Hi all,To the surprise of many here (I have no doubt), Flight Simulator 2004 is one of the best selling "games" on the market. I believe it is widely thought in this community that FS is an extreme niche product that doesn't enjoy mainstream sales and profits for Microsoft.That couldn't be farther from the truth:"Here are the best-sellers for Sept. 7-13: 1. Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WWII from EA 2. EverQuest: Lost Dungeons of Norrath from Sony 3. Flight Simulator 2004 from Microsoft 4. Sims Deluxe from EA 5. Battlefield 1942 from EA 6. Sims Superstar from EA 7. Diablo 2 from VU Games 8. Warcraft III: Frozen Throne from VU Games 9. Zoo Tycoon from Microsoft 10. Sims Unleashed from EA"http://www.avault.com/news/displaynews.asp...ry=9252003-9427FS2004 is enjoying excellent sales success - even among the most mainstream of successful titles ever made (*cough* - The Sims - *cough*).I bring up this fact to hopefully add a further nail to one of the arguments that is made here frequently: that it doesn't make financial sense for Microsoft to release patches to fix "non-critical" problems in this software since its *only* a niche product. Clearly, Flight Simulator is about as mainstream as mainstream gets.As we all know for fact, it has become the norm these days for successful game developers to release their games unfinished to varying degrees, with a set of patches post release to bring it up to snuff - both functionally, to fix critical flaws, and to add new content to keep the game "fresh". Unfortunately, it seems to me that Microsoft doesn't "take ownership of its game software flaws in FS near as much as more mainstream game products. MS simply relies upon up-selling you the next version to fix the current versions problems - repeatedly. I'm not here to raise a stink on whether this is a fair or invalid practice, but simply to point out that almost every other mainstream game product gets better support in the form of functionality patches, critical flaw patches and post release content that adds value and support from its developer than Flight Simulator does. All it takes is to visit the sites for the games in the above top ten (among many other very popular titles) to easily prove that fact.I've always thought that at the very least, Microsoft should appoint one of its internal developers to directly field questions and provide knowledgable answers to the end-user developers at least a couple times a week - on just such a site as AVSIM. Maybe even set aside a entire day, once a week, to directly interact with the end-user developers that have so greatly contributed to their success - and at times desperately need internal FS developer answers. This has become the norm in the game business the past few years (specially among the most popular of games on the market), but Microsoft has so far left that type of support unanswered.Just food for thought. None of us here have to feel like we're in a niche area of the gaming world anymore: you're playing a "game" that has become just about as mainstream as it gets. Software updates, from both the software developer and hardware developers (driver updates, etc), as well as direct Microsoft developer interaction *should* be much easier to request now that FS's success is so clear.Take care,Elrond

It ain't happening though, so you'll have to hold on to 3rd party to fix it... (like every other version)DP

Hi DP,But thats the point I hoped to make. It ain't happening because owners and fans haven't asked for it loud enough. Believe you me, if it is a make or break issue, Microsoft Game Studios will respond. Thats just about the only way to get Microsoft to respond to anything: ask it loud enough (ie: publicity). :-) (A smiley to be friendly, but thats really no joke).Take care,Elrond

Myself, and I think most people here have always known that M$ FlightSim has been enjoying great sales. This has been the case for quite a few versions and continues with FS2004.However I think you misunderstand what the term "niche" means as it applies to FS. When people talk about the "niche" they do not mean that FS isn't selling a lot of copies. What it means is that only a small percentage of the people who buy FS are serious about taking it to the next level...By that I mean addons...commercial or freeware. This is the niche. Conservative estimates put this at less than 10%. If less than 10% of the market are interested in PMDG, or PIC or PSS, etc, and care enough to buy FSMeteo or Activesky, etc, then obviously M$ wouldn't be too worried about lost sales there. Having said that, M$ has taken the opinions and requests of this small "niche" seriously hence the reason for allowing members to do beta testing and submit feedback. This is also the reason why they do read this forum.So although I do appreciate your point, 10% of the total speaking really loudly wouldn't make much of an impact.Where warranted, M$ has released patches.....FS2000, CFS3, etc. To date, the only problem I can see with FS9 is the autogen bug. That may/may not be fixed....but it certainly doesn't take away from my enjoyment of the sim.

