Maybe Microsoft Has It Right

[JonRD463 146]

Just to add my own 2 quid...Every time hints of a new version of MSFS are made apparant, there's always this sense of unease and uncertainty. Will it work with all my $1000's I've spent on addons and hardware upgrades? Will it feature a fully working FMC? Will it have ASX-level weather rendering? Will there be SIDS & STARS? Will flight modelling be addressed? Will there be photoscenery a la Tileproxy/Megascenery Earth?Those are normal concerns and what, imho, we should be debating. Instead, what we're looking at is possibly the greatest paradigm shift the franchise has ever seen. Based on certain things some of us have seen recently, it appears that any new version of MSFS will be similar to a MMORPG, perhaps requiring an active subscription; perhaps with the possibility of having to fend off ADD kids looking to harrass the simmer who just wants to simulate flight. While these are all conjecture, we haven't seen much evidence to refute it. This isn't simply something as small as adding missions to the sim (a early point of contention with FSX which turned out to be a welcome addition to many). This is something completely different, and unless we can get some concrete details from people in the know, I'm going to err on the side of caution and take "The Knife" at face value.JonKSEA

[frankla 44]

I have to agree with mgh. I think the so-called "core user group" of FS referred to in these posts is the real reason for the demise of FS11. And a marketing strategy change by MS.The MS Flight Simulator product as produced now is just too darned complicated for the "average" home computer user to use. Unless you have darn near the equivalent of an IT degree, the combination of having to update video drivers for a plethora of different video cards, maintaining various files on your computer (some related and some NOT directly relatated to FS), and doing USEFULL and regular system maintenance on your PC (defrags, etc) is just too much for an non "enthusiast" to keep up with. Many of us here DO have the knowledge and dedication (determination?) to keep doing that. But my guess is that a majority...a BIG majority...of the total FS user community DOESN'T. We see it every day in the forums...questions posed about how to make FSX (and even FS9 yet) run "right" on a home computer. A "dumbed down" version of FS that runs on a "box" that doesn't require continual "tweaking" by the end user will most likely increase revenues for a next version of an MS flight simulator. It would almost certainly increase the size of any "user base" compared to the current user base of FS. Whether it can really be called a "simulator" vs a "game" will remain to be seen.In any case, I'm not going to worry about it all. I may be using FSX six years from now if I still like it. I would assume as hardware capabilities increase in the next several years, I will eventually end up building a computer that could run "everything" I could throw at it in FSX. Just like the way the FS9 users say they can do that with FS9 now (and a reason some of them say they won't switch to FSX now).Nascar Racing 2003 Season was last produced in 2003. It's still going strong in the sim racing community...and it's over 6 years old now. It's still one of the best, if not THE best, Nascar sims around. There have been newer racing sims released since then that incorporate Nascar mods for them (rFactor being a major one), but many people, including me, still prefer using 2003 Season with all the community produced "upgrades" to it over the years. Seems to me as computer hardware capabilities increase over the next few years, there will still be a market for FSX addons...there is still a market for FS9 addons, and FS9 is almost 6 years old now. Will the "core user base" of FS9 and FSX disappear just because MS may take FS to a different platform or format? Good question. That depends on if the "hard core PC user base enthusiasts" here all jump ship to the new platform or format. No doubt the "FS Community" as we know it now will probably shrink. Those who aren't satisfied with the way FSX runs now, or lack the knowledge to make it "work right" on their computers, or don't want to upgrade their older computers for FSX, will probably jump ship. A "dumbed down" version of FS on an alternate platform is probably what they need. Me? I don't ever see me owning an XYZ-Box (or any other type of "console" gaming platform) anyhow, so if a commercial addon developer here is still developing FSX addons 3 years from now, and FSX is one of the only "kids on the block" as far as PC Flight SIMULATORS are concerned, you'll still see me buying the addons. Heck...I'm gonna need SOMETHING to stress my new 32-core computer system with 12 Terabytes of storage space 4 years from now. :( Rick

