Don't see MS Flight to leapfrogging FSX+ addons

[Noel 4,487]

I think the only thing (I know this is not a little thing)that could distinguish MS Flight from FSX+ will be streaming high-def scenery as it will have to significantly exceed the likes of what ORBX FTX, GEX and the other fine products bring. Further, unless they have opened up the platform to 3rd party development it's going to be a weak showing IMO. Real time streaming of HD scenery could be significant, but only a little so when you see what we already have. Also, unless this product is light years ahead of FSX+, there is no way I would pay a subscription fee if that's what it will take. As we quite all well know by now, we have a very very mature and complete product, in every way. And because of this, the impetus to 'upgrade' really gets weakened. Years ago this was not the case--each generation brought a very significant boost in quality and complexity. Can you get a lot more complex than flying a high end commercial add on, w/ FTX ORBX scenery, 9m mesh, much improved ATC in products such as Radar Contact, FSPassengersX, REX2 w/ OD, etc? I really wonder. I think they are bringing another platform that will perhaps appeal to folks less interested in modifying the base platform w/ myriad addons, and all of the tweaking/knowledge involved to get it to work well. My jaw still drops with the incredible complexity, beauty, and fidelity, of FSX+. That being said, they could still come up with another base platform to blast off from, which I hope they do, in that the product could have an even longer service life than FSX does. If this is true, then I suspect folks in deep w/ FSX will hang around in the FSX world another several years, since again, what exactly are you hoping to improve on? I can't see improvement out of the box, not against FSX+. Much more efficient code, SDK's abounding, and all in order to increase complexity, beauty, and fidelity. Noel

[meshman 109]

Well, thanks for sharing from up on the ridge, site of my way younger years. Couple of questions, if I may?Where is it that Microsoft has said Flight will be subscription based?Where has it been mentioned that there will be no FSX compatibility?I've seen speculation from people who have no way of knowing just what Flight will or will not be. Are you one of those people? I'm not, as I prefer to wait until all the details come out.One last question regarding your desire to see HD streaming scenery? What about the users that are still on dial-up? Do they just... miss out?

[Noel 4,487]

It's just speculation and generalization as I know nothing about it. Speculation is ok by me as long as that is what it is purported to be. Really, the bigger point I am making is this: what we have right now, is really, I mean really, good. Because of this, it will have to be something very very significantly better, no? I know FSX inside and out, it runs really well, is beautiful, satisfies to the hilt, and has managed to keep most all of us very engaged for a very long time. I'm not ruling out something magical, but that's about what it will require to up FSX+. If there will be FSX compatibility, that may mean nothing magical is in the works. The biggest complaint for FSX as a platform it seems to me has been legacy and less efficient code that what we might benefit from w/ current multiprocessor hardware. If it's not streaming scenery, where do you hope to get the enhancement from? Will MS Flight churn out a better plane out of the box than a PMDG MD-11? Already Google Earth does a pretty decent job of streaming high def reality to a point, except it's 2D when it comes to buildings & trees, but it looks pretty good otherwise. In order to get the sort of improvement that will have Flight leapfrog FSX+ you will pretty much have to be able to give the user the ability to fly from FL350 down to ground and retain exquisite detail all the down to touch down. Right now, w/ ORBX FTX, it's getting pretty close. The problem is, it's a huge amount of data or synthesized/simulated data. Either way it doesn't seem practical to create it for everyone to purchase separately by geographic area, IMO. It seems to me creating a hugemongess database of ultra high detail terrain must come in streaming, so that when you take off from point A, maximum resolution (10cm mesh and texture resolution) in a fully 3D world--but only as far as you can see up/down/and 360 degrees from your plane, of course the farther you get out the less detail required. It seems to me it will eventually come from streaming reality, even if it takes next-gen internet bandwidth, which as you know is coming, eventually. I guess we'll all find out in due time.So did you live in Paradise? I'm from New Jersey originally, then to Alaska, then San Luis Obispo, then Santa Barbara, then here in 1982.

