Microsoft

[Guest GeorgeDorkofikis]

Please allow me to correct something.Adventures are NOT only pre-programmed flights. APLC gave more freedom to the programmers to add some missing realism to FS.Remember the GPWS adventure of Wilco vanDeijl (fs5-Fs2k)?747 Airliner Environment (fs5)?Virtual Co-Pilot (FS5-FS2k2)?Those were adventures too, but not pre-programmed flights. Those adventures were adding more realism to your flights either online or offline by adding GPWS, several calls, cockpit noises and such stuff that were, and still are, missing from Flight Simulator.The whole 'funeral' of APLC started with FS2002. Although they kept some kind compatibility with FS2000 adventure, they provided NO way to stop the adventure once you started it. If you want to do that you have to stop the whole flight and start a new one.One big disadvantage of the new adventure language is that you have absolutely no control of the execution speed. While in APLC you could define that the adventure was called every 10msecs, you cannot do that in the new language. You are limited to once per second maximum!... There goes the nice GPWS, altitude calls, speed calls etc we had till now.Now, personally I believe MS is going TWO steps back...Why?... Someone mentioned VATSIM/IVAO and online flights. Well, again MS went one step back already with FS2002. While FS2000 supported up to 255 players (more than enough even on a busy airport in the middle of a fly-in), FS2002 supports only 16! And if you count that AIBridge takes 1 slot, SB another and yourself another one, the available slots drops down to 13! If you use FSNav, subtrackt one more... 12 Slots.Not enough!Why do I have the feeling that FS9 will have even worse multiplayer capabilities????George DorkofikisAthens, Greece

[Guest]

Hi,I have used FS in it's many guises for the last 10 years or so and although I understand what ralph is getting at, I think that if you look back over the years the latest version of FS is the best that there has been.I also agree that at present MS atc is not great and very limited, but MS has allowed us to use adventures along side it and some developers have created programs to work with the AI traffic and give more detailed atc. But when FS2004 is released it will not just be FS2002 without adventures, that is a very narrow minded view. Throughout FS history microsoft have a tradition of introducing a feature and then expanding it in the next version. I have no doubt that ATC in FS2004 will be better than in FS2002 and will be much more interactive than any adventure will ever be. Even if it is not that good, then someone will create an add-on that is better and pushes the boundries.There will never be a version of FS that goes backwards, MS will always introduce new features and update old features, and yes sometimes they will have to remove old, outdated features and replace them with something else. Personally I am waiting for the feature that makes you miss your slot at Heathrow because a passenger has left his bag at imigration and then his kids throw up at the gate, resulting in an extra 1 hour delay and a slightly drunken chorus of 'tie me kangaroo down' from the rugby team travelling to Amsterdam for a stag weekend!Everybody can fly MSFS the way they want with as little or as much realism as they need, that is the beauty and success of FS.But when people complain that the latest airbus does not model alpha floor correctly, and cry that the FMC is incorrect, even though they have never flown a real cessna let alone an A320, and then insist in another forum that 727's were only ever flown by hand and insist on not using the FMS in a 767 becuse that want to do it manualy, you loose sympathy, because it is not about realism. It is just about personal preference.To conclude.If you want to use the ATC in 2002 then great if it enhances your enjoyment of the game. But you should not be laughed at for this.If you want to fly concorde by hand all the way from London to JFK then great, but don't try and tell us this is how the real guys do it. (I Know)We must move forward and so must microsoft. If we say, OK I have my FS just how I like it and will never buy another upgrade again, then it will all go stale. Lets keep it fresh and lets look to the future, and above all lets fly the way that makes us happy and gives us enjoyment, even if it annoys the hell out of everyone else.Just my thoughts.

