Flight! could be the Windows7 after Vista for FS...

[dmaher 0]

Paracines, I wasn’t joking about Flight Gear. :( I’m being absolutely literal when I say that’s how FG operates.It has its own foibles…but the idea can work.If you’re true to your convictions, you might consider donating time – help make it happen.The principal of exchange of labor is also an extremely powerful instrument to achieve what’s otherwise impossible.That’s how all the infinite things we take for granted in modern life came to be…from coffee to fight simulators.To those ends budgets are important.And those that manage budgets well achieve the best products and survive to advance their product further.On a really practical note, as I said, the people that make the product are largely sheltered from the realities of the budget.They’re simply told make the best game ever.And they’re told that over and over – ‘Your job1 is making a great game’.‘We’ve set up an environment for you to do that, you make the game.’I’ve heard this speech a 100 times a 100 ways – usually more eloquently too.BTW...the end of the speech goes, 'If you find yourself behind, speak with me – we’ll make adjustments.We can fix it. We’re always here to help you – Ok back to work everyone' :)You might be aware many publishers used to tie employee bonuses to independent game rankings (they may still).The average independent game review score was a direct factor in my income.But honesty the real motivator on a game team – the thing that makes folks put in an extraordinary effort – is the team itself.Being part of a great team and earning the respect of that team.

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

Please tell me, if you know where the development team of FSX went and why?

The demise of ACES as Ryan from PMDG pointed out in another thread, had nothing to do with FSX or its sales numbers, but more from the fact that as the country went into a recession there were massive cuts in staffing at companies around the country and around the world for that matter. MS took at look at cutting costs and decided at the time ACES was an area they could do without as a cost saving measure. MS also made cuts in other depts as well.

-- Please tell me if you know why scores of simmers use FS9 still?

While there maybe "scores" of simmers still using FS9, maybe you can tell me why some developers have stopped developing for it since the FS9 users aren't buying addons at the rate that people using or moving to FSX are?BTW, how do you quantify "scores" of simmers? Do you have facts on how many people are still using vs. other sims? Without facts its just an opinion that is based on how you feel, most likely based on your displeasure from not being satisfied from FSX.The ones that have remain on FS9 do so because they have spent a load on money on addons for it, dont want to upgrade hardware, dont feel that value of what FSX offers is worth moving over based on the expense to do so, have tried FSX and couldn't achieve the performance they desired, or any comination of those things.

Please tell me , since you laugh, that your job or income is 100% secure because you say it is. I tell you that it is not and I'm correct, just like Im correct in saying that FSX failed and the chain was broken

You are not correct because I am self employeed and my job is 100% secure because only I decide when I work, how long I work everyday, and if I even work. I dont make anything, produce anything, or sell anything, and I have no overhead, my income is based off the performance or lack of performance of other people and their companies. As long as the NYSE and NASDAQ stock exchanges remain open for business and I can buy and sell equities, my job is very secure and profitable no matter which direction the markets go. I read in another reply of yours that you hate money and greed, etc. so you probably dislike what I do with my constant buying, selling, and shorting of stocks everyday without providing any meaningful contribution to the workforce, except for helping provied liquidity in the markets.

-- Please talk to the developer of FSUIPC and how he may need to (if he chooses to) totally redo this interface again - His kindness to the community has surpassed most others because with out his paitents and long suffering most other add on titles would be useless.

I'm glad that Ken is kind and willing to keep working on FSUIPC for those that use it. With simconnect none of the addons I use require FSUIPC like they did for FS9. I'm not sure how you equate the workings of FSUIPC to the success of FSX however. I could ask you to talk to other developers who produce and sell products for FSX and they will tell you FSX gives them many other features and capabilities to develope that FS9 never gave them

BTW have you tried Multiplayer? Is the gamespy interface a success? I get dropped every time I wish to change to another host. I say its half done....that is not my opinion it is a fact.

Sorry but I haven't used multiplayer, but I know a fairly large group of people who do group flights on it every Tues and Fri and none of them have mentioned any issues about it. In fact I don recall seeing many posting on multiplayer problems on Avsim or any other FS forums.

I review carefully what I say prior to posting and much of what I say is not understood - you should think before you post and especially think before you mock one you do not know.

Oh understand what you say, but I think you are the one who needs to think more before you post claims of product failure without having any solid evidence. Just because you "feel" like a product wasn't a success based on your own experience using it, doesn't negate the sales numbers of FSX or the growing trend of people that are moving to it everyday. As Ryan from PMDG said:

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?

