Microsoft

[Guest]

Ralph,Thanks for the article. I really enjoyed reading it. Your passion for flight simulation is very evident. It is people like you (and Richard Harvey) that have made Flight Simulation "as Real as it Gets".I don't have anything else to add. I just really appreciate the integrity of your article.Thanks again,The Beagle

[Guest Coneman]

I simply don't have the time to devote to doing everything by the book. My flying consists mostly of sightseeing and short hops. At some point I would like to do a full flight with STARS, SIDS, etc., but I don't really feel the need. While I respect those who do try to make it as real as it can get, I would hope that the feeling is mutual for those of us who are a little more casual.Best regards,Todd

[Johan_Dees 84]

Rest assured.. MS will read this.It all depends on where they wanna take FS to. And that is what no one knows.Johan[A HREF=http://www.phoenix-simulation.co.uk]Phoenix Simulation Software[/A]-----http://www.people.zeelandnet.nl/johdUnofficial PSS Website

[Guest]

If you want realism, go fly and get your PPL. This is as real as it gets. After flying for real, some $60 program with an add-on will never compare to doing a soft field takeoff and hanging out in ground effect or doing stalls in a turn in a real plane. After flying for real, flight simulator definitely takes a back seat to the real deal.

[Guest]

I can see where you're coming from saying that addon adventures wont work in FS9. I personally haven't flown and APL adventures and only use default ATC. I know its not even close to real ATC, but its good enough for me. I am a real life student pilot. I know how to track a VOR radial and perform ILS landings. To me, if I wanted to bum around in a 152 for a couple of hours I would do it in real life, where I could smell the fresh air, see the real scenery, and feel all the great sensations of flight. The reason I have FS is to fly what I at the moment can't, which is usually airliners. So its not 100% real. If it was, FlightSafety would be out of business because all pilots would just train on FS. My payware addons come few and far between, so most of the addons I have are whatever I can download for free. I would love to see an addon for FS that allowed you to do a real aircraft walkaround/preflight inspection. Unfortunatly, don't have 4 hours to sit in front of my computer and fly a plane. However one of your statements bugs me. The idea that people who enjoy a good visual model and 'eye candy' aren't 'real pilots' can't be farther from the truth. I for one got started in aviation because I saw planes, and they were cool. Don't tell me you've never seen a 747 coming in ovehead and "Wow that beautiful." I often will go to the spot plane view when I am flying at cruise altitude with the autopilot on. I do this because I can. It's a much better view from outside. I am also going to assume you have the hundreds of hours neccessary for you to get your ATP, and you have every chart, and you pay your 'virtual FBO'money so that you can rent the plane, and you buckle your shoulder harness and but on your Dave Clark headset before you fly because only then will it be "As real as it gets".Paul Felz

[Guest]

In my 6 years flying with the sim, Ive never flown an adventure either.

[Guest]

