MS Flight Development Team Please Post Here

[Cayenne 14]

What about the 3D water surface with shadows and environment reflections, The nice looking clouds, Lens flare, and the physics (or behavior) of the aircraft in the announcement video??

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

What about the 3D water surface with shadows and environment reflections, The nice looking clouds, Lens flare, and the physics (or behavior) of the aircraft in the announcement video??

That video is most likely fake. (not taken in game) The graphics should be improved in flight, but as to how much, we will just have to wait and see. But that second video is possibly in game. There is not enough scenery or environment shown there for us to even guess on that.:(

[FlyinMisfit 0]

I don't agree. The release of FSX was a fiasco. Not to raise old spectres Promises for DX10 integration were broken, performance prior to two service packs was abysmal, the focus on substantive enhancements was lacking, and in the end the community was, and still is split, between FS9 and FSX. The end result was that the Aces team admitted that the engine was archaic and when the glossy 'feel good' rhetoric about 'whining' was quashed those to begged to differ were vindicated just before the Aces team was released by Microsoft. A great section of the community was extremely dissapThe response to the FSX fiasco was relatively sedate compared to many other developers and hardware manufactures that have gotten trashed on forums without the rules of civility enforced here at Avsim. Absolutely there were those who couldn't control their tempers and they were summarily dealth with by Avsim. But were the Aces team "mostly treated like dirt", I don't believe so. They were most certianly held accountable. Their feet were held to the fire and pressure was kept up to fix the product. This should be appreciated by any developer. Remember, anger is not your enemy, it means that your customers still care. It's apathy that must be feared because it means that your customers no longer care and they won't be back.The way I see it as long as the "Flight" team doesn't post any magic screenies or build a product that can't be used until 2020 they have nothing to fear! :-)

well said Mike.

[dmaher 0]

I’d think the communication we saw from ACES was a bit of an experiment.It’s not typical for game developers to communicate like that.There are very strict rules about this and serious repercussions for folks that ignore them.The NDA’s biggest target is team itself.I’m certain the few ACES members that did communicate were authorized and understood their responsibilities.I may be mistaken but I thought most of the discussion happened after the game was released…it was an aspect of support.Also, with a few exceptions, I though the posts and blogs were targeted primarily at developer support.As for Flight we may yet see the same level of support.Calling FSX a “fiasco” is baloney. :Whistle:It’s the most extensible FS to date.The potential and general quality of add-ons today is a testament to that.There’s this deceit that good add-ons are built in spite of the SDK/platform.Reality is the opposite is true.Say what you like, we are seeing the fruits of ACES work.We all know Flight will excel in some areas and be lacking in others - that’s life.Set good priorities and do what you can…know you can’t please everyone.There’ll be lots of angry posts towards Flight after RTM, there always is :)The team needs to take them in stride…

[Tierborn 188]

"...........Calling FSX a “fiasco” is baloney.  :Whistle:It’s the most extensible FS to date.The potential and general quality of add-ons today is a testament to that........""........There’ll be lots of angry posts towards Flight after RTM, there always is :)The team needs to take them in stride…"

I fully agree, FSX was NOT a fiasco.  There are some that complain about every release of MS products.  They cant help themselves.As to the anger regarding Flight after release .. heck, there are folk already angry with Flight 1 yr before release .. :(  

[Qatsimo 7]

That video is most likely fake. (not taken in game) The graphics should be improved in flight, but as to how much, we will just have to wait and see. :(

To me it looks very much like real time (in game). There is a sort of stutter in the water animation which wouldn't occur in a custom rendered video. But still, it remains just speculation.

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

To me it looks very much like real time (in game). There is a sort of stutter in the water animation which wouldn't occur in a custom rendered video. But still, it remains just speculation.

Watching it again, I do see a little bit of a stutter in the movement of the camera as it moves across the water. It might just be in game. We won't know for sure until we see in game screenshots/more videos.