[maxter 0]

Really, the bigger point I am making is this: what we have right now, is really, I mean really, good. Because of this, it will have to be something very very significantly better, no? I know FSX inside and out, it runs really well, is beautiful, satisfies to the hilt

But isn't this the case with every new version of the sim? The new version "out of the box" more often struggles with the well tried and tested incumbent that has many years of development invested in it. The challenge for the MS folks is to make the new sim capable of going much further than the existing version.That was certainly the case with FS2004 Vs FsX... The comments when FsX was launched were really over the top when discussing moving over to the new platform and in most instances were very similar to your statements above.For me, as long as the new product has the potential to significantly exceed the performance of the former, that's good enough for me. I will be an early adopter and will enjoy the development journey.

[Noel 4,487]

But isn't this the case with every new version of the sim?

Yes I think you are right, however, when a certain threshold for quality/complexity is reached, it becomes more difficult to make compeling the reason to 'upgrade.'Tiger Woods PGA Tour Golf was a product such as this. They reached a pinnicle of effectiveness in TW2004, after which all subsequent 'upgrades' were not only not compeling, but were a deterioration over what 2004 meant for diehard golf simmers. I haven't delved into what Flight will offer (does anyone have a good idea yet on this?), but I do know, FSX+ has definitely reached a threshold of quality & complexity that it has left me much less interested in seeing if anything comes along that is better. Not so w/ FS2004, for me. I'm not bored w/ FSX+, and don't expect I will become bored. I don't tweak anymore. It works!Here's another example of software reaching a certain quality threshold: digital audio. It's very good right now. Another one is screen resolution: right now, you can run FSX+ at very high resolutions, and it's really very good.Not saying Flight Simming can't be improved--of course it can. I'd love to see streaming photoreal imagery complete w/ 3D elevations, but I'm guessing the next generation of FS will not offer this to the point where it is a whole lot better than FSX+. When we have internet squared which is in the queue, then this could become a reality.

[meshman 109]

Just opinions of mine from forum surfing, then and now. People expect the vNext to be revolutionary, instead of it's inherent evolutionary nature. But there was some big steps made with FSX, steps that have yet to be taken. Those steps require time and commitment by addon developers and the increased capabilities of hardware. FSX has many features that to be taken advantage of requires professional level programming and design skills. Most add on developers don't (yet?) have the time or capital to devote to full-scale development work. Hardware has made giant steps from when FSX first came out, but while the machines can run FSX well, it's a situation of running a 50% or 75% utilized FSX well, not FSX fully developed.In another part of the FS universe a developer is sure he's seeing proper rendering of terrain, but I can show pictures that would beg to differ, as his current system is equal to the one I replaced with a new system earlier this year. As my interests are geared towards terrain based features, I know there's better and better source material coming available that would gag 99% of today's computers, mine included.A ways back in time there was mention of the path that Microsoft might/would take with future developmental work, leaving the "legacy" behind and building upon FSX's base. I guess it's proper to call it speculation on my part, but there's no reason for Microsoft to abandon the core that FSX brought forward. Only to hope that Flight builds upon that core and gives all of us a better "gaming" experience! :(

So did you live in Paradise? I'm from New Jersey originally, then to Alaska, then San Luis Obispo, then Santa Barbara, then here in 1982.

If you hung a right off of Skyway in between the Burger King and animal clinic you would be right about where my extended family resided for about 55 years. It was fun to go back and see how the sleepy little town has evolved over the years.

[Guest veeray]

'Tiger Woods PGA Tour Golf was a product such as this. They reached a pinnicle of effectiveness in TW2004, after which all subsequent 'upgrades' were not only not compeling, but were a deterioration over what 2004 meant for diehard golf simmers. I haven't delved into what Flight will offer (does anyone have a good idea yet on this?), but I do know, FSX+ has definitely reached a threshold of quality & complexity that it has left me much less interested in seeing if anything comes along that is better. Not so w/ FS2004, for me. I'm not bored w/ FSX+, and don't expect I will become bored. I don't tweak anymore. It works!

You are basing your opinion based on a golf game made 6 years ago. By a company who sucks and can find a way to ruin any game/franchise... :)

[strider1 575]

Flight is going to Rock ! How do I know, because there are a couple of well-known add-on companies that have signed NDAs. FSX looks great with all the add-ons but there is a lot that can be improved upon; ATC, Lighting, Sounds, 3d trees, 3d Waves, Rain Effects, Snow, The Code, SLI, A physics engine, etc… Here is one example of the kind of water I’d like to see in Flight;

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Noel 4,487]

You are basing your opinion based on a golf game made 6 years ago. By a company who sucks and can find a way to ruin any game/franchise... :)

No, you're conclusion about what I am basing my speculation on is completely misguided--you missed the point I mean to say.

