures.Also, I don't understand what is meant by "random with phrases or selections, keyboard input to allow users choices within the adventure or flight or the ability to control weather from within the adventure."If you could give a few concrete examples of how something currently possible will no longer be possible, I think it would further your cause for understanding, though it's relatively certain it won't have any effect whatsoever on Microsoft.Last, something is lacking in each version of MSFS - I should know, I whine about it quite a bit. Each version has improved in my opinion, though, so I'll be honest and say that while I appreciate the idea that we can get adventures of a "certain type" (see my comment requestion your clarification by examples above) I can also say that if these changes are necessary to create a better ATC experience, or a better weather experience, or a better -whatever-, I'll take them, because it means the "base product" has more utility as it stands on its own.Regards,Andrew

[Guest]

Hello GaryI design adventures, I'm starting to learn to fly and I also fly/control on VATSIM once a while. I guess it all depends on what you want out of your hobby but I must admit even VATSIM is only as real as it gets. No matter how realistically FS may be simulated it will never beat the real world flying.>Why insist on flying pre-programmed ADV's for it I can think of a few reasons. VATSIM ATCs are not staffed all day all night where with adventure you are guaranteed to have all relevant ATC services every time you start. Also you can fly at any time of the day or night, without internet connection. It's great that you're having fun with VATSIM (I always do), if you'd like to try something different though, do visit the sites mentioned above and try out some of the adventures that follow exact real world procedures (there's no such thing as world wide ATC procedure like MS may gets you to believe) with custom made wavs.Cheers,

[Guest crashing_pilot]

hi,i think he has a point....i like the adventures because i'm NOT able to fly online...yeah,even in these technological days you have people like me who would ABSOLUTELY LOVE to fly online,but cannot.the reason?....well...does the PHONEBILL ring a bell?i've flown online,i've been flying my heatt5 arrivals into miami,and the logan2 departure out of boston...but i'm on a phoneline,and i will never get cable or adsl...so i'm almost condemned to adventures,especially when the other half is concerned :-) ...and i must say,i really like them,because they give me the chance to fly following almost realworld rules,with a high workload...it's easy for some people to say fly online(not meant rudely),but in the real world there can be a lot of obstacles to tackle before being able to do so.and the adventures i've flown give me a really "pilot"feel,so i'd be sorry to see them leave,especially when so many people(there must be more people without adsl or cable....right?) are having a great deal of fun with them.i started flying them way back with fs6,and the adventures too only kept getting better.so,i disagree with all the people that say:go fly vatsim.i really would like to folks...will you sponsor my connection time?Tom.

[Guest]

RalphI have a couple of issues to bring up. Firstly it is not only the heavy Iron which is dependant on high technology to fly in the modern IFR system.Especially in Europe where RVSM is now required the exacting tolerances are so high that manually flying IFR is almost a thing of the past.Direct routings are given to intersections which are way out of reach of conventional nav aids even to light twins like the Seneca five.Take that aircraft with its complex navigation fit of Garmin 530/430 and Avidyne together with TCAS and even the little guys are getting quite sophisticated.I dread the thought of having to fly IFR in Europe single Pilot in bad weather without automated pilot aids as it is a very busy, exacting invironment to be in nowadays.Having said that FS9 far exceeds FS2002 in many respects and is a much more realistic and polished experience.FS2002 looks dated in comparison.Microsoft should have a detailed adventure generator as such a utility is a creative tool as well as adding realism to the flight experience, but one which is user friendly to the ordinary simmer.The biggest thing still lacking in the flight sim experience is a fear generator :-eek You know the "I wish I was down there " factor when we always know we are "down there" in our PC flight sims.All the bestPeter

[3Green 80]

Not one version of Flight Simulator has been a step back.I highly doubt "A Century of flight" will be a step back.If you can't accept change, then we'ed all be using DOS version 1.0.

[Chris Willis 8]

Hi Kurt, The title is confusing, it should be: fs2004 could be a step back for adventure, forget about all others feature, it have nothing to do with the new fs2004 feature. I don't use adventure anyways and many don't use it.Kurt Don't be confused with the title and the open letter,he talk about the adventure, this open letter is based on speculation and no fs2004 beta tester are allowed to talk.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFshttp://fsw.simflight.com/fsw.jpg

[spotlope 0]

Hello Kurt,I think what the original author meant was that support for the Adventure Programming Language has purportedly been dropped from FS2004. The addon aircraft, scenery, etc. that were designed for FS2000 or FS2002 should still work fine according to Microsoft. I believe MS has stated that there will be improvements in the built-in ATC, and I'm sure they'll improve quite a number of other aspects as well. While I see his point in expressing frustration that the APL is being discontinued, stating that FS2004 could be a step back is IMHO unwarranted. Yes, adventures might function differently. But for all the other supposed improvements in the sim (and given how infrequently I fly adventures) I'd have to say that the sim looks by and large like a step forward. At the very least it's three steps forward and one step back, and that still leaves us two ahead!