Not to steal your thunder, but it's as if I wrote your post. I have had exactly the same thoughts many times.But frankly, having worked around a large bureaucracy myself, I see little hope of any of this happening. For many reasons. Not as a bash, but just as a fact, Microsoft just doesn't provide much direct support, or solicit input, for any of it's products. You basically take what you get, on their terms, thoughout their product lines. I believe it's a corporate culture, and self-imposed luxury of their size and stature. And unfortunately for us users, that's the way it is. But it's a great post, and I could not agree more...Bob (Lecanto, Fl)

>To the surprise of many here (I have no doubt), Flight>Simulator 2004 is one of the best selling "games" on the>market. I believe it is widely thought in this community that>FS is an extreme niche product that doesn't enjoy mainstream>sales and profits for Microsoft.>>That couldn't be farther from the truth:Thank you for a well thought out, well written, succinct and thoughtful piece. I agree with you every step of the way.Thank you for posting it. I sure wish Microsoft was listening and truly wanted to listen to its customers and subsequently did as you have suggested.Regards,DonaldS

Hi Elrond,What a breath of fresh air! For quite a long time now there appears to have been an assumption, widely held, that our desire for more interaction with the developers of our favourite sim was unreasonable and, indeed, a total waste of time since our voices would elicit no response.The reality is that this practice has been allowed to continue for far too long with the inevitable result that Microsoft's continued apparent aloof behaviour has become the norm and certainly must save the developers a great deal of what they may perceive as unwelcome hassle. Really, it can be said that Microsoft has been allowed to perpetuate an attitude towards their enthusiastic and paying customer base which, in any other circles, would be regarded as being somewhat contemptuous and even inexcusable. Yet we have allowed it to continue. Why? The answer is simple. We are hooked, can't let go and Microsoft knows it. As you have pointed out, when compared with other software developers, Microsoft are out on a limb here and do need to change. Sadly, I suspect this attitude has been fostered by the bashers out there who see nothing good about the company and yet I bet most, if not all, use or depend on one or more of its mainstream products routinely on a daily basis.I would submit that Flight Simulator, while considered by many as being nothing more than just a 'game', is something of far greater importance and significance to the rest of us who love what it represents. I would even go so far as to say it has become unique amongst simulations. I believe that this latter view is shared by the developers since we only have to look at what is on offer in the current version to appreciate how much time and effort went into the creation of this masterpiece. If I could cite one example where some input from the developers could have spared us all a great deal of frustration. This sim out-of-the-box looks good, far better than its predecessor, but, as we all now know, the visuals and performance can still be improved quite significantly in many areas. We know that, and most of us have struggled over the past couple of months to tune the sim to our liking. But what of the thousands of others who are not able to appreciate this simulator of our virtual world, in all its glory, for the want of a few minor adjustments to values within certain configuration files? Throughout development and with feedback from the beta testing team a large knowledgebase of information must have accumulated, information that could easily have been passed on in the same manner as their main knowledgebase operates supporting their operating systems. Yet any help and advice offered on their web site, while helpful to those with little or no experience of this sim, is really quite basic. There must have been an awareness of the problems, potential and otherwise, presented by some mainsteam graphics cards - a quick look at the Display.cfg file demonstrates that fact. There must also have been an awareness of the impact the glorious new weather system would have on the performance of lesser machines. So why has it been left to folk like the ever helpful Chris Willis to provide us with the appropriate advice and solutions? Patches always seem to be a contentious issue where this sim is concerned. Many seem content to settle with what is already on offer, arguing that we should not expect more from a '$50 game'. This argument falls, as you have pointed out with your usual eloquence, when we look at the attitudes displayed by the software developers of countless other $50 games out there. They are proud of their creations and believe that the ongoing provision of support and healthy interaction with their customer base encourages loyalty to and enthusiasm for the continued viability and growth of their product. There is a debt to be paid by Microsoft and it is to all those who have supported their simulator through good times and bad. I'm quite sure Microsoft's monitoring of forums such as this produce many ideas that are 'borrowed' and incorporated in subsequent versions. Isn't it about time they go some way towards acknowledging these facts by adopting a far more open policy towards their loyal customers? I would say so.I have this vision (or is it fantasy?!) of the sim's development team joining together for coffee each day and commenting on the latest discoveries made by the various hobbyists out there. Maybe they even have wagers on how long it takes to unearth each of the many potential tweaks that have been embedded in the sim. ;) Who knows!Best regards,Mike :-wave

