I dont usually rant... but wow. Gamespy sucks. I haven't been able to stay in a single multiplay game for more than 3 min. all day... no matter what the server, no matter what the connection... what's up with gamespy?EDIT: it keeps saying "host canceled session", then it kicks me out of gamespy completely...

Here. Here.Let me chime in before this thread gets locked and moved to the forum nobody reads:With all due respect to my friends in the ACES squadron ... please pay attention to this thread.Gamespy is leaking its suckitude all over your fine product.End this abomination of a partnership.Here's the thing, and I'm seeing more and more of it at Microsoft as a whole: Third parties are KILLING your products.Latest example: a 59-minute YouTube rant gets on MSNBC about how Vista sucks because HP won't write a driver for the guy's HP scanner. So, the ranter "upgrades" back to XP. So he can use his scanner.Vista isn't selling because third parties such as HP have figured out that it's not in their interests to write a driver for Vista for a scanner product they sold yesterday, when they can just wait and force everyone to buy new scanners (printers, joysticks, ... well, you get the idea).HP wins. Microsoft loses.Everyone things Vista sucks, when in reality, HP sucks. But Microsoft loses.Same thing with GameSpy. GameSpy makes FSX seem like FSX sucks.Pull the plug.

well... it wouldn't have gotten locked... but after that post... it's up in the air now... lol ;) But in all honesty, lets not bring anything else into this issue, no need to rant on Vista or anything else in this thread.To our resident ACES members: Is there something that can be done to fix this? It's really getting old... I dont know what's involved with this aspect of FS, but I do know I'd like to at least be able to make it farther than taxiing when I'm in a multiplayer session... I would highly appreciate being able to taxi, take off, fly around for as long as I want, then land, all in one session. Without getting a boot from gamespy... I know it's possible, as I've played other multiplayer games and haven't had this problem this consistently. Yes it happens in all multiplayer games, but it sure happens alot more in FSX than I've ever seen in any other...

Aside for not likeing gamespy too much I was really dissapointed that they removed the direct I.P to I.P multiplayer function like FS 9 has.

Great post FSXMissionGuy.

Don't they still have the IP to IP thing?

Yeah, and gamespy's fickleness or just plain non-functionality is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to multiplayer bugs sadly, none of which were addressed in sp1. I firmly believe FSX's multiplayer is a big step in the right direction though, and that by FS13 or 14 singleplayer flight will be seen as an alternative rather than the norm. I hope the expansion pack brings a lot of bug fixes and new multiplayer functionality to the game. An ability to disable the sending of weather data from host to clients is needed as well, it would allow the use of activeky in multiplayer.And yes there's direct IP connection functionality, the lame part is that you have to actually log into gamespy to access it. A poor decision imo. Some people prefer to be 'off the grid' now and then. :)-Mike

Red,Just to clarify, I'm not criticizing Vista, just noting how Vista is getting a bad rap because third parties are refusing to write drivers for devices people need to use WITH Vista.BTW: Here's a link to the "rant" video that I referenced. This You Tube video was the subject of a story on MSNBC a day or two ago (seems like the story has been disappeared):

This guy's whole beef is he can't use Vista because he has too many peripherals that he needs to use to get his job done that don't work (yet, ever???) with Vista.Again, this isn't to be critical of Vista, or Microsoft. In fact, just the opposite. It's merely the latest example of how a third-party integration with your product can hose you if you're not monitoring that party and demanding performance.Many people can't use the multiplayer functionality of FSX, not because FSX is a poor product, but because the third party doesn't function well.Most people, however, will blame FSX ... a fine product.

So if we went to Windows Live, ala Halo 2, and charged for network support - would that be better?Not that we are going to do that, I simply ask to gauge interest in a more robust networking solution. Is that interest enough for people to pay for it?

