Welcome to the New MS Flight Forum

[dmaher 0]

IMHO, that statment pretty clearly indicates that they haven't forgotten their core enthusiasts...

I agree Bill....I think this quote sort of speaks to that.

Unangst said that it is looking to appeal to flying enthusiasts with the realism, accuracy, and fidelity they expect, but also imagines including other types of gameplay that might appeal more to novices.

(my bold)That statement is pretty much the status quo...it could've applied to FS9, or FSX.Danny

[Tabs 2,790]

FSX is a huge failure on so many fronts but just the same it's the last true incarnation we have thus far. Now that machines are getting to a point their able to run FSX we are able to enjoy the sim. But we need not forget the legacy of FSX and the repercussions of its release. I actually believe many things would have been different not only in this community but Aces if FSX would have been a huge success somewhere.

I love how you continually take your own narrow personal opinions that stem from not having the means to upgrade your old FS9 machine and make sweeping generalizations about FSX with them. You're one guy who thinks his experience and opinions are the absolute truth for everyone. FSX was not and is not a huge failure. Look at the total post count in the FSX forum here vs. the FS9 one - notice anything that might contradict that notion of yours? ACES themselves specifically stated before they dissolved that FSX actually outsold FS9. It was one of top selling PC games titles of that period. ACES directly stated that the closure of the studio had nothing to do with FSX's sales numbers. Do you really think high end developers like us, Aerosoft, Carenado and multiple others would have staked the survival of our businesses on supporting a failed sim?You're gonna be saying the same crap about Flight when it comes out, I can already feel it... it was old years ago and it'll be just as old in the future.

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

I love how you continually take your own narrow personal opinions that stem from not having the means to upgrade your old FS9 machine and make sweeping generalizations about FSX with them. You're one guy who thinks his experience and opinions are the absolute truth for everyone. FSX was not and is not a huge failure. Look at the total post count in the FSX forum here vs. the FS9 one - notice anything that might contradict that notion of yours? ACES themselves specifically stated before they dissolved that FSX actually outsold FS9. It was one of top selling PC games titles of that period. ACES directly stated that the closure of the studio had nothing to do with FSX's sales numbers. Do you really think high end developers like us, Aerosoft, Carenado and multiple others would have staked the survival of our businesses on supporting a failed sim?You're gonna be saying the same crap about Flight when it comes out, I can already feel it... it was old years ago and it'll be just as old in the future.

Well said Ryan, except someone is going to argue the FS9 vs FSX forum post count since some was merged.I think that the only people who feel FSX was a failure are those who dont have the hardware to run it properly. Like you said, a lot of 3PD's are moving to only FSX developement, which to me would indicate the FSX is successful otherwise they wouldn't do that, or the same could be said if they sold more copies of FS9 versions of their product than they do FSX versions.Also I think that it hard to pin ACES closing on FSX. I would wager it had more to do with the economy tanking at the time and MS was considering cost savings more than anything.

[NoahBryant 26]

+1 to Ryan

[Mike... 7]

Well said Ryan, except someone is going to argue the FS9 vs FSX forum post count since some was merged.

And rightly so. If it was the other way around, you know what would happen. So without further ado.

FSX was not and is not a huge failure. Look at the total post count in the FSX forum here vs. the FS9 one - notice anything that might contradict that notion of yours?

You might want to get your facts straight on that one. What is now the FSX Forum once was the FS9 Forum, if you go to the last page you'll even see FS2002 topics, so it has been around longer than FSX.When we weren't all migrating to FSX en masse, Avsim made a new FS9 Forum (check out its last page, notice the dates).So comparing numbers based on those two forums makes no sense, I'm afraid.

I love how you continually take your own narrow personal opinions that stem from not having the means to upgrade your old FS9 machine and make sweeping generalizations about FSX with them.