[dmaher 0]

Flight is going to Rock ! How do I know, because there are a couple of well-known add-on companies that have signed NDAs.

I agree, but actually, the NDA’s were signed for the developer conferences... the majority of developers have signed them.It would be a mistake to interpret the NDA to mean anything else :)Danny

[Guest freebird77]

I think the only thing (I know this is not a little thing)that could distinguish MS Flight from FSX+ will be streaming high-def scenery as it will have to significantly exceed the likes of what ORBX FTX, GEX and the other fine products bring. Further, unless they have opened up the platform to 3rd party development it's going to be a weak showing IMO. Real time streaming of HD scenery could be significant, but only a little so when you see what we already have. Also, unless this product is light years ahead of FSX+, there is no way I would pay a subscription fee if that's what it will take. As we quite all well know by now, we have a very very mature and complete product, in every way. And because of this, the impetus to 'upgrade' really gets weakened. Years ago this was not the case--each generation brought a very significant boost in quality and complexity. Can you get a lot more complex than flying a high end commercial add on, w/ FTX ORBX scenery, 9m mesh, much improved ATC in products such as Radar Contact, FSPassengersX, REX2 w/ OD, etc? I really wonder. I think they are bringing another platform that will perhaps appeal to folks less interested in modifying the base platform w/ myriad addons, and all of the tweaking/knowledge involved to get it to work well. My jaw still drops with the incredible complexity, beauty, and fidelity, of FSX+. That being said, they could still come up with another base platform to blast off from, which I hope they do, in that the product could have an even longer service life than FSX does. If this is true, then I suspect folks in deep w/ FSX will hang around in the FSX world another several years, since again, what exactly are you hoping to improve on? I can't see improvement out of the box, not against FSX+. Much more efficient code, SDK's abounding, and all in order to increase complexity, beauty, and fidelity. Noel

Yes except hopefully it will work a bit better with all our hardware so that some of can now afford to fix the roof and feed the cat as well as sleep with our spouses because we dont have to stay up endlessly tweaking and debating :(

[Tierborn 188]

Well, thanks for sharing from up on the ridge, site of my way younger years. Couple of questions, if I may?Where is it that Microsoft has said Flight will be subscription based?Where has it been mentioned that there will be no FSX compatibility?I've seen speculation from people who have no way of knowing just what Flight will or will not be. Are you one of those people? I'm not, as I prefer to wait until all the details come out.One last question regarding your desire to see HD streaming scenery? What about the users that are still on dial-up? Do they just... miss out?

I would say those on dial-up cant hold back the other 99% of users . so yes, they should miss out.

[meshman 109]

I would say those on dial-up cant hold back the other 99% of users . so yes, they should miss out.

I (tongue in cheek) ask where your data comes from that says 99% of the flight simmers are on broadband internet service?What about the users who have broadband internet, but face a monthly limit?Not all the world enjoys the luxuries that you and I do.And when people are screaming and yelling for this feature or that feature, can we say that 99% of all the people who purchase Flight or Flight Simulator don't utilize those features, so it's justifiable for Microsoft to leave that out of the package?I just want a solid SDK, the rest will fall into place.

[Tierborn 188]

I (tongue in cheek) ask where your data comes from that says 99% of the flight simmers are on broadband internet service?What about the users who have broadband internet, but face a monthly limit?Not all the world enjoys the luxuries that you and I do.And when people are screaming and yelling for this feature or that feature, can we say that 99% of all the people who purchase Flight or Flight Simulator don't utilize those features, so it's justifiable for Microsoft to leave that out of the package?I just want a solid SDK, the rest will fall into place.

I found some data from the Pew Internet and American Life Project (March 2007) at cited that 10% used dial up in 2007.    

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

It's just speculation and generalization as I know nothing about it. ... The biggest complaint for FSX as a platform it seems to me has been legacy and less efficient code that what we might benefit from w/ current multiprocessor hardware.

OK, so what if they fixed this and added a few things, maybe alpha fading, ATC, and multiplayer enhancements, and kept the FSX compatibility..Would you spend another $80 to upgrade? I would :(