NASCAR sim 6 years ago ha? It was January of 2006 when FSX was shown to the world. That is already 3 1/2 years ago. But back to your last point. What you don't realize is that FSX was created at a junction of time when they didn't know about the emergence of multicore and mutligpu processing as the main advancement in computer technology. You don't beleive me? Ask how many people who run FSX on a intel i7 get better FPS with having hyperthreading mode enabled . None. Zip. 8 cores don't do any better than 4 cores. The fact is that FSX was designed based on expectation of increase in pure clock cycles. So you go ahead and wait for your 32 core computer with 10 GPU video card. I'd love to be there to see your face when you load fsx with all your new add ons and fly your simulated 797. You'll be shaking your head and look back and say "FSnext demise could not have come at a worst time, only if they could have at least done FS11"

[mgh 89]

The underlying theme in this, and similar, threads is "I want FSNext therefore Microsoft must be wrong in not providing me with it." My point about World of Warcraft is that people will pay far more for that than they currently pay for Flight Simulator. Follow the money is a good maxim in business.A big "disloyal" market, even with a high turnover, is better than a tiny "loyal" one. It is unrealistic to expect Microsoft to continue to cater for a minority interest.Anyway, as I've I suggested, any further development would be unlikely to increase sales significantly. Just look at the on-going wishlist threads - by how much would including some of these items increase "disloyal" market sales? The "loyal" market would buy it regardless.As a hobby I run a 30+ year old MG-B car. I don't expect the original manufacturer still to be supporting it after that period of time.

[JonRD463 146]

I used to play World of Warcraft. It was worth the money I spent, both in the game + expansions and the subscription fee because the nature of the game provided for an engaging, entertaining, and immersive bit of fun that I could share with a group of people working to achieve a common goal. It satisfied a love I have for both RPGs and social activities. The content it provided was extremely rich and detailed and hooked me, keeping me wanting more every time the urge to play struck. Flight Simulator satisfies a different need for me. It's a need to test my personal skill at simulated flight. It's also very relaxing to me. My "playing style" with it is vastly different than what it was with World of Warcraft. Given the scope of the content, World of Warcraft was worth the subscription rate. Flight Simulator, unfortunately, isn't. It's worth the purchase price and perhaps the price of a few select addons. The only way it would be worth a monthly fee to me is if it did many things and did them all with the same fidelity with which it simulates flight. For instance, if it had a fully featured first person shooter integrated into it with the same detail as Crysis, where I'd have to fly a plane to the locale do the shooter content, and then fly out, I might be interested. If it had a combat element with the same detail as Falcon 4/Allied Force, then it might be worth it. If all it'll end up being is an arcade flight game with a rudimentary persistant world similar to Second Life, where the name of the game is sitting in a cockpit at an airport with other people while ######ing about stupid stuff, or engaging in cybersex and l33tspeak flamewars, no thanks. Not worth my time or money.JonKSEA

The underlying theme in this, and similar, threads is "I want FSNext therefore Microsoft must be wrong in not providing me with it." My point about World of Warcraft is that people will pay far more for that than they currently pay for Flight Simulator. Follow the money is a good maxim in business.A big "disloyal" market, even with a high turnover, is better than a tiny "loyal" one. It is unrealistic to expect Microsoft to continue to cater for a minority interest.Anyway, as I've I suggested, any further development would be unlikely to increase sales significantly. Just look at the on-going wishlist threads - by how much would including some of these items increase "disloyal" market sales? The "loyal" market would buy it regardless.As a hobby I run a 30+ year old MG-B car. I don't expect the original manufacturer still to be supporting it after that period of time.

[FalconAF 213]

NASCAR sim 6 years ago ha? It was January of 2006 when FSX was shown to the world. That is already 3 1/2 years ago. But back to your last point. What you don't realize is that FSX was created at a junction of time when they didn't know about the emergence of multicore and mutligpu processing as the main advancement in computer technology. You don't beleive me? Ask how many people who run FSX on a intel i7 get better FPS with having hyperthreading mode enabled . None. Zip. 8 cores don't do any better than 4 cores. The fact is that FSX was designed based on expectation of increase in pure clock cycles. So you go ahead and wait for your 32 core computer with 10 GPU video card. I'd love to be there to see your face when you load fsx with all your new add ons and fly your simulated 797. You'll be shaking your head and look back and say "FSnext demise could not have come at a worst time, only if they could have at least done FS11"