That's rather ironic, as if old hardware is the only thing holding us back. Some are probably held back by it. Others are not necessarily held back, yet not pulled forward either, because FSX didn't/doesn't meet expectations in certain areas, not making it worth upgrading to. Personally speaking, I'm into AI. FSX was no leap forward in that respect, hardly a step. So why should I upgrade to it? I've invested an insane amount of time and money in FS9, runs like a charm, does everything I want it to do. What it doesn't do, FSX doesn't do either... So should I upgrade just because it's the latest version? Some people are like that, I'm not. I skipped Vista, but am now happily using 7 and never looked back.Your narrow-minded opinion is getting as old as his. Apparently it wasn't a financial failure, but a title that still divides us so, surely can't be called a great success.:wink:Here's to Flight or whatever other sim to solve that problem for us.:(

[Leen3131cs 107]

Hi guys,One thing there is no doubt about : We do not know a thing about Microsoft Flight.BUT I heard something ( listen here it starts in about 38 seconds)

The man is saying this:"The new franchise is aimed at a more casual audience who just want to hop in and fly"Hearing this makes me very nervous.Microsoft also wrote somewhere the game will me much easier for the beginners.Can it be more easy than it is now with autostart? Re-introducing X for "Auto-land" ???Microsoft says the new sim will appeal to the old customers (MSFS series till FSX) as well.Somwhere on this topic I saw someone say this could mean there is no need to be afraid.I do not agree , keep in mind the vast majority of Microsoft-flightsimmers are just the people who bought the game just for fun.These pure fun-simmers will be interested in the new game as well.The real serious simmers are the minority ( by far )This all leads me to the conclusion , I really do not like the idea Microsoft will launch Flight.Why not?Aerosoft started developing a new sim and they expect(-ed) to take over most MSFS customers.The casual-players and the die-hards.It is most likely Flight will have extreme good looks and the new sim by Aerosoft might be a better (real) sim.( whenever it will be released)No need to say , casual-players will not be interested in another sim as well , having more realism and less looks.This means that IF Aerosoft decides to continue the developent of their sim (very doubtfull now) they will produce it for a real niche-market.Skipping "simulator" from the name has nothing to do with legal stuff.The word simulator stands for a divice for simulating the reality.And gives the developer hard times , having all them die hards complaining about inefficient flaps , inadequate gauges and Jumbo-jets pulling 8G.As real as it gets makes place for " As entertaining as it gets"Thats where the money is , "uncomplicated fun" only, will be profitable enough for Microsoft.Just my two cents.I really hope I am totally wrong , I am afraid I am not.Leen de Jager

[fsx 0]

Excuse my ignorance in all of this, but surely MS don't really have to do anything more with the new platform other than to make it scalable to suit the needs of the advanced simmer through 3rd party design. They just need to leave it open-ended for developers to tweak and create outside the provided sandbox? Why would this be so hard ? But I'm sure the front-end work (which will no doubt get all the glitz and airtime) would be geared to making it pretty and easy and attractive for the kids. Over time, I am sure, just as FSX has come into its own, FSNext will be as wonderful as we think FSX is now, 4 years on.Also, let's forget about the name: Flight, Flight Simulator, Flightsim...who cares. We are all advanced virtual aviators, let's think like advanced virtual aviators. What we are talking about is our new virtual flight platform :-)

[Leen3131cs 107]

I really love optimists.Lets hope I am to much of a pessimist.RegardsLeen

[Rudderduck 11]

Look at the total post count in the FSX forum here vs. the FS9 one - notice anything that might contradict that notion of yours?

Ryan, the post count is not right. Take a look at the last page of the FSX forum, page 3354. It's from may 2002!There is about 930 pages of FSX stuff, and 2420 pages of FS2000, FS2002, and FS2004 stuff in that count.I really wish Tom Allensworth would move the 2420 pages over to the FS2004 forum where they belong.