I think we should keep our eye on the ball about the whole program in general. Mr. Zimmerman's information is not to be disputed or argued by me, for his reference to the evolvment of some features is very well thought out. Why do I say that we should focus on the entire program? Just take a look at the history of the Microsoft Flight Simulator institution. Since Flight Sim 5, each version has had a new MAJOR feature that either took advantage of the developments in Computer technology or the latest and greatest coding or programming genius. History has demonstrated that the best execution of a particular version was realized at the cost of some hard lessons learned from a crappy version preceding it, as it should be, perhaps, but when we speak of a 70 dollar piece of computer software (and the countless dollars spent on add-ons becoming suddenly obsolete out right), we must ask ourselves how much longer we should allow MS to use us as Guinea pigs. Bottom line is this: Every other version of FS released by MS was a costly flop. Here's the time line: Version 5.0A: Was pretty much flawless for it's day. The transition from 3.5" discs to CD-ROMS allowed more scenery areas to be covered. Version 5 was the transition from 16 color, low res graphics to a world one could easily become convinced he was NOT looking at a PC Monitor. Version 6.0: Or, by it's trade name, Flight Simulator 95. For the first time, our hobby has left DOS behind in favor a shiny new world offered by Windows 95. The result: pretty shaky, and a poorer example of innovation for we were not really treated to anything new. Version 7.0: Flight Simulator 98. Finally, a replacment for FS 5.0, and we now had the whole world to explore in a rock-solid, near bullet proof game engine that was enhanced to take advantage of the latest graphics rendering and hardware accelleration features sweeping other game genre'sVersion 8.0: Flight Simulator 2000. A nightmare, though tolerable once the huge patches were applied. It had a new scenery engine that did not have all the bugs worked out. It was the first time of note where MS focused on the "eye candy" aspect of flight simming. I found myself going back to my friend FS98 when I wanted to fly with smooth frames. Version 9.0: Flight Simulator 2002. Finally, FS98 has been officially replaced. Made me forget about FS2000 rather quickly. Now we are faced with Century of Flight, or technically, version 10.0. History suggests, if MS failed to learn from thier own history, this one may fall short. Here's the big IF, and I do mean IF, MS may just have an ace in the hole. That ace in the hole is thier Combat Flight Simulator product line. They may be using thier Combat Flight sims as an odd sort of Beta version for the next standard Flight Sim, thier bread-winner in the game arena of the pre XBOX days. They realize thier civilian sim was a flop, they regroup, re-engineer and release a CFS product for us to chew on, silently taking notes on what to fix or add in the new standard FS. When CFS2 was released, it featured graphics that were simular, but hugely improved over FS2000. It ran much more smoothly with high detail settings, making the frame rate count almost irellavant. It had all new lighting and shading features. It did not occur to me at the time, but CFS2 was actually a portent of things to come with FS2K2. For FS2K2's scenery and terrain was much like CFS2, only better. CFS3 came out and it angered the community of hardline CFS fans. It featured an all new scenery engine and code. Eye candy galore, and it ran like crap. It's all new file architecture resulted in the strangely slow release of SDKs, hence the slow development of freeware and pay ware addons. In it's 5th month of release, we have yet to be treated to anything more significant that aircraft repaints, the occaisional utility, and maybe a CFS2 plane made to work in CFS3. The only good thing about CFS3 was the weather engine. I've seen screenshots of Century of Flight, part of me is excited because of the weather engine. But it has many features that broke ground in the CFS3 product. This also has me a little spooked. Any fans of the CFS series that also follow the regular FS can hopefully relate. I have a bad feeling all of the freeware devlopers that keep this hobby alive will be forced to a reluctant return to the drawing board to make new stuff or make updates for exsisting files in spite of MS's statement of limited backwards compatibility. We all read that in the relase notes of CFS3, and were saddened at the reality. Some of the talent may refuse to make products for Century of Flight, and it could kill the hobby. So, as far as ATC, flying online and all that jazz has many concerned about MS going backwards, I think attention should be directed at the overall program itself. Don't delete FS 2K2 just yet. With a name like Century of Flight to commemorate man's union with the birds, MS has alot of blood on thier hands. If it's a total flop, it could result in MS, in classic Corporate America fashion, pissing off or offending the aviation community. That may have more serious rammifications than we care to contemplate. Thanks for reading. Kevin Devlin.

[Guest]

I know what you're saying about the reality of VATSIM, Gary and here is how I answered in another forum:Century Of Flight will no doubt be a huge improvement in many areas such as weather, ATC and graphics, and the guys who support VATSIM and the like make some great and very valid points. The fact remains that the experiences are totally different. Can one experience the oceanic clearances at Gander and Shanwick, or vectors around a tornado, or a speed adjustment 300 miles away from your destinationas ATC slips you into a good slot for minimum holding times or otheraircraft requesting altitude adjustments looking for a better ride?One form of enjoyment is not necessarily better that the other- they are different for sure but anyone who misses the opportunity to expand the enjoyment of their simulator who yearns to make the experience very real simply misses a lot when they overlook what APL and APLC brings to the desktop that the new language will not.I would never sugeest that anything is better than another - only that peole who overlook something we may loose the ability to do, might be missing out on a form of enjoyment that they should experience before it's lost.