Elrond,You and I have agreed many times on issues related to this before in the past, and once again we are in agreement. I have stated many a time, that compared to other games, the level of involvement on the part of the developers with MS Flight Sim community is absolutely torrid. We're not talking about mom and pop shops doing it either, titles such as the entire Unreal series, Quake series, Neverwinter Nights, etc. all have an unbelievable amount of developer support, interest, and public interaction.When I was actively developing content for Unreal Tournament, I knew every single developer of the game by name... I knew what they did, I knew what they had done, what part of the game they were responsible for, and I heard from them frequently on boards, official forums, etc. with information, fixes, and all sorts of other information. It was clear and obvious that the creators of the game were involved in the community and the after-market development of the game... i.e. its community.I don't think I've heard but one or two "unofficial" statements from a MS Flight Sim developer since I got involved with the series in FS98. The difference between FlightSim and other games is astounding. I get the impression that the developers are locked away somewhere, never to be seen or heard from, dutifully creating code, and then reading the boards in secret to see if any of us every figure stuff out on our own correctly.Maybe it is the corporate structure of MS that does not allow for this, but I personally believe it takes away A LOT from the "feel" of the game community when the folks who create the game are perceived to be so unbelievably distant.

Hi Elrond,Good to hear from you...well thought out points. I think that the community as a whole does a good job of bring their "beefs" to the forum. But they should be "CC'd" to the folks at MS. On another note if not for the "pinned" Knowledge Base on this forum..l.I for one would be very unhappy with FS9. I also want to thank Chris Arrington for his environmental upgrades and Chris Willis for his low impact clouds!Yesterday I recreated a Reeves Aleutian Air flight with a AFG's wonderful NAMC YS-11 from Anchorage to King Salmon. It was gorgeous, the lighting the clouds the sunrise, the abrupt rain shower during take off...I can go on and on. Tonight I will do King Salmon to Cold Bay.What I want to know is how these mainstream folks can get FS9 to run on their computers...look at the grief this "niche" community has gone through in the past months to get FS9 "running". I think that for the most part, they buy it load it up fly around and park it on the old Hard Drive!Again, I see wonderful opportunities for FS9 and subsequent installments! It is good, but it could be really GOOD! In FS2002, I flew heavy iron as the scenery just was not the prettiest. With FS9 this has changed significantly to where flying around in an YS-11 at 14000 feet is a lot of fun!Well, back to work and Elrond I always look forward to your thoughts.Thank you!Tony