frankla,I fully realize how FSX was "created" and the core limitation issue. And my reference to having 32 cores was a joke. The part about having 12 Terabytes of memory wasn't, however. That wouldn't even come near covering a large geographical area of photo-realistic scenery, let alone the entire world.And I won't be shaking my head about anything. Why? Because I can ALREADY run FSX with all my addons I have for it now in a very acceptable manner. Having over 30+ years of IT experience allows me to do that. Understanding that I don't NEED 60 FPS in FSX is one reason. Knowing how to make FSX work fine when in many cases only 20 FPS is required is another reason. Honestly? I'm not gonna miss the non-release of FS11 at all. With the plethora of addons availble for FSX already, plus the cost of investing in thousands of dollars in additional "hardware components" for it...yokes, throttle systems, TrackIR, TripleHead2Go with 4 monitors, ad nausium (which I did WILLINGLY...nobody FORCED me to do it), I'm gonna be a happy camper whether there is an FS11 or another developer releases an "equivalent" to an FS11 for the PC. If someone DID "pick up the ball" and develop a next-generation PC-based FS, that did take advantage of 32 cores, would I buy it? Maybe...maybe not. I STILL don't own, and refuse to use, X-Plane. Why? It isn't compatable with my monitor setup. Are there any "home cockpit users" with those large, real to life displays being projected outside the shells of a junkyarded B-737 cockpit using X-plane for their home cockpits? If yes, I submit the numbers are far less than those using FSX. The last thing I'm going to be thinking is, "FSnext demise could not have come at a worst time, only if they could have at least done FS11". I could care less. With my background, I can get FSX to run just fine now, EVEN WITH it's "core limitation" problem. Those who can't, ###### about it. Those who can, enjoy FSX for what it can do, and try to help others achieve that enjoyment by answering questions from them in these forums when they ask how to do it. I'm sure there will be additional addons created over the next few years that make FSX even better. Some of us will stay with FSX because of that. If the "next-gen" MS FS goes "on the box" platform-wise, it will just go there without me following it. But THAT certainly won't be reason for me to say things like "MS SUCKS!", "MS is a bunch of STUPID BEAN COUNTERS!", "MS (insert a favorite critical, immature, comment here)!". It will be interesting to see if anybody "picks up the ball" and develops "The Next Generation Flight Simulator for the PC" that will utilize multiple cores over 4, etc, etc. As you noted...that would require a completely new "coding" for the software. If that happened, I would probably be interested in using it when it was released...IF it had other advantages over FSX that I use now. But I already feel sorry for anybody who chooses to develop that sort of software for the PC. There will ALWAYS be a segment of the "user-base" for THAT program who will not have the BASIC knowledge on how to even keep their own PC running properly, let alone maximized for a simulation that will stress the hardware. So even if "Next Generation Flight Simulator for the PC" is developed and released, a certain portion...and I believe a MAJORITY portion...of any user base for it will just start saying things like, "COMPANY XYZ SUCKS! I CAN'T GET NGFS TO RUN RIGHT ON MY COMPUTER!"And you want to know the really funny part? MANY of them WOULDN'T migrate to a "dumbed down" version of a flight simulator made for a "box". As history shows, they'd rather just continue to hang around these forums and "######" about how unfair everything is...for them.Rick

[northtexas 51]

frankla,And you want to know the really funny part? MANY of them WOULDN'T migrate to a "dumbed down" version of a flight simulator made for a "box". As history shows, they'd rather just continue to hang around these forums and "######" about how unfair everything is...for them.Rick

:( :(

[gallen144 12]

I am not really clear on what the Microsoft intent is, but there are several points I take.I love where FSX has brought flight simulation. I started out with the Artwick version, and have followed it through the years. It helps fill a gap in my being where I would fly for real if I could, but cannot for now. The simulation helps satisfy my passion for flight.I am not interested in flight games; I am intersted in flight simulation.I am not a console gamer. I really don't participate much in on-line group play.If that is the path Microsolft goes down, I will hold on to FSX as long a possible, as well as look for alternatives (maybe X-Plane, or something else that comes along).I would be delighted to be surprised in a good way with what Microsoft does, but I'm skeptical for now.GW

[n4gix 4,947]

This makes sense - as to why MS have done what they have doneBarry

Sorry, Barry. "The Knife" is totally off base regarding XBox. The one thing I can state with 100% confidence is that whatever form the forthcoming "flying game" takes, it will be for PC only.

