The trickle down effect

[TheDanger 182]

I think the first sign of things going bad will be reductions or eliminations from the hardware flight sim manufacturers. After all, they are going thru hard times too, and will likely have to trim also.

I set the buttons on my CH yoke for elevator trim so its hardly surprising that the makers of the hardware might do the same. :( Graham

[byork 2,258]

Just as there will always be an England, there will always be a Flight Simulator.I'm not losing sleep over this.

[Geofa 108]

"I honestly wish I could take some of this community to where the Air Force pilots sit at "consoles", use "joysticks", and fly a Predator aircraft from 6000+ miles away. The view they get on their "monitors" is real-time...generated from a camera that provides instant feedback of what the "real-world" outside the aircraft looks like. I guess you could say that would be as "Live" as you can get. But many of the posters here would be disgruntled with the results. They would complain about the resolution ("Everything over 20 miles away is BLURRY!"), not to mention it is all in black and white in most cases ("I've flown over Utah, and I tell ya...the colors on that photoreal scenery don't look like that in the REAL world!"). Hell...if I managed to GIVE you something for FREE that would do that in your own home as far as "flight simulation" is concerned, you'd probably complain about it. Despite how "As Real As It Gets" it would be."Falcon-You left out the most important (or always seems to be) question for simmers. How many fps does the Predator software run at? :(

[Guest byoung]

Geoffa, great comments. This will be a topic of discussion for some time to come.Personally, I would like to see a change of the gaurds in terms of Flight Sim development. I would like the new developer to optimize FS for a hardware / software platform. Or go to a thin client model.It is ALL About FPS! The Flight Sim community have WASTED a BIZILLION hours tweaking and tinkering FSX. AND THEN it doesn't stay consistant. I would like to see a Flight Simulation application that is optimized to the hardware plaform (I know people have been resistant to a Console) Delivering 50 FPS constant, with max settings right out of the box. But seriously, have you seen the PS3. The graphics of FSX don't even hold a candle to the Blueray quality PS3 Wii or XBox graphics. I believe there are USB ports on these consoles for our FS hardware addons (Go Flight CH, ETC).I think all versions since FS98 have basically been patches to the FS98 graphics engine and we as the flight sim community have been re-sold a patched bill of goods with versions since FS98 . FS 2000 was a complete failure (I believe the devlopement team's employment was terminated based on this failure). FS 2002 was the last major feature upgrade because of graphics improvements and ATC (mideorcre at best). FS2004 was a patched 2002, and FSX was a patched FS 2004.Probably most of us buy new hardware / video cards/ memory upgrades, even new computers, many of us spend $500-$1000 because of FS development (C++) not being able to take advantage of new graphics development tools and hardware platforms, that OTHER game companies are using, and producing spectacular graphics. These tools take advantage of the dual and quad core processors of TODAY! Between the bloat of the current FS engine and the bloat of the Operating Systems, we are only able to achieve a very mediorcre imersification (as Former US President George Bush would say :( ) experience. Some airports, REGARDLESS of the computer you have, the FPS drops to below acceptable FPS. The environment is very unstable, due to overhead both hardware and software.Some have argued a re-design would not be cost justified, I think a development team with the proper skillsets for developing with these new graphics tools understanding the hardware platform and not the bureaucracy a huge diversified corporation would send Flight Simulation to a new dimension.I have been very grateful for FS product line for many many years. But release after release we are always behind the hardware / software curve."Do more with less, not more with a log more (resources)" I think with SOME Microsoft applications, there is too much bloatware. I think they are considering going to the thin client model because they can control the backend platform and demand subscriptions. But if I get 50 FPS flightliner (no variation) and I don't have to spend $500-$1000 on new hardware, I would be willing to pay a yearly $75 per year subscription Now the question is what about the addons? They would all have to be done at the source, and the developer (Microsoft) would have complete control over that as well. As I recall years ago, IBM attempted to do this with their Micro-Channel technology.I am not sure this model would work. I welcome your comments on this subject. Thanks!