[Guest]

You speak wisely, even if you get the version numbers wrong...FS2000 is version 7, FS2002 is version 8, FS98 is version 6, FSW95 is 5.2.If Mr. Zimmerman indeed has access to enough of FS2004 to be able to make his statement, he is - by sending his open letter - breaking a legal contract with Microsoft (his NDA to be precise) OR he has an illegal copy of a beta in his posession.Either would be a very bad thing for Mr. Zimmerman.If he does not have that information, he's just combining rumours and speculation and making it sound like he does have that information.I seriously doubt Microsoft would willingly take a major step back in FS. If they changed the adventure language around there will be a very good reason for it.Also, as the adventure language is part of the SDK and FS2004 will support anything written according to the FS2002 SDK (and FS2000 SDK) there should be no problem as he can simply use the FS2002 adventure language... If the features he talks of as existing in the FS2002/FS2000 adventure languages are not described in the SDK and won't work in FS2004 he has noone to blame but himself for using them as it is (or at least should be) clearly understood that no software company can or should provide support for anything but published APIs. Microsoft can't be expected to forever support any and all features that people exploited by hacking into undocumented portions of the program, if they did we'd still be using FS1...

[Guest]

Will you be able to verify his accusations and fearmongering though and take action to correct the situation and control the damage if those prove inaccurate?His statement does indeed read like "Big bad Microsoft is trying to prevent us (read me...) from creating meaningful addons, we should all stay away from FS2004 so I don't have to learn a new tool".

[Guest]

I submitted my article to all three sites on the same day but I have no control over where they publish or even if they publish. With regards to compaitbilty, my information came from Microsfoft's public website and a quote from the FS2002 SDK both are which availabe for anyone to read. And the bottom line was simply give this part of simming a try if you haven't already. And I didn't even link to my own site from the article.

[Guest]

Don't get me wrong, FS2004 will be the natural evolution of flight simulator according to Microsoft. I was only referring to one segment of the fs world that we may loose and I just wanted to encourage people to take a look at adventures amnd what fun they can be before it's too late. We can't do in the new language what we've done before.

[KERNEL32 500]

>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.>> >>My sentiments exactly! Hmm- maybe the desingers (not freeware but payware) need to focus making their money somewhere else and accept the change...chances are they can adapt to something new that MOST OF US DO USE (notice I did not say ALL but most by looking at the responses here). Just my opinion, and I have not tried an adventure since Fs98 and that turned me off on adventures anyhow.Quote from Ralph. "Time to stop playing and start flying before it's too late."Playing? Which is which? I believe that whether using an adventure or not, we are all "playing" the experience in Fsxx. I would think that NOT knowing what is ahead of us is more "flying" then knowing the next step of an "adventure" that is simply repeated every time you use it...no reply value whatsoever, wheras VATSIM, Real Weather, etc, is always changing environment. Oh- ok yah APL can use random seeds for engine failures, etc, but the simulator has that built in already- go to menu / realism / etc.Let's get rid of this dead option and add something worthwhile in its place!Tom

[Guest]

Tom, you wrote:<>Why does his opinions merit front page headline announcement? You are familier with the harm that can done if a front page headline states: SO and SO GUILTY OF CRIME, and then the next week the retraction appears, but in small print on page 10. Many opinions are expressed here daily. You have exercised significant discrimination in deciding this opinion deserves this much notice. By giving it a highlight notice, while insisting you may not agree is certainly an act destined to "stir the pot", wouldn't you agree? At least you have to agree that the reaction is destined to be different than if the opinion was left only in this forum. Don't you think the likely result of this highlighting is to reduce some peoples opinion of FSCOF? Is this a good thing? Changing peoples opinion on a product that is only a concept in our minds?Bob Bernstein