"charge for network support" what exactly do you mean by that? I've never played on windows live or halo 2... So long as it's not a monthly fee we have to pay, I dont think i'd mind personally... all I know is gamespy is very inconsistant... I also know it's fixable, whether it's on gamespy's end or MS end, I'd imagine its strictly gamespy's end in terms of connection issues. I dont believe I've ever played a game that's used gamespy. I've really only played Tribes 2 and Guild Wars online for extended periods of time. I've had more connectivity issues with FSX online in the 20ish hours total I've flown online, than the years of Tribes 2 I've played...What'll it take to get gamespy to fix the issue (assuming of course, it is actually gamespy's issue)?No worries Phil, I dont want you to think I'm attacking MS, FSX, you and the devs at all... I'm just bringing up something that I find frustrating :) Alot is said in other ways FSX multiplayer can be improved, aside from connectivity issues, those issues can be worked on as time goes on if at all, but there really is no reason to worry about those when you cant even fly for more than 5 min at a time :)I'll add i've had many sessions that have lasted the whole time I've been flying. Hours long. I am very happy with how FSX multiplayer works, aside from a couple things that could be done better, but I'm not worried about those like I said, over time either their fixed or their not, I'll still fly FSX online and love it.When gamespy works.The whole reason I bring this to MS's attention is because there has to be someone from MS working with gamespy to have there be any connection at all... I know the connection problem is most likely not an FSX issue, but MS holds the highest card in getting it worked out :)I will end with my true feelings about FSX: I love it :)

Its the same as XBox Live, $50 a year or something. And that would be a potential FS11 solution.

>Its the same as XBox Live, $50 a year or something. And that>would be a potential FS11 solution.>hmmm... Personally, $50 a year for one game is kinda steep I'd say... That $50/year for XBox Live applies to all the games you can play Live on XBox correct? Of course, this is all theoretical... I'd like to see it remain free, but if we need to pay to fly online someday, so be it. If we ever did, it'd be nice to see an account system where $50 would get you a year for unlimited games (as I imagine it does with Xbox), but for people like me that will most likely only have one game on an account, only have to pay, say, $10... But even then, paying to play online isn't cool... it'd be bearable though. It's understandable for MMORPG's with the masses of people they have to handle at once, but even then, Guild Wars set the bar at free online play for such type a game. It'd almost be a step back to have to pay to fly FS online. All that to say, I cant imagine putting FS on a level with MMORPG's when I feel it's more on a level of first person shooters which, as far as I know, there are no FPS PC games that charge a yearly fee...I dont really have a problem with FS using gamespy, if they could just work out the problems

Sure, the $50 would be for a year for all games.Really the 2 paths in front of us are to either continue to use a free service like GameSpy or start to use a pay service like Live. The benefit of the pay service is they do tend to care more about reliability.Either way, we win some and lose some with the decision. Either its free an enables everyone at the cost of putting everyone at the mercy of the free service. Or its for pay and is an excellent service at the cost of putting people out more money and potentially losing MP customers.Its a hard call.

I'm not a game developer nor do I run a business, but why is this an either / or decision? You said yourself that one of these options is free - that is, including it in your product does not cost you a thing PLUS you have already done the work required to include it in a future product (the next Flight Simulator which will build on what you've done with X). Why not include it in the next product, and on TOP of that offer the possibility to play FSXI through a paid-for service (with supposedly better quality of service)?I can only see the upsides of a decision such as this:1) You wouldn't lose customers who buy the product for its multiplayer aspect and can't or won't pay for the chance to play online, beyond what they already pay indirectly (ISP fees, etc).2) You wouldn't get bad press from customers and professionals who would consider your move merely as "yet another way to squeeze money" regardless of what percentage of end users wanted such a feature (and at this point no one knows how many do).3) Someone on "your end" would benefit from the Live! fees paid by those customers who can and want to do that. I don't know who, but if you're actually willing to consider such an option there has to be someone with enough pull out there to benefit from it :)And since I CAN only see the upsides, I'd love to know the problems you foresee.

That is 2 sets of code to maintain and 2 sets of code to test. That is not an option.