[january 19]

Alex ... with all due respect ... Microsoft isn't in "survival mode."As a corporation, Microsoft prints money. It is one of the most profitable companies in history. It made $4 billion in the last quarter - arguably the worst quarter for American business in half a century. -------------

-------------------The (sharply lower) 4th Q earnings are a result of business decisions taken up to a year prior. When a business suddenly fires 5000 of its brightest with no notice, and terminates an icon of its product line, that sounds like survival mode to me!MS 2009 earnings reports will be pretty interesting!Alex Reid

[Guest Alphahawk3]

Well...I'll just pass on the "tea-leaf reader" part of the reply above, and get to the rest of it. As it seems it is your only remaining "jab" available at Microsoft, let's kill it for good, too. So, you think that just because FS may end up on an XBox, it will then be a "game" and not a "simulator":"Microsoft will, however, no longer market a flight simulator"Guess what? It doesn't matter WHAT you call it. The terms "simulator" and "simulation" are thrown around like candy today in the computer world. The "gaming" industry uses them all the time, when technically they should be using another term. I won't hand-feed you all the variables, but this link and it's sub-links should give you a much better idea of what a true simulation/simulator is:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls...on&ct=titleWhen it comes to using computers for simulation, here's a good definition of what a simulation on a computer is SUPPOSED to do:"(computer science) the technique of representing the real world by a computer program; "a simulation should imitate the internal processes and not merely the results of the thing being simulated"Try explaining that concept to most "flight simulator" enthusiasts. A flight simulator can very well exist without having to have ground graphics (autogen), 3D clouds (a simple white/grey masking of the outside view will do), etc. Additionally, there is "Physical Simulation" and "Interactive Simulation"...two completely different types of simulation. Sadly, any "flight simulator" is also called a "human in the loop" simulation, because it involves a person in the use of the simulation. In THESE cases, the PURPOSE of a TRUE simulation is to train, educate, or prepare the individual for an action or undertaking that would normally be too dangerous, costly, or inconvenient to undertake in the real-world. It is NOT intended to provide ENTERTAINMENT.Your conclusion that just because a flight simulator may be on an XBox instead of a PC (or Mac) makes it a "game" instead of a simulation is totally wrong. If it wasn't, then ALL previous versions of Flight Simulator would be classified as a "game", and Microsoft has NEVER produced a true flight SIMULATOR. You can't use it to get certified (trained) as a real-world pilot.The below is quoted from one of the links included in the previous link above: "Strategy games

[Guest Alphahawk3]

Just one question with this "live" stuff.What happens when all the internet providers (mine already has) start putting limits on bandwith usage every month?Will we actually have to go back to interacting with people/family? :(

Geofa, While you were not the one to suggest about MSFS going live I am addressing your remarks about bandwidth from your ISP. First I am an American and I love this country more than I could ever express. What I am going to express here is in no way of bashing America. I have lived half of my life outside the borders of the USA. It has allowed me to see how other countires do things. We are so far behind in Internet....cell phone tech...TV tech...it is pathetic. I have been in a home in Sweden where there was a 100Meg fiber optic line run to it...and that is not uncommon in the Scandanavin countries...and it cost less than what you or I pay for so called broad band. I have been in the middle of absolutely nowhere in Wales and my cell phone had 5 bars for reception. The average person in Singapore has 3 cell phones and pays 1/3 what we do and no contracts that last 1 to 2 years. We did invent the INTERNET...but we are way behind....we did not invent the cell phone but we have made the best chips for them but we are way behind. A lot of the modern world went digital TV long ago. So while MSFS going live may be a great idea this country would need a massive overhaul for the Internet...becaues it would not just be MSFS going live but almost everything....and I do beleive in the future it will all go live...but how long in the future is the question. I am 57 and I don't think I will see it take place...at least in time for me to really enjoy it all....that is not doom and gloom...that is juts a fact of how mcuh work and money is going to have to be put into the infrastructure of the net. As for the PC, if Jobs had not kept the Mac propriotory there would be no IBM compatable machines today and Bill Gates would not be anywhere as big as he has become if at all...no one can ever convince me otherwise. I had a Mac but no one wrote gaming software for it becasue no one could afford one compared to how many people owned a PC. Think about it...you can't mess one up like a novice can with a PC. A lot of elderly people I know have asked me to help them get on the net. I advise them to get a Mac. But once they see the price they go with a dumbed down PC...and what happens..I am constantly at their house fixing something where they clicked the wrong button and all hell broke losse. Some of them just gave up and the PC is collecting dust. The few that did buy the MAC's have never made one phone call to me for help after some training and they love using the internet at their age..they find it amazing. Just some thoughts. Regards

[fshrink 1]

Flight Simulation is no longer a strategic objective.

Don't think it ever was. Way to puny. It was for the Fly! team however and for example.It was mostly a PR operation whose purpose was to contribute giving MS worldwide the image of a cool, Apple-ish enterprise. Like the Seinfeld spots tried to do.We've been living off of the business' crumbs. Chomping at the cherry.Relatedly, I also think it was geeky Bill's mistress. Doesn't look like it's Steve's though. The guy seems to prefer sport teams and that kind of stuff.