I'm not going to argue with you, but please, before you make claims of product failure, please provide some hard facts not just opinions. If FSX was a failure, the very smart developers like the ones from PMDG, ORBX, and others that I haven't mentioned wouldn't continue to support and develope for a failed sim, not to metion that the growth and sales of FSX products are out pacing those of FS9 products, to the point that some aren't even working on FS9 products any longer.Since this is the forum of the new sim Flight, lets use it to not debate FS9 and FSX, but to talk more about the new developement. If you want to continue to argue or debate this lets do it via PM rather than clog up the Flight forum.BTW, welcome to the forum since I see you are new, or newly returning from a former user name. For some reason some of the things you said reminded me of another guy who posts here talking about hating money and greed in this thread http://forum.avsim.net/topic/290012-barefoot-bandit-airplane-thief/ , are you RyanB?Regards

[Glynn 405]

For some reason some of the things you said reminded me of another guy who posts here talking about hating money and greed in this thread http://forum.avsim.net/topic/290012-barefoot-bandit-airplane-thief/ , are you RyanB?Regards

HelloI was reminded of that very thread whilst reading through Paracines posts.Amazing how many new members there are since the forum software changed.New board = new ID in some cases I think.

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

HelloI was reminded of that very thread whilst reading through Paracines posts.Amazing how many new members there are since the forum software changed.New board = new ID in some cases I think.

Yeah as soon as I saw all the stuff about "I hate money" and anyting other things about money and greed the frist thing I thougt of was the posts by RyanB in that thread about the barefoot bandit. It is rather funny how as you said, new board = new ID or some that have been banned in the past are now back under a new name.

[Glynn 405]

Yeah as soon as I saw all the stuff about "I hate money" and anyting other things about money and greed the frist thing I thougt of was the posts by RyanB in that thread about the barefoot bandit. It is rather funny how as you said, new board = new ID or some that have been banned in the past are now back under a new name.

HelloI usually find that people that say they "hate" money don't have much of it. :(

[TerrenceK 0]

The problem is that the money and time budgets are the first priority before the project is even concieved.

Welcome to the real world kid... I bet you will look differently when it is your money, your time, your mortgage that has to be paid, your kids that have to be fed...

but 98% of the population of the world will disagree with me -- its ok I'm used to it, but it does not make me wrong.

That is because you are 'special', you are one of a kind. We are all 'dumb' people, with dumb thoughts and ideas... I applaud you, for thinking you are that special. Now, get of your high horse and come and play with us, down here... on planet earth.

I hate money.... a successful title to me has no need for a PATCH ....."SERVICE" PACK is named as such to fool people who love money and possesions - it will not fool me because I love when people care about each other even when they are in a company not just at church or a funeral.

Again, what's with the attitude? Who taught you that things should be flawless, immaculate and perfect? Are YOU flawless? Are you immaculate? Are you perfect? Cause if you think you are : I just told you to get of your high horse, stop getting back on it!, or I will shoot the damn horse myself ;)Listen kid, I know you and your mascara wearing, tree hugging friends (a joke, a joke!) like to talk in lengths about 'The perfect world', the meaning of life and the purpose of being and I know you all think YOU yourself are perfect, special and 'the only ones who see IT', and yes : Wouldn't life be great, if it was not run by the mighty ol' Yankee Dollar? If we could all just live of loving eachother? But that is not the way it works. So either get used to it, or nuke the entire planet, and start a new civilization ..Know this though, if you choose the latter ; You only get one shot, no 'patches' and 'service packs'.....;)

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

HelloI usually find that people that say they "hate" money don't have much of it. :(

Funny you say that because its usually true. Or they hate money when they have had a lot of it then lost it. Usually though its because of the first reason.When I was younger and starting out, I hates money also because it seemed like I never had enough of it to buy things I wanted :(

[TerrenceK 0]

When I was younger and starting out, I hates money also because it seemed like I never had enough of it to buy things I wanted :(

Looking at all the goodies in your signature you seem to have the no money problem solved...:(

[Dillon 2,208]

I'm not going to argue with you, but please, before you make claims of product failure, please provide some hard facts not just opinions. If FSX was a failure, the very smart developers like the ones from PMDG, ORBX, and others that I haven't mentioned wouldn't continue to support and develope for a failed sim

