MS Flight Development Team Please Post Here

[mgh 89]

MGH.Who do you think programmed FSX?

That is totally irrelevant. Who do you think took the decision to release FSX? I very much doubt that it was those members of ACES who posted here.

[LAdamson 240]

I fully agree, FSX was NOT a fiasco.  

IMO --- It's the best all around flight sim, I've ever used, as yet. And I think I've been using them for close to 20 years... by now.L.Adamson

[rodger 0]

IMO --- It's the best all around flight sim, I've ever used, as yet. And I think I've been using them for close to 20 years... by now.L.Adamson

same here, and I couldn't agree more :( Rodger

[ahuimanu 50]

I don't agree. The release of FSX was a fiasco.

Fiasco is harsh, but many of your points are well-taken.However, FSX is without real parallel and it is still a MARVEL. I am actually a half-empty guy nearly always, but I do appreciate what we have in FSX. Where I will agree with you vehemently is in the area of the SDK. I am grateful we have one, but I hope techniques can be simplified and unified in a future release. Lastly, I think the "Flight" moniker is there to NOT scare away the newer crowd (the IGN Gamespot types) with a heavily-laden word like "simulator." While I don't suspect a fan of heavy-iron and procedures, like me, will lose much vis-a-vis what I have with FSX now. However, improvement in the SDK tools might simplify and/or streamline the development process for add-ons. Frankly, if making an addon were along the same lines as making a website or desktop application in VS, or a similar tool, then we might have quicker development times for 3rd party folks. I mean, look at how bizarrely archaic the whole .air file system is. Look at how one must "kludge" together FS2002, FS2004 and FSX techniques to get FSDreamTeam-level sceneries. Look at how a PMDG-style aircraft must be modeled largely outside of FSX. etc. etc. etc.I will understand if the Flight guys don't post here, as I'm sure they have their ears to the door, as it were. Frankly, I'm just happy to see the 30-year-old party continue.

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

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.

Mike, have you not noticed 3d cockpits emerging, including the gauges which now move fluidly in the VC?Quite a leap forward, I would say :(

[meshman 109]

Where I will agree with you vehemently is in the area of the SDK. I am grateful we have one, but I hope techniques can be simplified and unified in a future release.

Well, I will disagree vehemently ( :( ) about the SDKs, at least compared to FS9. And I reference only terrain based areas, but making mesh or photo scenery compared to FS9? Piece of cake. Need to take something out or put something in? Don't have to worry about which layer things are in with FSX. There are more comparisons, but I'm a lazy typist! I won't proclaim the FSX SDKs to be error-free. My hopes are that (IMO) the improvements made from FS9 to FSX can be improved upon and developed further with the coming version. Only time will tell?

[Ozark_Dogfighter 0]

Mike, have you not noticed 3d cockpits emerging, including the gauges which now move fluidly in the VC?Quite a leap forward, I would say :(

Exactly. Making a broad statement such as that was not digging into the details. FSX is quite an advancement in several regards. Scenery? Have you seen what can be done with the water? The clouds, and environment in general? FS Water Configurator and REX, especially if you can run the HD textures. Only in FSX. MilViz's C310R is THE definitive light-twin sim ever made available on ANY MSFS, and it's only possible because of the support of FSX.Surely you know what it's like to work against deadlines. Unless you are the boss/owner of the company, you CANNOT control when the product will be released. You have to put in late nights and suffer migraines and ulcers rushing to complete it as good as can be possible by the release date. There were several ACES members that voiced concern over the final rendition of FSX due to the release date. They knew exactly how the community was going to react, and tried their best to say "wait fellas, we're aware of all the problems and if we could have made the initial release as good as our SP2 will be, we would have. But please wait, it's going to be worth it!".There are always creaks, moans, and sometimes faulty starters, etc in a new car, no matter how much the guys in charge of it wish Ford/Dodge/Chevy etc would give them just a few more weeks to work all the bugs out. So is it really the brains in Engineering? The testers? The drivers? The analysts? Or is it the push of the company to meet the deadline, regardless? Too often in this world TIME is the stressed factor, not workmanship. Rolls Royce cars are assembled by a team of experts, from the exhaust hangars to the saddle-stitched leather upholstery, but if the "powers that be" cut production time by 2 weeks, is it the Upholsterer's fault that he had no time to finely detail it? Trust me, if MS handed ACES 3 dozen Alienware compies and 5 million dollars, and the line "take your time boys, we're serious, but make it the BEST!", you can bet your sweet bippy that would be the longest 4 years or so we've ever waited for a sim, but the results would be phenomenal, I promise you that. The ACES team are just as die-hard FS addicts as we are./climbing off soapbox now...

