Dear Microsoft - how to win over the flight sim market

[c152flyboy 0]

since the release from MS about flight there has been 1000's of comments, some are very favorable, some have a wait and see approach, and some already hate the idea of this. So Microsoft if you read these forums ( and i bet you do ) how can you make this a win-win situation for both your company and the consumer. Make Flight and make it anything you want it to be- open or closed format for add on's, simulator or more game, backward compatible or not.but at the same time release a 3rd service pack for FSX adding the things that were going to be the next version of flight simulator. we all know that Microsoft was working on FS Next and it was scrapped but i for one don't think that Flight is the byproduct of that work but something new. now i know some are saying, well that is what this new flight program is going to be so no need for Microsoft to bother. OK that is true i guess if indeed this is the next level in MSFS, but if it is not and is a different type of product that is going to cater to a wider audience, please let Microsoft fix the issues that were remaining with FSX and then call it a day. I have not always been a fan of Microsoft or their business practices ( EX. windows 7 should have been called vista SP3 ) but i can not think of one person who would not support Microsoft if they released a SP3 for FSX and still went on to create Flight. MS may say no need because Flight is the replacement of FSX but would it not be a welcome addition, having FSX SP3 and Flight out at the same time? if FS11 was already in the works, how much more would be needed to finsih it off or at least make FSX look more like it was envisioned in 2006?Microsoft still supports windows XP because of the demand and that program is a lot older the FSX so why cant they support FSX one more time. anyway that is just my opinion and Microsoft may never hear it but i for one hope that they will at least listen to this consumer's opinion.Kyle

[mgh 89]

Releasing another Service Pack for FSX would cost Microsoft time, effort, resouces, and money for which which there'd be no return - worse it would deter some FSX users from buying Flight. I suggest it's far better that it concentrates on developing Flight.

[c152flyboy 0]

i know that may be the case. my point was simply you had a lot of people who would not move from FS9 to FSX and now there may be a lot of people who wont go from FSX to flight. but Microsoft could win over everyone with the way i stated and so no one is unhappy.

[JoeD 0]

The question that begs to be asked is, why do you think that "Flight" will not be the "next" simulator?So far, there has only been a name change and it may well turn out to be nothing more than for marketing purposes.IMO, what MS needs to do is to be a bit more clearer about exactly what "flight" will be/contain.

[mgh 89]

i know that may be the case. my point was simply you had a lot of people who would not move from FS9 to FSX and now there may be a lot of people who wont go from FSX to flight. but Microsoft could win over everyone with the way i stated and so no one is unhappy.

Why should Microsoft spend money to release another free SP for people who already have FSX?

[Glynn 405]

Why should Microsoft spend money to release another free SP for people who already have FSX?

HelloWhy not?The product is still in their inventory and still being sold by MicrosoftFSX is Microsofts current sim therefore if bugs are found and are fixable why would they not issue patches, it is in their interest to improve the base sim.There must have been fixes for ESP since FSX SP2 was released, would these not be of use to FSX.

[mgh 89]

HelloWhy not?The product is still in their inventory and still being sold by MicrosoftFSX is Microsofts current sim therefore if bugs are found and are fixable why would they not issue patches, it is in their interest to improve the base sim.There must have been fixes for ESP since FSX SP2 was released, would these not be of use to FSX.

Why is it in Microsoft's interests to spend money without any return for it?

[Glynn 405]

Why is it in Microsoft's interests to spend money without any return for it?

Well they have already released two service packs for FSX, by your reasoning there was absolutely no need for them to do this yet they went ahead anyway.Do you believe that nothing further will be done for the FSX/ESP codebase.Those customers that bought licences for ESP will be expecting that microsoft continue to maintain the code.Those customers that also bought the rights to use the ESP source may also find and fix issues and these may find there way back into the codebase.If MS Flight is still some way off then another release like Acceleration would generate further income for Microsoft and could include any fixes since SP2.

[fsx 0]

Why should Microsoft spend money to release another free SP for people who already have FSX?

At the risk of being flamed, what exactly is still so significantly wrong with FSX which would warrant MS spending large sums of money on resource to fix?

[frankla 44]

To original poster. You do realize that FSX is an aging, old game. Right? It was created somewhere around 7 years ago.Furthermore, It is not nearly as simple as you think to create a service pack either; Service packs are very expensive and are very RISKY to implement. When you try to fix something, most of the times you end up introducing new bugs. In fact, this inadvertant bug creation is so common that programmers will not fix minor bugs after Alpha testing of a product has been finished. Beta testings are done for catching major bugs only. In other words, the programmers will not even fix the minor bugs BEFORE a product is released!!! Now for you to expect them to spend millions of dollars to fix some minor issues in an old game is very unreasonable.

[Glynn 405]

At the risk of being flamed, what exactly is still so significantly wrong with FSX which would warrant MS spending large sums of money on resource to fix?

HelloWell the weather system could stand a bit of work in places namely the extreme wind shifts and sudden visibility changes..The Rain and snow depiction are not anywhere near realistic, a step backwards from FS9.The landclass system was never completed and the default texture set was released in an incomplete state, hence the global deserts.There was a period of time between the release of SP2 and Aces being wound up where further work must have been done, what was that work.Or were Aces just spending that time playing minesweeper?