Everyone supported FS2000 before FS2k2 came out. After FS2k2 hit the market everyone dropped FS2000 like hot poop... Developers are going to go with the latest and greatest, they always have so theirs no point proven here. I will say it took longer than any other sim for developers to fully go over to FSX (Aerosoft being the exception). Even today many are developing for both sims. FSX failed to get exclusive development from most venders for over 3 years. Only today is that really changing. FSX no doubt is an advancement over FS9 in the graphic area it just runs like a pig with wings. Today we have some pretty big wings called i7 machines but it shouldn't have took the i7 to come on market 3 years after release for FSX to run decently (actually it still doesn't without tweaks).Let's define failed sim:1. A sim that takes 3+ years to get off the ground to run/look better than it's predecessor. 2. A sim who's code is for machines that will never be built3. A sim who's box specs are no where near what it actually takes to run the software. To make it clear it failed to meet it's own minimum requirements (WindowsXP 1gig of RAM, 2gigs minimum processor, 128 Video Ram) :( 4. A sim who for whatever reason caused a whole development house to fold. You can say what you want but if FSX was a runaway success in 'either' the FS or gaming community Aces would still be around.5. A sim that splits a whole community built around it. I challenge you to find another version of FS that's done this.6. A sim who wasn't fully embraced by either targeted market upon release. Even today the whole FS community isn't using FSX in the way versions were embraced before ( one example is look at what sim all freeware is mostly produced for). You can forget about the gaming crowd, they left the building along time ago...7. A sim who's only reason for popularity today is because it 'was' the last version in the series or so we thought... :( People like myself decided to wait years before purchasing this thing. No software should require you to wait 3-4 years before you can use it properly, it should be ready to go on day one on at least the top of the line machines of the day. There was a serious 'failure' in predicting what the OS and Hardware market was going to do on the part of Aces. This sim would have been toast for many if MS hadn't pulled the plug on the franchise. People were content with waiting on FS11 and it wasn't until the i7 machines hit the market there was a turn around for FSX in the community. Even developers started coming on board when machines finally hit the market where one could fly in cities without a slide show.8. If a sim is successful there's no development 3+ years after a new version's release. The market required it for FS9 because FSX 'failed' to corner it (It still hasn't totally captured the whole market and won't before FS11 hits the shelves especially on the freeware end). This is a failure because the new version should always dominate it's predecessor. Even FS2000 was able to do this. A new version should overtake the whole market around it within the first six months to a year of it's release. The marker (should you ask) is a 20 year history where this has been the case with each new version released. Another example of this kind of failure would be Vista's inability to overtake Windows XP.I can go on and on but you get the picture (I hope). It's a shame I have to spell it out as 3 years ago is not that far in the past but people choose to forget I guess. None of these factors with the exception of #3 were an issue with any other version of FS (MS has a history of being overly optimistic in what hardware it will take for any version of FS to run). Hopefully FS11 like Windows7 to Vista will be that optimized upgrade we all need...

[duckbilled 310]

The problem is that the money and time budgets are the first priority before the project is even concieved. That is why companies have so many problems and have to gamble their way through a project causing all the stress - they put money "before" quality and if the opposite were done money would not need to be an issue at all. It is a certain thing that people will pay top dollar for quality -- just think if every company thought like this - there would be no layoffs - unemployment would be so close to 0% it need not be mentioned..... instead of using time to figure out how to patch a program a software company could focus on better ways to serve their customers -- instead of having repair places the people who would repair are involved in development of greater services and products. This world does things backwards so it remains is a state of fixing failures much more... lots of time and effort wasted because of greed.

Mmmm. That's not really how the world works - at least from my experience. I have worked for public companies and private companies; non-profits and for profits... A few months before the end of the current fiscal year, departments submit their budgets for what they want to do in the next FY They submit their budget requests and make their management makes an automatic cut to the expenses. The department comes back with a lower figure... This goes on until they meet somewhere in the middle.Without looking at P&E's for MS, I would guess that ACES had nothing to do with revenue. They had a budget to produce an item. That's it. The person responsible for the ACES budget was probably responsible for the production of several items. Their boss was probably responsible for the production of even more stuff ... Eventually, someone that was responsible for revenue and production had to look at the budget and make additional cuts for the production and make increases for the sales team. It is not like some old man is sitting in a chair with a cigar deciding whether to add volumetric clouds or to do things on the cheap. All is taken in to account and my GUESS it those decisions were made several degrees from the ACES team. Do you really think someone from the sales team talked to someone from ACES? Do you think they actually came to an agreement on how much one party could sell if the other party had a few more dollars for development? Do you actually think either party could quantify a specific feature vs. sales dollars?After the budget is set, that is the amount the team has to work with. It is not like the feds where you can keep coming back for more. You actually have to say, "This is how much we are going to spend and this is how much we are going to sell."

[duckbilled 310]

Funny you say that because its usually true. Or they hate money when they have had a lot of it then lost it. Usually though its because of the first reason.When I was younger and starting out, I hates money also because it seemed like I never had enough of it to buy things I wanted :(

Or they hate it because they have it and feel guilty for having it.