[frankla 44]

frankla,I fully realize how FSX was "created" and the core limitation issue. And my reference to having 32 cores was a joke. The part about having 12 Terabytes of memory wasn't, however. That wouldn't even come near covering a large geographical area of photo-realistic scenery, let alone the entire world.And I won't be shaking my head about anything. Why? Because I can ALREADY run FSX with all my addons I have for it now in a very acceptable manner. Having over 30+ years of IT experience allows me to do that. Understanding that I don't NEED 60 FPS in FSX is one reason. Knowing how to make FSX work fine when in many cases only 20 FPS is required is another reason. Honestly? I'm not gonna miss the non-release of FS11 at all. With the plethora of addons availble for FSX already, plus the cost of investing in thousands of dollars in additional "hardware components" for it...yokes, throttle systems, TrackIR, TripleHead2Go with 4 monitors, ad nausium (which I did WILLINGLY...nobody FORCED me to do it), I'm gonna be a happy camper whether there is an FS11 or another developer releases an "equivalent" to an FS11 for the PC. If someone DID "pick up the ball" and develop a next-generation PC-based FS, that did take advantage of 32 cores, would I buy it? Maybe...maybe not. I STILL don't own, and refuse to use, X-Plane. Why? It isn't compatable with my monitor setup. Are there any "home cockpit users" with those large, real to life displays being projected outside the shells of a junkyarded B-737 cockpit using X-plane for their home cockpits? If yes, I submit the numbers are far less than those using FSX. The last thing I'm going to be thinking is, "FSnext demise could not have come at a worst time, only if they could have at least done FS11". I could care less. With my background, I can get FSX to run just fine now, EVEN WITH it's "core limitation" problem. Those who can't, ###### about it. Those who can, enjoy FSX for what it can do, and try to help others achieve that enjoyment by answering questions from them in these forums when they ask how to do it. I'm sure there will be additional addons created over the next few years that make FSX even better. Some of us will stay with FSX because of that. If the "next-gen" MS FS goes "on the box" platform-wise, it will just go there without me following it. But THAT certainly won't be reason for me to say things like "MS SUCKS!", "MS is a bunch of STUPID BEAN COUNTERS!", "MS (insert a favorite critical, immature, comment here)!". It will be interesting to see if anybody "picks up the ball" and develops "The Next Generation Flight Simulator for the PC" that will utilize multiple cores over 4, etc, etc. As you noted...that would require a completely new "coding" for the software. If that happened, I would probably be interested in using it when it was released...IF it had other advantages over FSX that I use now. But I already feel sorry for anybody who chooses to develop that sort of software for the PC. There will ALWAYS be a segment of the "user-base" for THAT program who will not have the BASIC knowledge on how to even keep their own PC running properly, let alone maximized for a simulation that will stress the hardware. So even if "Next Generation Flight Simulator for the PC" is developed and released, a certain portion...and I believe a MAJORITY portion...of any user base for it will just start saying things like, "COMPANY XYZ SUCKS! I CAN'T GET NGFS TO RUN RIGHT ON MY COMPUTER!"And you want to know the really funny part? MANY of them WOULDN'T migrate to a "dumbed down" version of a flight simulator made for a "box". As history shows, they'd rather just continue to hang around these forums and "######" about how unfair everything is...for them.Rick