[Gate99 246]

Although offering a "live" (or client/sever) model of MSFS sounds interesting, it currently isn't viable given today's internet infrastructure. In most places there simply isn't enough bandwidth to support the application. Look at the Tile Proxey project as an example. Only a small percentage (<10%) of MSFS users use it on a regular basis, but the large severs it uses still can't stream the data fast enough for consistent high res. scenery. Perhaps in 10-15 years things may change enough to make this model viable.

[ahuimanu 50]

I think it is simple:IF (emphasis) we get anything again from Microsoft related to the "Flight Simulator" franchise, I'll be asked to operate all aspects of the "game:" with this - Whereas, with our dearly-departed and beloved MSFS, it was possible to achieve this:Hopefully this gives some perspective on why so many are skeptical about any future "flying game" bearing the "Flight Simulator" badge. It will be massively dumbed down and I won't be a party to that. I realize that the PC has its shortcomings in terms of standardization of hardware/software, but I'll always feel that the PC is superior for a certain class of games in which I believe Flight Simulation resides.

[fsx_missionguy 0]

-------------------The (sharply lower) 4th Q earnings are a result of business decisions taken up to a year prior. When a business suddenly fires 5000 of its brightest with no notice, and terminates an icon of its product line, that sounds like survival mode to me!MS 2009 earnings reports will be pretty interesting!Alex Reid

Alex ... sadly, this probably is not the case (I say probably, because I cannot predict 2009 earnings).Robert X. Cringley writes for the NY Times. He's probably one of the best known technology writers. He puts Microsoft's recently actions into proper context:"... Let

[FlyingsCool 3]

As I said in a previous post ... the motivations behind the elimination of ACES seem to have nothing to do with finance, or the economy or earnings. It feels like someone's strategy to get rid of ACES. It was strategic.Read Cringley's full analysis here.

A few years back, Microsoft ended development and sales of their PC gaming hardware, despite the apparent success of their force feedback hardware.Perhaps they are now getting out of PC Gaming Software?Do they feel PC Gaming software dilutes their ability to develop for XBox? (I can imagine several threads of discussion around this)Is XBox a profit for them?

[FlyingsCool 3]

As I said in a previous post ... the motivations behind the elimination of ACES seem to have nothing to do with finance, or the economy or earnings. It feels like someone's strategy to get rid of ACES. It was strategic.Read Cringley's full analysis here.

A few years back, Microsoft ended development and sales of their PC gaming hardware, despite the apparent success of their force feedback hardware.Perhaps they are now getting out of PC Gaming Software?Do they feel PC Gaming software dilutes their ability to develop for XBox? (I can imagine several threads of discussion around this)Is XBox a profit for them?

As I said in a previous post ... the motivations behind the elimination of ACES seem to have nothing to do with finance, or the economy or earnings. It feels like someone's strategy to get rid of ACES. It was strategic.Read Cringley's full analysis here.

A few years back, Microsoft ended development and sales of their PC gaming hardware, despite the apparent success of their force feedback hardware.Perhaps they are now getting out of PC Gaming Software?Do they feel PC Gaming software dilutes their ability to develop for XBox? (I can imagine several threads of discussion around this)Is XBox a profit for them?

[Guest sstobbe]

Believe it or not, the sky is not falling- in reality, the look and feel of MSFS has been lagging further behind other games (yes- flight simulators are a GAME, as my wife always reminds me) and hasn't made much progress recently anyway. "Flight simulator" does not necessarily equal "Microsoft flight simulator". This is a good thing for flight simulation generally- new entrants will have an easier time entering the field, and will introduce features that we will wonder how we lived without, and will bypass many of the shortcomings that are part of the MSFS legacy.The community of flight simulation enthusiasts will live on, and there will always be simulation software to serve it- the hardware mfr's (and simulation community websites) that adjust to the new paradigm quickly will flourish.I just tried X-plane over the weekend, and really enjoyed the experience. In many aspects important to me (frame rate smoothness, aerodynamics, sharpness of mountains, opacity of cloud layers) it totally kicks FSX's butt in terms of realism. So stop worrying and embrace the future.

[fsx_missionguy 0]

Is XBox a profit for them?

In 2008, for the first time in 6 years, the XBox (part of Microsoft's Entertainment and Electronic Device division) eeked out a profit, since Microsoft significantly cut advertising expenses.Going forward, the XBox will most likely make money for Microsoft as hardware prices naturally fall. It is debateable whether that capital could be better invested to produce higher profit margins.Having said that, the Xbox platform does not lend itself to flight simulation games, as the person who posted the photo of the controller above correctly notes. The controller isn't suitable, nor is the resolution of the average television set. You'll never see a "Flight Simulator for XBox" (that would be anything other than a flying game with the Flight Simulator brand stuck onto it.)Hopefully, Microsoft will realize it's pulled a "New Coke" and reverse its decision.