[Mike T 208]

Accountble for what? Indiviiduals can only be held accountable for their own decisions - not for those made by others. As I recall,they were blamed for the FSX "fiasco" for whichj I very much doubt they were individually responsible. My understanding is that the individual members of ACES who posted here did so the help and advise the rest of us and in their own time too. They wereblamed for the FSX "fiasco" I don't think the read the head of ACES ever posting here?If I'd had that experience, I certainly wouldn't bother doing it again. Anyway, as others have pointed out Microsoft probably learned from the experience and made it policy not to alow such posts again. Also, a sensible developer won't indulge in advance public speculation about what's goipng to be included. The developer may initially intend in good faith to include a feature which may not in the event appear in the released product for any number of valid reasons. Details are only likely to released at a late stage in development when it's certain what will be included.

MGH.Who do you think programmed FSX? Unless the program was programmed by magical elves who forced Aces to put their names on it, ACES developed the product. So who would YOU hold accountable for the release state of FSX? We can make unfounded speculations about dark scary accounting departments and evil, greedy Microsoft managers but at the end of the day the TRUTH is that Aces developed the product and they were held accountable for that product after they released it. Of course, we can pretend that someone else developed it and when you find out who that was we can hold them accountable. Secondly, Aces ABSOUTELY DID speculate about what was going to be included. Magic Screenies? DX10? Who speculated about that..us or them? Finally, if developers ran crying into a corner every time they received harsh criticism we'd have no software at all. There is absolutely no software that has not been criticized...some more harshly than others. Developers who participate on forums can't realistically expect to interact with non-emotional robots or get told how great they are...even when they totally screwed up. You can either come back stronger and learn from the community that cares enough to make some nose about your mistakes...or you can cry like a schoolgirl and curl up in a corner. In the end even Aces had to agree that they did not release the product that they had hoped. That's okay, no one holds grudges around here, if one is big enough to admit they screwed up and are dedicated to building a better product they would have the backing of everyone in the community.As I said before. The Flight team has nothing to fear here. The community appreciates honesty. The biggest outcry is ALWAYS when a developer makes promises that they cannot possibly deliver and try to cover it up as if we are too stupid to see the truth right in front of us. A great example of that is Airsimmer. They promised a diamond of an airbus but delivered a lump of coal instead and they took a huge beating for it. Are they hiding? No. After they finally came to grips with their situation and start telling the TRUTH instead of ridiculous excuses, they were given a second chance by many...and they still show up on their forums even after the product release fiasco.The Flight team will be welcomed here and an open dialog would be valued by us and hopefully they will gain some valuable insight into this community. I only pray that they don't make the same mistakes that the Aces team did (or whoever you think developed the product.) Adventures about spotting rare artic penguins from an ultralight are just not that entertaining...specially when you have to do it at 8FPS!Regards.

[Tierborn 188]

"..........As I said before.  The Flight team has nothing to fear here.  The community appreciates honesty.  The biggest outcry is ALWAYS when a developer makes promises that they cannot possibly deliver and try to cover it up as if we are too stupid to see the truth right in front of us...."

This statement is the fear I would have as the business/product manager on any project.  If any thing is misinterpreted or if we had the best intentions, some in the community will lose it and turn the experience into a nightmare.  The name calling and accusations aren't worth it.  The ones that normally speak out are the ones that don't know how to remain civil in their communications.  I see it on other game forums where the development community tried to interact.   The move to interact with the community has caused them more harm than if they wouldn't if interacted at all.   Last comment .. I dont believe for one minute that MS "black boxed" the development of FSX .. in other words,  MS knew about the intricacies of the project before the release (both good and bad).  The project development decisions were jointly made.  You have to hold both accountable! 

[Mike T 208]

Calling FSX a “fiasco” is baloney. :Whistle:It’s the most extensible FS to date.The potential and general quality of add-ons today is a testament to that.There’s this deceit that good add-ons are built in spite of the SDK/platform.Reality is the opposite is true.Say what you like, we are seeing the fruits of ACES work.