[january 19]

Well they have already released two service packs for FSX, by your reasoning there was absolutely no need for them to do this yet they went ahead anyway.Do you believe that nothing further will be done for the FSX/ESP codebase.Those customers that bought licences for ESP will be expecting that microsoft continue to maintain the code.Those customers that also bought the rights to use the ESP source may also find and fix issues and these may find there way back into the codebase.If MS Flight is still some way off then another release like Acceleration would generate further income for Microsoft and could include any fixes since SP2.

For any manufacturer (MS in this case)- Once a decision is made to create a successor product, any improvement to the current product will tend to extend its useful life.And so will reduce the incentive for present customers to purchase the new product when it comes out.Better to have customers anxious for improvements which may possibly/only be achieved in "product next".Alex Reid(An apocryphal story has it that an auto industry exec bragged to his competitor peers that his division's current car model was, at last, the PERFECT car- well, perfect perhaps except for one minor engineering change to be introduced on next year's model. And what was that, he was asked?"Well, next year there would be a hammock slung underneath to catch all the parts that fall off.")

[HUSSAR 272]

Why is it in Microsoft's interests to spend money without any return for it?

I agree, simply put they have to come out with a new incarnation of this genre based on what has worked in the past and leave FSX as is regardless of whether it is in the inventory or not. MS has made no bones about wishing to move on. ESP is a licensed product and bears much resemblance to FSX although it must fall extremely short of what we are used to looking at with the texture enhancements provided by updated landclass, mesh etc.I would bet that MS is getting more returns on their investment since development ceased in 2009 and those returns will increase as FLIGHT becomes part of discussions around the gaming world and to new simmers FSX will be the preamble. With the current hardware available to us and the various tweaks that have come out of late, don't be surprised to hear (if they admit it) that MS is looking pretty hard at these new developments.Look at software development vis a vis development for new hardware, simply put you cannot have one without the other and that is what keeps the ball rolling. Just like the rest of the business world companies must answer to their shareholders and MS is no different.I personally welcome the idea of a brand new sim, if that is what they intend to develop.

[frankla 44]

HelloWell the weather system could stand a bit of work in places namely the extreme wind shifts and sudden visibility changes..The Rain and snow depiction are not anywhere near realistic, a step backwards from FS9.The landclass system was never completed and the default texture set was released in an incomplete state, hence the global deserts.There was a period of time between the release of SP2 and Aces being wound up where further work must have been done, what was that work.Or were Aces just spending that time playing minesweeper?

The faults you mention of FSX are not bugs. You are really asking for new features on the game. For example, the weather fix you want is really a new feature, not a fix. Fixing the sudden visibility changes requires a whole new technology and processing power that has not been available to us yet. FS9 and FS2002 couldn't handle the sudden visibility changes either. In other words, what you are complaining about are not mistakes. You can't expect new features for free bud.

[Tierborn 191]

since the release from MS about flight there has been 1000's of comments, some are very favorable, some have a wait and see approach, and some already hate the idea of this.  So Microsoft if you read these forums ( and i bet you do ) how can you make this a win-win situation for both your company and the consumer.  Make Flight and make it anything you want it to be- open or closed format for add on's, simulator or more game, backward compatible or not.but at the same time release a 3rd service pack for FSX adding the things that were going to be the next version of flight simulator. we all know that Microsoft was working on FS Next and it was scrapped but i for one don't think that Flight is the byproduct of that work but something new.  now i know some are saying, well that is what this new flight program is going to be so no need for Microsoft to bother.  OK that is true i guess if indeed this is the next level in MSFS, but if it is not and is a different type of product that is going to cater to a wider audience, please let Microsoft fix the issues that were remaining with FSX and then call it a day.  I have not always been a fan of Microsoft or their business practices ( EX. windows 7 should have been called vista SP3 ) but i can not think of one person who would not support Microsoft if they released a SP3 for FSX and still went on to create Flight.  MS may say no need because Flight is the replacement of FSX but would it not be a welcome addition, having FSX SP3 and Flight out at the same time?  if FS11 was already in the works, how much more would be needed to finsih it off or at least make FSX look more like it was envisioned in 2006?Microsoft still supports windows XP because of the demand and that program is a lot older the FSX so why cant they support FSX one more time.  anyway that is just my opinion and Microsoft may never hear it but i for one hope that they will at least listen to this consumer's opinion.Kyle

This would not make good business sense...... MS has just about sold up to the 98% percentile of what its going to sale with FSX.   FSX is a functioning flight simulation, all the focus will be on the release of the new title.aside: there is no "new" demand for XP.

Well they have already released two service packs for FSX, by your reasoning there was absolutely no need for them to do this yet they went ahead anyway.Do you believe that nothing further will be done for the FSX/ESP codebase.Those customers that bought licences for ESP will be expecting that microsoft continue to maintain the code.Those customers that also bought the rights to use the ESP source may also find and fix issues and these may find there way back into the codebase.If MS Flight is still some way off then another release like Acceleration would generate further income for Microsoft and could include any fixes since SP2.

SP2 made FSX functional for many .. at this late date in FSX product cycle doesn't make sense to do another major patch.  But you guys already know this.. if another patch was going to be forth coming, it would have been release awhile back.  MS focus is on its new sim.