Microsoft Flight Simulator: A Century of Flight

[Guest]

If this is supposed to be FS2004, the flightsim we have to use the next 2.5 years, then I'm really dissapointed. It isn't a new sim, it's just an improved version of fs2002. Just look at the screenshots. It looks like fs2002 with better clouds, but not like a new sim. The whole scenery-engine is the same expect some updates in Auto-Gen. So there won't be dynamic features like ground traffic, cars, boats or even animals. And stop dreaming about better groundtextures.The whole grafic-engine looks the same. So no directx9 features, no exact lightning, no real reflextions of the world on the aircraft, no dirty engine, no exact shadowing for example shadows of the fuselage of a plane on the wing and all other improvements that could been made to come closer to reality.And now a few words to the aircarfts included. Do we need all this aircraft made by MS? As we know from FS2002 the default MS aircrafts do not even depic the general shape of their reallife counterparts. The visuals of the boeings for exemple are absolutely horrible. That's why I don't want MS to design more and more aircraft on every new release. I want them to make a few aircraft that are made "as real as it gets" to say it in the words of MS. Todays free- and payware designers do a much better job in designing aircraft, so there's no need for MS to include such a huge amount of planes.

[Guest]

And if they had made a completely new scenery and aircraft engine you'd complain about that.The FS default aircraft are DECENT representations meant for the AVERAGE user.Most people that come here fall into the most discerning top 5% of MSFS users, and Microsoft can't cater only to us as it would mean potentially loosing 95% of their userbase.90%+ of all users never install a single addon, for them adding more aircraft will make all the difference.For them the improvements in the scenery are huge. For us they may be less because we've replaced all the default stuff in FS2002 anyway and will most likely do the same in this new version before we ever start it up ('cause the default can't be any good, can it now? It was bad in FS95, FS98 and FS2000 so why should it be good now).Microsoft now HAS listened to us and put in all those features you've been screaming (not even asking, but demanding at the top of your voice) for for almost 2 years:- improved ATC- improved weather engine- probably improved default flight dynamics- no more Std and Pro versionsetc. etc.And now when they HAVE listened you say they shouldn't have but instead have improved the eyecandy? Kinda hypocrytical don't you think?

[Guest]

Really couldn't agree more!People forget that its not really us that MS sees as their target audience.The vast majority of the ppl who buy MSFS are like father who look for a nice game for their son to play, that has no violence. (of course only an example). They buy the product because they think, hey ,this might be nice, flying is an interesting topic, no violence in it, the pictures on the box look nice. etc.They don't give a **** if the 737 included represents a -300 or -400 version and whether or not they look like their real- world counterparts, they probably don't even know there are different versions. They also don't care about flying by the books. Heck, they probably just want something with 2 wings that is easy to control and gives them a rough idea of what pilots see in the cockpit.This is what I, if I were a MS marketing.......ahmm, guy :-), would target my product for. Of course, you can't totally neglect the say 10% who like getting somewhat more into realism, hence the ATC for example.Hmm, I think im talking somewhat crap today, I got a hangover and slept like 3 hours, so excuse me if what I'm saying makes no sense at all.Later

[LAdamson 240]

>>And now a few words to the aircarfts included. Do we need >all this aircraft made by MS? As we know from FS2002 the >default MS aircrafts do not even depic the general shape of >their reallife counterparts. The visuals of the boeings for >exemple are absolutely horrible. Seeing how I don't really care about commercial airliners as much as GA, the Cessna's & Baron arn't bad ----- looks wise. In fact, with a few added airfiles & the high frame rates with the default VC's, I find these aircraft quite fun to fly around, for a change of pace. FWIW---- I do have nearly all major payware & numerous freeware releases out there.L.Adamson

[Guest frankcubillos]

FS has always been evolutionary not revolutionary. But calling this release a "patch"....Gimme a break! Someone has too much time on their hands and an overactive imagination, or just likes to whine. You need some cheese with that whine? :-lol/rant---Banners? We don't need no stinkin' banners!---Visualize PAI sig banner here.