[Guest jahman]

IMHO FSX is a terriffic product! And that is why its remaining bugs are so annoying!Yes we all know about program management and development deadlines, but the problem is releasing a product and then forgetting about it for the next two years until the next release (5 or six in the case of FSX?)OK, there were two significant service packs that were most welcome by the sim community.So why not continue with the service packs 3, 4, 5, 6 every six months and squash the remaining bugs?Heck, I would have *paid* for those service packs if they really fixed the remaining problems. Considering what I spent on hardware (PC, cockpit elements) and software (aircraft, scenery), paying $100 for a service pack would have been an absolute joke (and yet would have been sooo important to my simming experience...)YMMV, of course.Cheers,- jahman.

[FlyingsCool 3]

I believe the major factors in killing the FSX schedule and product were:1. The Vista fiasco - Don't forget that FSX was designed to be a forum for showing off Vista, and was originally supposed to be released after Vista was released. You KNOW that this was given as a major goal for the product from management to the development team. When Vista was late and awful, there wasn't anything ACES could do about it.2. The attempt to jump so far forward and maintain backwards compatibility.3. The decision by Intel to stop making processors go faster, and instead slowed them down and made multiple processors.Don't forget that when FSX was planned, they were expecting a similar increase in performance going forward as had occurred in the past. Instead they were taken completely by surprise when Intel wimped out and instead went with multiple SLOWER processors on their chips. This TOTALLY threw ACES for a loop and under the bus.****************Why are there still some bugs left in FSX? These projects only have so much budget available to them. Typically, they release them and move on, and bugs are fixed in future versions (sometimes). The only reason we got as far as SP2 was because of the passion and dedication of the ACES team - and ultimately many of them paid the price for that dedication to fixing the product with their jobs. Had they instead concentrated on developing FS11 instead of fixing FSX, we might already have a new product (likely, and without backwards compatibility) and they might still have retained their jobs (unlikely given the economic climate).When I say backwards compatibility would have been given up, I am NOT suggesting a "new graphics engine" (whoopeee!) would have been developed. Dream on -1. If that was possible, it would be done already - Geez, give it up already, or write it yourself. Think of the money you'll be reaping in with your revolutionary new product that everyone is clamoring for.2. That's just not how the development process works for established products. There are too many details that would need to be taken care of to get a completely new product finished in a reasonable amount of time and development effort.I do not believe that Flight will be a totally new product, especially since it is planned for release in a year. I think it will be incremental to FSX as FSX was to FS9 (hopefully there will be that much of a difference, probably not). If you disagree that FSX was a huge increase over FS9 - try STOCK FS9 vs. stock FSX.

[Wynthorpe 51]

I think stock FSX over FS9 was amassively different, i for one never really had a problem with FSX's need for better hardware, you should upgrade at least every 2 years anyway to stay current (in my view) anyhow.

[Guest JoeInCT]

OK. I would say at this point I think it is safe to say that the development team is either unwilling, or more likely, unable to be a part of this (or any other) public forum. What a shame.

[mmann 72]

OK. I would say at this point I think it is safe to say that the development team is either unwilling, or more likely, unable to be a part of this (or any other) public forum. What a shame.

Unable I would say, I think they saw what happened to the old development team!!