First of all I, too, think that I have a descent system and know some about computers. and I run FSX okay. Not great, but okay. (see my sig for system specs). Rick you are full of contradiction or you may have misunderstood me. By saying that you are running FSX acceptably by using your 30 years plus experience as an IT personel proves my point; not yours. Majority of users of FSX and/or potential users of next gen FS do not have your experience nor would they know about these forums to seek help. My whole point was that a new recoded FS would have removed the need for 30 years of IT experience to mess with the drivers, config files, over clocking, etc. Your statement that the a certain majority portion of users will say"COMPANY XYZ SUCKS! I CAN'T GET NGFS TO RUN RIGHT ON MY COMPUTER!" misses exactly that point. That point being is that they are complaining BECAUSE they are not IT personel and can not get their new shinny i7 to handle a 4 year old software. A recoded new engine should remove those complaints by allowing a moderate computer with a none "geek" user to run the simulator acceptably and still get a lot better graphics. Furthermore, There are two assumptions you make that puts you in a box;1)You assume that since you are currently satisfied with 20 FPS in FSX, that wouldn't limit the creativity of future add on developers to bring products that might reduce the FPS down to 15. In other words, you assume that your future 12 terabyte drive will get filled with add-on's that do not add any further penalty to your current set up. There is no free lunch. Pile denser and denser scenery on FSX (Accelleration Istanbul for example) and have a 32 core system that doesn't do anything to help and you really think you could keep your 20 FPS? Not a chance.2)You assume that other people are satisfied with FSX as you are and will have no reason to buy FSnext. We are all different. I am not satisfied with what FSX offers right now. For example, overall lighting in FSX is just really archaic and poor comparing to what is possible right now. Case in point: flying in cloudy conditions in FSX. I hate the fact that despite having a dense overcast, the objects and sceneries are bathed in sunshine. It kills the immersion factor for me. big time. There are lots of other examples such as autogen pop, snow javelines and huge balls of lights eminating from AI landing lights that can not be fixed by add ons. A good graphics engine that allows for utilization of multicore processing, will open wide the possibilities of having not just a flight simulator but a world simulator with extremely detailed cities and landscapes; a simulator that would make FSX cartoonish. Lets think outside of the box!edit: my systemi7 920 OC to 4.0 GHZ stable on air. TRUE HSFEVGA X58 Classified6 GB of OCZ tripple channel 1600 mhz memory (3*2)BFG 280GTX Video CardVista 64bitAntec 650W SLI PSNZXT Tempest case with 6 Fans

[fshrink 1]

FS was Bill's token geek, cool thingy. It never was about the money but about the image. Self and outward. Him gone, FS is gone; what a coincidence. Guess the others prefer basketball clubs and such.

[barryward12345 0]

Sorry, Barry. "The Knife" is totally off base regarding XBox. The one thing I can state with 100% confidence is that whatever form the forthcoming "flying game" takes, it will be for PC only.

G'day BillThanks for that - I would only consider the content of that link I posted to be an "hypothesis" - a single possibility. It could be true or not. However, it does at least make some sense financially - and hence increases its credibility to me. I hope that you are correct in your assertion. Barry

[tf51d 284]

He produced such a high quality, cutting edge product that it did end up being a commercial success-because of its innovation and high quality. It attracted people who not only used the product, but also developed a loyal rabid user base that kept coming back for more and more, and bought add ins. That finally got the attention of Microsoft who bought Sublogic out. Of course there were always the ones that bought it and tried it for 5 minutes and gave up, but the loyal users base was stable and grew.

Geof, not exactly! MS only licensed the use of FS with Sublogic until 1988, then Bruce Artwick broke away from SubLogic, and formed the Bruce Artwick Organization (BAO) and maintained FS's copyright, MS then licensed the use of FS from BAO, until 1996 when MS bought BAO out, not Sublogic. Meanwhile Sublogic continued after a nasty lawsuit from MS to produce A.T.P. the USA Scenery series, and Flight Lite, before being bought out by Sierra to produce ProPilot and ProPilot II.

[dmaher 0]

There

[robert young 2,897]

There

[Geofa 108]

Geof, not exactly! MS only licensed the use of FS with Sublogic until 1988, then Bruce Artwick broke away from SubLogic, and formed the Bruce Artwick Organization (BAO) and maintained FS's copyright, MS then licensed the use of FS from BAO, until 1996 when MS bought BAO out, not Sublogic. Meanwhile Sublogic continued after a nasty lawsuit from MS to produce A.T.P. the USA Scenery series, and Flight Lite, before being bought out by Sierra to produce ProPilot and ProPilot II.

Thanks tf51d for expounding on it in more detail-good info.