[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 anywaysThis post makes no sense..How do you know you like FS2002 better than FS-COF?? At this moment in time, COF still resides on the developers source-safe server and a few Beta testers machines.. I am sorry but people are so short-sighted when it comes to new software. Believe me, when you get FS-COF off your local retailers shelf and installed onto you home PC, you will probably forget all about APL and its derivatives. Personally I am hugely excited about COF and am currently budgeting to do my usual 2 yearly upgrade on my PC (which, funnily enough, always seems to coincide with the release of the newest version of flightsim), and before any of you pass judgement, the ATC of COF has now had a further two years of development, so maybe it will be closer to the real thing than you may be hoping.I am sorry Ralph that a huge part of your hobby will be made (or could be, no one knows for sure yet) obsolete, but thats the nature of the beast I am afraid. Those of you who cant live without Adventures, stick to FS2002, its a damn good simulator, but I bet my bottom dollar you will be removing it from your hard-drives to make room for FS-COF before the end of the year..Hurrah for Microsoft!!!!

[Guest]

Although I am a software developer, I have not the familiarity with APL and ABL to argue the technical differences between the two and so I will not attempt to do so. However, I do feel compelled to make response to the general presumption of your article.There were many favorable responses to your article. I am afraid I can not share the same sentiment. Frankly, I found it difficult to follow, and several times almost became confused over the conclusion the article was meant to bring to the reader.Here is my conclusion from your article: The utmost realism in Microsoft Flight Simulator can only be realized through the creation of adventures through the APL/APLC32 programming language. Since FS2004 discontinues support of APL, the reader should consider FS2004 as a "downgrade" rather than an "upgrade" to FS2002, regardless of any other improvements Microsoft may have made to the product.Is that an accurate summation of your article? If not, then I confirm my statement that as a reader, I struggled to derive the statement your article was intended to make. If my conclusion IS correct, then I must respectfully disagree in whole.Many APL add-ons were referred to in your article: Radar Contact, GPWS, Pro Flight, and others; while other responses referred to other APL add-ons such as cockpit callouts. The argument is that these add-ons are impossible to reproduce using ABL. That in fact, I assume to be true as I respect your expertise in this matter. However, it does NOT mean they can not be reproduced! Radar Contact is a shining example in my opinion. I am a registered user of Radar Contact and have been since it's initial release. I discontinued the use of the product up until the release of version 3.0 because I found the product to be inconvenient and cumbersome to use as an adventure. Just take a look at the astonishing features and improvements John Dekker and Doug Thompson were able to acheive even when abandoning the APL technology for another. I do not intend to imply that the features and improvements found in Radar Contact 3.0 could NOT have been acheived using APL, however, the abandonment of APL did not extinguish or even "downgrade" the Radar Contact product. The developers were able to produce an outstanding "upgrade" WITHOUT the use of APL or ABL. (Note: this last statement is made on the assumtion statements in your article are fact)Let's look at one more...cockpit callouts. Who uses APL for this anymore? Isn't the inclusion of cockpit callouts in gauges becoming ever more popular? APL or ABL not needed. Many other products, PIC767, DreamFleet 737 and GA aircraft, PSS and its host of wonderful products, both airline and GA aircraft...all without the use of APL or ABL. Has APL played a significant role in the development of add-ons for MSFS? Absolutely! Does the loss of support for APL extinguish future add-on support for MSFS? Not hardly!Ah, but, we can not create a "pre-programmed" flight to be flown as an adventure, is that it? My first instinctual response is, "In the almighty name of realism, how truly realistic is that?" But the better and level-headed question is, "Can the flight plan features along with the ability to save flights somehow acheive this goal?" Maybe, maybe not - I wouldn't know. But if this area was my passion, I would not just give up.That in fact brings me to my conclusion. I began developing software on the DOS platform. I so resisted change that it was not until Windows 95 was released that I developed my first application for the Windows platform. This nearly cost me my career. Now, I can not imagine the thought of developing software for the DOS platform. My suggestion? ** Find another way to skin the cat ** As developers we do this every day. I have learned in software development there is always another way - if not BETTER way - to get the job done. If ABL won't do the job, then chances are there's another means to get it done. Who knows, by FS2010, we may all look back and say, "I can't imagine I ever bothered to write an addon for Microsoft Flight Simulator with APL.Respectfully,Joe MillerP.S. Now, if Microsoft were to drop support for FSUIPC...that would be a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT situation in my opinion, and a GREAT loss to the flight simulation community.