[rojantrojan 17]

Hi guys,One thing there is no doubt about : We do not know a thing about Microsoft Flight.BUT I heard something ( listen here it starts in about 38 seconds)

The man is saying this:"The new franchise is aimed at a more casual audience who just want to hop in and fly"Hearing this makes me very nervous.Leen de Jager

That journalist knows as much about Microsoft: Flight as you and I. They read off the press release just like everyone else. Oh and by the way he also says:"For some early screenshots of the game head over to CNET.com"Right... so where are they mr journalist? Surely CNET can't mean the screen captures of the video from the teaser site... Yep, because they make it up. I woudn't worry too much Leen. If MS release a screenshot and it looks like Street Fighter 4 with a cockpit attached then I will join you in worrying!!!CheersRhydian

[ptisinge 0]

Yes, even if a developer himself would have said "we are making the sim easier for newcomers to hop in", I wouldn't worry, this would be a noble aim for any sim developer. Look at Rise of Flight, it offers the whole range from ridiculous arcade settings and auto start to full on realism that challenges me quite often. If I would be selfish, I would indeed just think "oh no, please do not spend a single second developing dumbed down settings for newcomers", but our hobby needs to be accessible so that new generations of simmers join us (and inject both vitality and money needed to keep it going). It's not impossible, I've seen friends that were only playing shooters and video games discover an instrument approach in FSX and enjoy it - yes it was still using dumbed down default FSX planes and their systems, but now that they like this they're becoming more curious about doing the same with PMDG like addons. These are people coming from the gaming community. They're not stupid or brain dead, part of their gaming culture often includes periods when the simulation genre was in its early development (my friends all loved some Microprose titles for example), and a passion for simulation could be passed on to some of these people.In fewer words, in my opinion it's alright to make it easier for newcomers to hop in, it doesn't mean the simulation engine won't be able to scale up to full realism. It's all about scalability (and part of it comes from how open the engine is to 3rd party additions). And in even fewer words, we really can't say anything about what Flight will be, it could bad or good for hardcore simmers, who knows.

[papafox1 0]

I tend to be optimistic for several reasons:1) MSFS has a tradition of choice in realism settings. Why abandon that approach and create a market for a more realistic competitor?2) FSX developers didn't have the benefit of seeing the huge impact of multi-core processors when writing most of the code. The current team does. If FLIGHT does nothing more than deliver FSX with better utilization of multiple cores, I'd buy the product in a heartbeat.3) FSX was built upon an old-technology game engine that didn't efficiently use the performance in our computers. Here's an opportunity for a new team to build a flight simulator from the ground up. As long as the airplanes fly in at least as realistic a fashion as they did in FSX, the game will be a winner. Too many casual users were turned off to FSX when the sim became a slide show on their mainstream computers.Here's a chance to launch a product without the performance issues.4) Dedicated sim fliers create much of the buzz that sells the product to casual users. If hard-core simmers turn up their nose at FLIGHT, our reluctance would impact sales big time. I suspect marketing is aware of this reality.5) Microsoft cannot help but be aware of the incredible impact that 3rd party developers have on FSX, and they're likely to nurture this strength in FLIGHT.

[dmaher 0]

"The new franchise is aimed at a more casual audience who just want to hop in and fly"What's ironic is they have always said this...and never really pulled it off.Maybe they will this time - i hope, aviation needs new blood.I'm not sure what it really takes to draw the casual audience.In the bad old days of FS their slogan used to be "You’re not our target audience"The sim community was very much at odds with ACES - as recent as the AVSIM Denver conference.That changed with FSX and the work of the likes of mike Z.Hop in and Fly...that's always been level 1 in FS.It's a slogan that could go on the back of the box of any FS version.There are still a lot of folks that should use FS that don’t.

[Manny 1,293]

I would have been far more excited if Intel had announced a 20Ghz Processor.:)Manny

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

do you think it will have a new game engine????

Fight is not part of the FS series, so it is most likely being built from scratch.:)