[Guest KenG]

Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrggggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!! :-fume :-grr :-zhelpI'm at my wit's end with all the folks who are complaining about this "patch" that MS is trying to push over on us as a new version. As has been stated, a patch is primarily a bug fix with perhaps a few added features thrown in. An upgrade is the reverse: fixes some bugs but is primarily focused on adding/improving new/old features. Well folks, this is an upgrade. Is it a "NEW" version of MSFS? There hasn't been a "NEW" version in a long time. A "NEW" version means they throw out everything and start over. Just as FS2000 was an upgrade from FS98, FS2002 was an upgrade to FS2000, and so on. They tweak, they change, and they add. As Frank said, it has always been evolutionary, not revolutionary.Our current systems are already choking on the amount of detail presented by the graphics engine. Realize that you cannot use a FPS graphics engine for flight simulators. It is far more complex than UT2k3, Quake3, or any other FPS. Why would they want to provide a new graphics engine when the current one is working well? All it needs is a little tweaking, which I'm sure they have done. Making a whole new graphics engine would probably present many more problems than anyone wants. And of course you all would be complaining about MS's decision to fix what wasn't broken.They answered our primary demands (weather, ATC, signage). To add blowing grass, animals, cars on the road, and every little detail on the ground would be to make this into a ground simulator. Go play the Sims or a racing simulator if that's what you want. This is a flight simulator. They are addressing the areas most important to a pilot.BTW, Randy what the heck is Munchkin RAM. I have a bunch of Mushkin RAM, but I've never heard of Munchkin RAM. ;-)

[Guest fotieno]

There USED to be a company called Jane's. They built sims that required us to sit for hours with little books and study arcane minutiae about how to lob a JDAM guided bomb through in some fictinal complict. All us fanatics bought these products, studied the books and complained a F-15 in real life could do this or that. The problem is the software business is not driven the fanatics like us but by my grandma. All she wants to do is look at pictures of her grandkids and trade that recipe with my mum. Now theres a company called Microsoft who for years, have built an empire on a simple premise, ignore the trend setters and opinion makers - let them buy Apples, all they do is find my grandma's wallet and get her to buy the next upgrade. WHY it makes it simpler and simpler... Don't rock the boat, don't tell people how much more intelligent your average customer is, just get grandma to buy that upgrade. The moral of this tale is this, go to the store and you'll find all the the study sims like Jane's and Microprose F-16 next to all the other bankrupt franchises, but there on the shelf is CFS1, CFS2 and CFS3. Those folks at microsoft they must know something we don't.

[Azapata87 173]

I really couldent agree more with the last few posts :-)Andrew :-wave

[Guest]

I totally agree with those of you saying this isn't a patch. Also, I have a question about those griping about ground stuff. When was the last time you were flying and said, oh look at all the animals. Seriously, who says that? Most people love to look at the clouds and stuff like that.Those of us that fly, well instrumentation, real life weather changing, worrying about whether or not we're going to make it there before that damn storm gets there, stuff that's important. Sorry, but stupid complaints about simple things on the ground is pointless. If you want it that bad, learn how to program and come out with your own "patch" for the sim.CMSUpilot

[Guest christian]

I'm just wondering if they people who want to have cows roaming over the ground and cars rolling over highways haven't figured out yet how to take off?!? :-lolCheers, Christian

[Guest Terblanche]

Okay Okay Okay ... it's not a patch!It's an UPGRADE!I read the review on AVSIM's main page and I know I will pay the 5 + 4 = 9 (Evil 6) dollars for it.Just switch them rwy lights on during daytime and I will not complain or DEMAND (alla Jeroen) the rest sounds good if the Alpha release is something to go on by.Now go and fly a little.PS: I still can not get over the EVIL story (LOL) ... I'm finished ... :-D;-):-D