Great to see your post Elrond.... Yours is one of the most respected voices here and you've been a long time supporter of the hobby. I think you articulate what I feel--not that Microsoft should patch the product because one HAS to come, but because a service patch is a planned part of many mainstream product's life cycles. And it's a planned part of many niche product's life cycles as well.I often use the example of No Limits Coaster simulator. It certainly qualifies as a niche product, and I doubt Ole's been able to give up his day job from No Limits' sales alone. But he's built a very strong reputation...releasing several patches in the past two years. Patches which fixed minor issues, but more importantly, patches which added or improved features that Ole felt would make his product more complete. I think I paid something like $20 for it...but it's a sophisticated product. And I'd argue that on release, there were no "show stopper" issues with the product that meet Microsoft's litmus test of whether a patch should be released.FS4 IS a great product, even on my lowly P3/800. Over the weekend, I logged twelve hours of flight time, including two real-time, transcon flights. I've hit a mix of settings that gives performance close to what I desire with my fps lock, yet I also get to benefit from greater detail around several cities vs. FS2002. Luckily for me, the settings I care about the least in FS2004 (mesh, resolution), offer the biggest performance improvements*I count myself as someone happy with FS4, who'd probably stay happy without a service patch. But, should a service patch come, I think it'd be a feather in the devel team's cap, and they'd be stealing a virtue shown by the smaller, "hungrier" developers like Ole. -John*On a side note, I experimented more with mesh over the weekend. I challenge those with lower end systems to lower it from 100 to 50, then to 25, then to 10, then to 1. You'll be surprised to see that Terrain doesn't become so awful that it looks too ugly to fly over. Moreover, you'll gain a huge improvement in smoothness. For my enjoyment, I found 25 or so on the mesh slider gives a good enough impression of the landscape at altitude, yet makes flights into and out of airports much smoother--even if there's no mountains in sight....

"MS simply relies upon up-selling you the next version to fix the current versions problems - repeatedly."I have a hunch that's going to change.. Notice that MS have reverted to calling the product by the version number, rather than by the year. Could this be a step in the direction of getting the consumer to stop thinking about the date of the product release, and if so, perhaps they are already considering longer intervals between releases, perhaps planning to release smaller interim upgrades such as flight simulator 9.2 etc.

hi Elrond,Great Post! and, IMHO 100% true. FS2k2 as good as it is was not without it's share of bugs (ATC comes to mind) and at least some that should have been fixed via a patch instead of having to wait until FS2k4. and as good as FS2k4 is it has it's share of bugs as well. for example;(carry overs from 2k2-for example) 1. aircraft "Still" casting shadows on the ground with overcast conditions(according to some 2k4 beta testers this was fixed)not bashing the "beta guys" here btw. 2. way too many frequency changes issued from ATC FS2k4 (not 2k2 related)1. "dumbed down" flight models compared to 2k2 (talking defaults here) 2. the Autogen prob. 3. force feed effects Weak compared to 2k2 4. i'll stop hereand for those who like to say a patch is Only for install probs. etc... i Disagree. example... for those who remember and may still play Janes WWII Fighters (yeah i know it's a little old but i still play it) the game out of the box Did Not support FFB. via a patch for the game FFB support was implemented. now that's what i call "Game Support". again, kudos for a great post Elrond. happy flyin, fm

btw, great post as well Mike. happy flyin, fm

Hi Mike,I couldn't agree more that FS is indeed much more than a "game"... Indeed, its 30 years of continued revision and success prove that in very plain terms. FS is more a culture than a game.I fully agree that it is high time Microsoft Game Studios change their practices to come up to speed with the rest of the game developers out there. They are lagging in so many ways. But its only our voices and our dollars that can, and if we use them properly *will*, make that happen.I too have had that vision of MS developers sitting around and laughing about the wrong paths many end-user developers have had to travel trying to figure out the innards of FS. Its a pathetic thing to have to envision, and clearly shows just out of touch MS is with its user base.Take care,Elrond

Hi Tony,Thats a great idea: if the end-user developers as well as the end-users themselves would carbon copy their questions and requests for patches to the MS developers, maybe that would be a start to changing their "culture"?Does anyone have the email addresses for the entire FS developer team?Thanks for the great idea. Its exactly this type of "thinking outside the box" that we as a community must use to get the absolute attention of the developers we so desperately want to interact with.Thanks,Elrond