[Guest]

Let's get things in perspective guys...(and gals, of course!)We should all be eternally grateful to MS without whom none of us would be able to experience the simulated joys and challenges of pure flight in a programme globally available at reasonable cost. The MS team do listen to our needs, and strive to produce what is generally the best FS programme they can. FS2002 is a wonder of modern technology even if it is not totally realistic from the ATC point of view.Thanks to folk like Project AI my skies are occupied by many of the world's scheduled carriers, and my local airfield operates the virtual schedules it should do in reality!! (Nice commuter place Farnborough....). FS Meteo offers the real weather - as it is the other side of my study window!! For me, a person seriously afflicted with the flying disease for all his life, MS produce many of the flying adventures and experiences I wish for in real life. I am sure FS2004 ACOF will be another leap forward by the guys at MS, and to them I am eternally grateful for giving me (and all of us) the flight experiences that one otherwise dreamed of.Flight is an adventure, from a humble circuit in a 150 to managing the latest from Airbus through the crowded heavens. Thank you MS!!

[Guest]

Well put Joe. I totally agree with you.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Bob, your complaint here seems to be that we published Ralph's letter at all, that AVSIM is stirring the pot for having done so, and that by doing so AVSIM some how deminishes some people's opinions of FSCOF? Is that a correct summation?AVSIM didn't post an opinion or report any of this as fact. So we would have nothing to retract. Ralph posted his opinion, and he may someday have to say "I was wrong". We shall see.But more to your point... We can't take responsibility for people's thoughts, actions or deeds. We are also not able to see into or predict the future. What we can do, and have done here, is to provide a vehilcle for a single individual to voice his opinion. We make the assumption that people are smarter than you seem to give them credit for. In your view, apparently, we are rash to make that assumption because people can't be trusted with opinions. I and the editorial staff of AVSIM humbly disagree with you. This is one person's opinion, and yes, we gave it prominence by announcing Ralph's opinion on the front page. He is after all, a long time contributor to the hobby, and not just another simmer posting a silly rant in a forum. Underlying our philosophy in doing so is the firm belief that folks are smart enough to discern between opinion and fact, irrespective of the author and in this case, posting of this opinion gives it an opportunity for wider discussion within the community.

[Guest C17SimGuy]

I've never used FS with any sort of adventure generator. Actually, I take that back. I bought proflight2000 and MS Sidewinder Game Voice thinking I could actually get some sort of realistic ATC with verbal commands. The problem arose that the adventures were too "linear" in such that you had to follow the plan exactly. . .no changing flight plans mid-flight or requesting new altitutdes; no deviating from the path to do some "sight seeing." Thus I abandoned the adventures altogether. I am one of those types that it is never real enough. . .and I think this is what finally drove me away from FS. I was spending too much time tweaking and not enough flying. With so many awesome AI aircraft and flight plans out there, that I hardly flew. There are too many planes to add-on, and I couldn't download all the scenery that I wanted fast enough. After all this, I finally decided to close my virtual log book for good, and pursue a real pilot's liscence. . .sorry to say folks, but from my 15 years of virtual flying, "As real as it gets" will never be 100% real. Thanks for letting me ramble!-drew-

[Guest]

With the arrival of FS2002 I have never tried an adventure. I had Pro FLight 2000 and loved it - international voices and reasonable scope for the ATC. With FS2002 there are fewer hoops to jump through before before starting a flight and that has to be a winner. The biggest drawback with ProFlight was the work you had to put in to set up an adventure (and the wait for it to compile) before you even got into the cockpit.You know what? I think that I might try some adventures in FS2002. I'd assumed that this aspect had died out along with FS2000, but now I know different and I'm curious.