The release of FSX was indeed a fiasco. It gained the anger of more than half of the community and a good chunk of the developers. After two service packs, four years and many tweaks I have finally began using FSX as my only simulator...almost four years after its release. And what's BALONEY is your claim that it is the "most extensible FS to date." If that is the case then why are developers using FS9 techniques to overcome many ommisions in the FSX FDK? What new functionality has been released in ANY SINGLE ADDON? Besides looking better with new HD graphics FSX aircraft behave just like FS9 aircraft. FSX scenery behaves just like FS9 scenery except at 6cm resolution. So please, quantify your statement about this "most extensible FS to date." Please point out the substantive functionality that makes your statement true. Point out one single addon that introduced never before imagined features thanks to FSX....or is your statement itself "baloney."I personally have come to really love FSX...but that doesn't blind me from the truth about FSX.

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

I have to say that you are completely wrong that FSX add-ons don't have any more functionality than FS9. Just look at Dodosim! Their Bell 206 for FSX is like no other add-on. They made some huge technological advances that no other add-on has. PMDG, RealAir, JustFlight, and especially A2A have overcome some of the limits of the FSX SDK and created amazing add-ons that surpass FS9 add-on aircraft greatlyB)PS: I will not deny that FSX has problems. It does. It was released too soon and was made to run on computers of 2012. That's not right and hopefully Flight will allow us to forget FSX and move on. Flight might just turn out to be amazing.

[FlyingsCool 3]

The "Magic Screenies" were released by Microsoft marketing, not the ACES staff. I seem to remember, in fact, the ACES staff generally saying that they would NOT be able to match the Magic Screenies.I am on the side that FSX was NOT a fiasco. I have been using it as my main simulator from day one, and have been very happy with it.Mike T., I'm sorry it's taken you so long to enjoy the software, but I don't understand why you seem so upset about it. They didn't take away your FS9. They did the best they could with the tools they had and the directives they were given from on high.Yes, I'm sure they appreciate honesty, to a point. I suggest constructive dialog with a true, appropriately modest understanding of the issues involved will have a much greater affect.

[Tierborn 188]

The "Magic Screenies" were released by Microsoft marketing, not the ACES staff.  I seem to remember, in fact, the ACES staff generally saying that they would NOT be able to match the Magic Screenies.I am on the side that FSX was NOT a fiasco.  I have been using it as my main simulator from day one, and have been very happy with it.Mike T., I'm sorry it's taken you so long to enjoy the software, but I don't understand why you seem so upset about it.  They didn't take away your FS9.  They did the best they could with the tools they had and the directives they were given from on high.Yes, I'm sure they appreciate honesty, to a point.  I suggest constructive dialog with a true, appropriately modest understanding of the issues involved will have a much greater affect.

I remember the same .. the "screenies" have always been rendered video..

[dmaher 0]

Mike, you clearly said the release was a fiasco. I don't disagree with that.It’s true, the schedule broke and they were unable to recover by RTM.FSX wasn’t really ready until SP2. That was a huge problem for everyone.The thing is FSX itself isn’t a fiasco. ( you didn't say it was... )Ultimately, once the dust settled, it was a big step forward.I can’t speak to scenery, but for aircraft there were many improvements.FS9 used naming conventions to link XML scripts to objects - nasty and bug prone.And, it had fairly limited functionality by comparison.FSX does away with naming conventions (good) and inserts XML script right into the object (as part data).This manages the objects events, visibility, mouse UI, effects, various sounds, and even attach other objects.I’d be very surprised to hear anyone say FS9 did this better.The process in FSX is more refined, and really lends itself to problem solving.While this stuff can be used for eye candy…it’s also used to simulate systems.So you could say the cost/headache to develop a scripted object in FSX is lower.Danny

[Mace 1,902]

So who would YOU hold accountable for the release state of FSX?

I am not sure why this dead horse is still being beat on 4 years after the fact. I have been away awhile and I see Mike T hasn't changed a bit, hheheh.No point in re-hashing all of that old stuff now though. I think Flight will come at a more opportune time in the industry in terms of OS's and hardware. But I also think that Flight, as released, will not quite be what we expect. I hope I'm wrong about that.