[Guest United]

Although it would be a shame to lose the talents that Adventure programmers bring, I haven't used one adventure program since I cracked open the seal on FS2002. They were fun, but I don't miss them at all. Neither do I use VATSIM for its numerous and irritating limitations. I use Radar Contact, but frankly, I'd rather use native FS funtionalities so I hope that the ATC on FS2004 is a good step up. Randy Jura, KPDX

[Guest]

Hi, I think your analysis is very complete Ralph. In some ways I guess its accurate to my point of view, but very strict. I think AI is very good in FS2002 but true, not very real cause there are so many things lacking still. Now its true adventures are better still. But A Century of Flight is prommising many things. Such as improved AI, holds, IFR clearances airborne. I think this is more real than other kind of adventures cause no flight is the same. Adventures have the disadvantage of getting bored after a while cause you will hear the same stuff always.But anyways thats just my point of view. FMC and all its ok i guess, but what i can say is that its not very good to get used to that before actually flying. Flying isnt about autoland, almost nobody uses autoland in real life, and as a 727 rated pilot, we rather fly the plane when there is a chance, than use the autopilot.Thank you very muchBest regards.

[Guest]

Personally, thanks for the warning. I actually thought about purchasing the game. I think it's a move of ignorance because the purpose of the game is just to have fun, not to actually be a "real" pilot and carry "real" passengers to there destination. I like FS2002 better anyways

[Guest]

I would be quite happy with FS2004 as long as it doesnt split it up like 2002 did with standard and proI have fs2002Std and I am missing out on so many aircraft because I dont have the pro versionthough not being able to play the adventures by the team at fsadventures.net is going to suckarseso I will have to keep my copy of FS2002 on my computer just to keep playing them unless (correct me if I am wrong) they can code them in the new format that MicroSoft is bringing out (delphi or so I am told)its just something new to learn I guess. If this is the caserememeber there was nothing before these 3rd pty programs & APLC but someone had to code it into the programs they used to create the adventures. maybe we just need to do that againBenjaminwww.dvts.net

[Guest]

Hmmm...something about this doesn't seem quite right. Ralph (who makes adventures)gets his letter published as the headline on the big three (Avsim, Flightsim, Simflight) websites on the same day.All this about what MIGHT be missing from a sim that isn't released yet. And with dire predictions of how this element that MIGHT be missing would end up causing GREAT misery amongst the users.First of all, what does Ralph know that the rest of us don't? The product is months away. The only way he could know anything is if he has direct contact with microsoft, and if he does, why does he air this concern in public? If he has inside connections, this is the time for a private dialogue, but not a public one. If he doesn't have inside connections, he doesn't know what MSCOF will have or won't have. This amount to just spreading fears.Look at the confusion its caused, folks thinking there can't be addon aircraft after reading this letter. And with his word choice, Ralph is added to the spreading of the fear...notice he said "Microsoft has promised in their press releases for Century of Flight, backward compatibility for scenery and planes (provided all the SDK

[Guest Flyingdutchman]

AdventuresI also don't fly adventrures, why? because I don't like the preprogammed flight.of course I browsed through the libraries at diffrent sites and saw adventures with names like 'very bad weather test your skills!!!' but it wasn't really what I searched.Then I found the solution fly VATSIM, now you'll all think another guy who found VATSIM.But someone replied with 'I fly VATSIM but I don't really know what I'm doing' wel my opinion on this is: I just w

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

"And why such levels of press coverage on ALL 3 major sim websites? Something is just not right here. This isn't news, that I can see."Press coverage? We put it forward as a Letter to the Editors. I don't know about other sites, but a Letter to the Editors here is one person's opinion, nothing more. In this case, the opinion of someone who has contributed to the hobby and whose opinion merited some coverage by us - a front page announcement that it was posted (and nothing more). I am not sure that I or the Staff of AVSIM agree with Ralph, but he has a right to his opinion as do you.