[Geofa 108]

Let's take them one at a time..."Let's define failed sim:1. A sim that takes 3+ years to get off the ground to run/look better than it's predecessor. "I assume you mean a sim without add ons compared to a sim with add ons and the 3 years is how long it takes for add ons that make the sim look better than it's predecessor-we can agree there-it takes time-but eventually the add ins do make it much better. Take fsx orbx with rex and there is no contest-period."2. A sim who's code is for machines that will never be built"Say what? I've been using it since day one and now with machines built. Ask the Aerosoft people-they have been trying to make a sim with the same specs and they are being told it can't be done."3. A sim who's box specs are no where near what it actually takes to run the software. To make it clear it failed to meet it's own minimum requirements (WindowsXP 1gig of RAM, 2gigs minimum processor, 128 Video Ram) :( "I've never seen a software title since the beginning of time that did not do this-have you?"4. A sim who for whatever reason caused a whole development house to fold. You can say what you want but if FSX was a runaway success in 'either' the FS or gaming community Aces would still be around."Fsx was a runaway success-the best selling fs title in history-the stats are there and published. If you read some of the posts here on avsim -it was aces refusal to "dumb" down the future sim that caused the development house to fold."5. A sim that splits a whole community built around it. I challenge you to find another version of FS that's done this."Never understood the "split" -there was a decade when I stayed away from the fs series for a variety of reasons-but I always supported it as a flight sim enthusist. I found the entire 90's a reason to stay away-but there were many that enjoyed flying thru ice cube clouds and vector drawn terrain when sims like Pro Pilot and Fly already had what we take for granted today. To each their own-splits were self induced."6. A sim who wasn't fully embraced by either targeted market upon release. Even today the whole FS community isn't using FSX in the way versions were embraced before ( one example is look at what sim all freeware is mostly produced for). You can forget about the gaming crowd, they left the building along time ago..."Freeware is a lot harder to produce for fsx-as a former freeware producer the increased complexity kept me away. Has nothing to do with embracing."7. A sim who's only reason for popularity today is because it 'was' the last version in the series or so we thought... :( People like myself decided to wait years before purchasing this thing. No software should require you to wait 3-4 years before you can use it properly, it should be ready to go on day one on at least the top of the line machines of the day. There was a serious 'failure' in predicting what the OS and Hardware market was going to do on the part of Aces. This sim would have been toast for many if MS hadn't pulled the plug on the franchise. People were content with waiting on FS11 and it wasn't until the i7 machines hit the market there was a turn around for FSX in the community. Even developers started coming on board when machines finally hit the market where one could fly in cities without a slide show."Give me a break-tell that to Lockheed Martin and Redbird that are using it for very serious faa approved sims today. Because you are "waiting" is that the litmus test?"8. If a sim is successful there's no development 3+ years after a new version's release. The market required it for FS9 because FSX 'failed' to corner it (It still hasn't totally captured the whole market and won't before FS11 hits the shelves especially on the freeware end). This is a failure because the new version should always dominate it's predecessor. Even FS2000 was able to do this. A new version should overtake the whole market around it within the first six months to a year of it's release. The marker (should you ask) is a 20 year history where this has been the case with each new version released. Another example of this kind of failure would be Vista's inability to overtake Windows XP."Please produce some figures to show this. Seems the software producers don't support what your are saying-we just had Carenado go to xplane instead of fs9. Isn't it quite obvious what that says?"I can go on and on but you get the picture (I hope). It's a shame I have to spell it out as 3 years ago is not that far in the past but people choose to forget I guess. None of these factors with the exception of #3 were an issue with any other version of FS (MS has a history of being overly optimistic in what hardware it will take for any version of FS to run). Hopefully FS11 like Windows7 to Vista will be that optimized upgrade we all need..."I know you can go on and on and you do. Fact is the figures don't support much of what you say. Perhaps you better get "chris" to weigh in ...

[duckbilled 310]

All this being said, I think most would agree that FSX's problem is that it took too long for hardware to catch up. This caused people to stick with FS9 longer than normal. People sticking with FS9 caused add on development for FSX to lag.Now that the hardware is there, most that use FSX with success will agree that it is a better sim than FS9. All of this needs to be heard by MS. Their product needs to run on contemporary hardware and it must offer an improvement over FSX for the enthusiast crowd to embrace it. If we fully embrace it, the add ons will follow. As the add ons surface, more will embrace it. If you skip that first step (running on available hardware), you will end up behind the 8 ball and you may never recover.As to what happens in the non-enthusiast crown is anybody's guess.

[Dillon 2,208]

I know you can go on and on and you do. Fact is the figures don't support much of what you say. Perhaps you beter get "chris" to weigh in ...

I wrote a couple of replies here to address your comments but I'm settling in on the fact I'm just speechless...

[Geofa 108]

That's a great idea... The next time your in Minnesota we should get together, I'm serious.

I fly to Minnesota all the time to rst to take patients for wings of mercy-is that close? As for speechless-I can understand that..