Dear Microsoft - how to win over the flight sim market

[duckbilled 310]

I see your point but I can't see why MS would do something like that when they are developing a new sim. The want to sell us the new sim, not provide a patch for the old sim. They want FSX to look old and clunky and the new sim to be smooth and fantastic. It is in their interest to make everyone sick of FSX so they are dying to get their hands on MSF; improving FSX isn't going to accomplish that mission.I also think it would create a lot of problems for developers if another patch was released. Right now we have four versions of FSX floating around and developers have never really been able to catch up. Many think SP2 is the version to develop for but they find that that their products are not compatible with Acceleration (both products contain different versions of SP2). It is like shooting at a moving target for them. Who knows what type of problems will be introduced with current add ons if another SP is released.If they want my business, they must produce the best, most customizable sim of the future. It must beat out Aerosoft and X-Plane and it must be the choice of the enthusiast community. I will go where the developers go. Backwards compatibility could help tip the scales but they shouldn't provide it at the expense of producing the best product possible.Lot of different possibilities for the future of FS but I don't think FSX-SP3 is one of them.

[fsx 0]

mad dog, on 24 August 2010 - 09:17 PM, said: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.

I agree. These are feature requests really..Maddog - I don't at all fly with default textures, scenery or weather. Fortunately I use ORBX and REX and fly only on those designated areas covered by ORBX. That is the future of scenery for me. No going back to anything else. So for the most part , I bush fly, but I love it. If I were to be stuck with FSX default, I would have stayed with FS9 for sure. Fortunately, with 4 years accumulation of addons and various 3rd party fixes and tweaks, I really don't notice *cough..performance..cough* the residual 'unfinished work' any longer. :( Eric

[Glynn 405]

I agree. These are feature requests really..Maddog - I don't at all fly with default textures, scenery or weather. Fortunately I use ORBX and REX and fly only on those designated areas covered by ORBX. That is the future of scenery for me. No going back to anything else. So for the most part , I bush fly, but I love it. If I were to be stuck with FSX default, I would have stayed with FS9 for sure. Fortunately, with 4 years accumulation of addons and various 3rd party fixes and tweaks, I really don't notice *cough..performance..cough* the residual 'unfinished work' any longer. :( Eric

HelloNeither do I but anyone buying FSX has a right to expect a finished product, FSX out of the box was never completed.No reason at this point to assume that Flight! will be any differentMaybe Microsoft should have put a disclaimer on the box "DIY software" further purchases may be necessary for full functionality :(

[Christopher Low 5,390]

IMO, further purchases have always been necessary with MSFS. The boxed products have only ever been a basic foundation, particularly with respect to terrain textures and aircraft flight models.

[Tierborn 191]

HelloNeither do I but anyone buying FSX has a right to expect a finished product, FSX out of the box was never completed.No reason at this point to assume that Flight! will be any differentMaybe Microsoft should have put a disclaimer on the box "DIY software" further purchases may be necessary for full functionality :(

what do you mean .. it wasn't complete?  I think you are confusing what you would like to see with what was the developers content objectives.

[fsx 0]

what do you mean .. it wasn't complete? I think you are confusing what you would like to see with what was the developers content objectives

Could have done with ALOT of rounding off. So yeah, unfinished. But now, academic. We have moved on, as have MS. :( Lets hope FSNext will be to FSX what FS2002 was to FS2000.(from a default perspective)

[Glynn 405]

what do you mean .. it wasn't complete?  I think you are confusing what you would like to see with what was the developers content objectives.

HelloI am not confusing what I would like to see with the developers content objectives were..FSX was released before the proposed landclass system with more regional variations was completed, along with the textures that should have accompanied this system.That was the reason for the global deserts, do you really think that Microsoft meant the textures to look like that?.The developers content objectives never came to fruition due to FSX being rushed out of the door.

[Tierborn 191]

HelloI am not confusing what I would like to see with the developers content objectives were..FSX  was released before the proposed landclass system with more regional variations was completed, along with the textures that should have accompanied this system.That was the reason for the global deserts, do you really think that Microsoft meant the textures to look like that?.The developers content objectives never came to fruition due to FSX being rushed out of the door.

When MS release FSX, i bet there was tons of pride in the release.  The scenery was a step up from FS9.   So yes, I do believe that MS released it like they intended.

[Glynn 405]

When MS release FSX, i bet there was tons of pride in the release.  The scenery was a step up from FS9.   So yes, I do believe that MS released it like they intended.

HelloBut was it released as ACES intended ?, probably notDo you believe that ACES thought Alaska comprised of miles of sandy desert.The Landclass was not a step up from FS9 given that it was essentially the same and nothing like what ACES had intended.If they had finished the texures and landclassing it would have been a much nicer sim from day one.But that is history now, ACES ran out of time and budget lets just hope the new team don't get rushed by the bean counters in the same way.

[JSkorna 137]

md,As a beta tester for FSX I would like to know where you are getting your information from or is this just your opinion?

[Guest veeray]

maddog: Thank god for Orbx then... I think the big issue with landclasses is that the satellites just can't autogenerate them like they do with elevation maps and orthophotos.

[ahuimanu 50]

FSX most likely died along with ACES. When they win us over again, it'll have to be on the merits of the new platform. Hopefully, they will only add features, and not take them away.

[bsmfinegan 12]

If Microsoft thinks that I am going to hand over my hard earned cash for another half assed effort such as the RTM Fsx was then they can think again. Don't get me wrong, I am happy with FSX now thanks to FTX and other hardware improvments but the basic release of FSX was a disgrace. Lets hope that this time they make full use of the current and potential hardware on the market and we can have a sim that does not perform like a pig from day one. Bryan.

[spilok 1,139]

If Microsoft thinks that I am going to hand over my hard earned cash for another half assed effort such as the RTM Fsx was then they can think again. Don't get me wrong, I am happy with FSX now thanks to FTX and other hardware improvments but the basic release of FSX was a disgrace. Lets hope that this time they make full use of the current and potential hardware on the market and we can have a sim that does not perform like a pig from day one. Bryan.

I guess it depended on your hardware. My first experience with FSX never performed like a "pig". In fact, it performed like and "eagle". With all the wonderful addons, I've been happier every day afterwards.Stan

[LAdamson 240]

If Microsoft thinks that I am going to hand over my hard earned cash for another half assed effort such as the RTM Fsx was then they can think again. Don't get me wrong, I am happy with FSX now thanks to FTX and other hardware improvments but the basic release of FSX was a disgrace. Lets hope that this time they make full use of the current and potential hardware on the market and we can have a sim that does not perform like a pig from day one.

I had the beta disks, since I had also tested the two previous versions, and it didn't do well. CPU was 2+ years old, so I upgraded. From that day forward, I've always preferred FSX over any prior release.L.Adamson