New March screen shots.......!

[Attila 2]

The way to handle the casual players AND the enthusiasts is to release a more complete and properly documented SDK. The core game can be sold for the regular price and can include whatever attracts the masses. The SDK can then be used by 3rd party developers to keep the enthusiasts happy - for a price.The key is that the SDK must be improved to allow easier development of add-ons. The way it stands now, MS is doing a less than half-hearted job of supporting the SDK. It is better than nothing, for sure, but with just a little more effort it could be much better.Certain parts of the code sorely need a revamp to bring it into the multi-cpu 64-bit world.

Our focus should actually be on getting Microsoft to do less for us by decoupling the physics, flight model, fly by wire etc, not adding to it, that's PMDG's job.

MS should do the opposite. It should make sure that the core game provides the functionality, via the SDK, that allows PMDG and others to more easily develop their products. The above quote seems to imply that each developer would have to reinvent the wheel. This should be avoided. A plane designer should be concentrating on simulating a given aircraft by setting certain parameters, not having to come up with code that simulates the physics of flight.

[Guest jahman]

Totally agree with Attila, smasher of false dichotomies! There's no reason at all why FSXI has to be either this or that, when it can clearly be both. Do the false dichotomers forget the business benefits of the Metcalf Law of appealing to a W-i-d-e-r Audience?FSXI can and will appeal to "the masses" with better on-line playing (haven't we all been complaining about GameSpy?) and "ready made" flying for complex aircraft (isn't that what Airbus does in the real world anyway?) and that will drive sales revenue which will allow Microsoft to increase R&D for FSXII and beyond. Microsoft also knows that we hardcore simmers got FS to where it is today with our money, our time and our enthusiasm (often at the expense of time with family!) so they will not let us down for without us this franchise would cease to evolve. Or, from the reverse angle: Why would Microsoft even bother to pander to us via the Flight web if our needs were not being taken ito account? Just to trick us? For what purpose? If FSXI was just a game for the masses, why even bother trying to answer our questions?So again, I agree completely with Attila, but you did let one false dichotomy slip by: You can have Microsoft develop good physiscs models for the sim but Microsoft still can (and should) architect FSXI so the basic model of (physics, graphics, reflections, take you pick) can be replaced with a more sophisticated one. Me, I would be interested in being able to use a dedicated GPU for aircraft polygon-based aerodynamics like X-Plane does (and seriously drop a wing when an engine on the Baron dies on short final).Cheers,- jahman.

[n4gix 4,947]

What's your opinion on the oversized autogen houses? Do you not find it detracts from the 'immersion'. I actually turn off my autogen because of it (and the grossly oversized trees), the upside of that is better fps.

Honestly? Pretty much the same as your's. I simply see no need to beat the drum on a single issue in every single post. Focusing on a single issue has the unfortunate unintended effect of possibly making one myopic.

[mgh 89]

Many posters say what Microsoft should do. They never consider why Microsoft should do it bearing in mind Miicrosoft is developing Flight in order to make money.

[Superpilotv2 2]

Many posters say what Microsoft should do. They never consider why Microsoft should do it bearing in mind Miicrosoft is developing Flight in order to make money.

Yeah, Microsoft has to look that the developement costs are in some limits. So they maybe can´t make all what we wish, although it would work, but the developement costs would be too high to implement. The csots have to in limits which can be obtained in the sale so that they make money with it. So the developement time can´t be as slong as it should be. They won´t need 12 years as the developers of Duke Nukem Forever needed.

[mmann 72]

Many posters say what Microsoft should do. They never consider why Microsoft should do it bearing in mind Miicrosoft is developing Flight in order to make money.

Obviously Microsoft is not looking to maximize sales at the total exclusion of all else. Considering that Windows XP now accounts for 50% of market share and that Microsoft Flight will not be compatible with Windows XP due to space constraints, it looks like they are putting out a fairly substantial product with features that preclude using it on half the computers out there.Regards, Mike Mann

[Guest jahman]

Obviously Microsoft is not looking to maximize sales at the total exclusion of all else. Considering that Windows XP now accounts for 50% of market share and that Microsoft Flight will not be compatible with Windows XP due to space constraints, it looks like they are putting out a fairly substantial product with features that preclude using it on half the computers out there.Regards, Mike Mann

That's because on April 8, 2014, (by the time MS Flight will be released!) all Windows XP support, including security updates and security-related hotfixes, will be terminated, so Win XP will be useless after that due to malware infection (recall many add-ons require on-line activation).Cheers,- jahman.

[mgh 89]

Obviously Microsoft is not looking to maximize sales at the total exclusion of all else. Considering that Windows XP now accounts for 50% of market share and that Microsoft Flight will not be compatible with Windows XP due to space constraints, it looks like they are putting out a fairly substantial product with features that preclude using it on half the computers out there.Regards, Mike Mann

Microsoft will get additional revenue from Flight purchasers upgrading to Windows7 or whatever.

[FlyinMisfit 0]

I'm willing to bet any amount of money that this is NOT default scenery. I'm pretty sure that MS is adding Hawaii (at least the big island) as a "detailed area" which is undoubtedly why they have focused all of their recent screenshots around the same area. Is the rest of the world getting this level of detail? I'm inclined to highly doubt it.What I'd like to see are other detailed areas such as Seattle, NYC, Chicago, etc to see if they enjoy the same upgrades as Hawaii. And then I'd like to see a picture of Ottumwa Regional Airport (no detailed area in the middle of Iowa)...I will also take the bet that it looks NOTHING like the airport in the pic but this would be a REAL test of what the "default" areas look like.As it stands now MS keeps showing beautiful pics of a single area so it gives the confusing impression that the entire FS world has been covered with ORBX level detail which is getting everyone excited. What I fear is that this is another "God's Rays" situation that if the rest of the world does NOT look like the shots they are showing come release day it will be another fiasco like the FSX release. MS NEEDS to clarify these differences, show other screenshots of other areas, and help to level set expectations that are obviously being built up by releasing screenshots in this manner.My 2 cents is to take the screenshots with a grain of salt, and be pleasantly SURPRISED rather than to be bitterly disappointed. Unfortunately, when it comes to the MSFS franchise, history tends to repeat itself.

again, very well said Mike.happy flyin, FM

[Guest jahman]

MS would best showcase Flight with one detailed scenery (like Hawaii), one detailed airport, one detailed general aviation aircraft, one detailed airliner and and one detailed helo rather than a panoply of mediocre to poor sceneries and aircraft as it did for FSX.Then, if you like what you see, you will buy the add-ons.Cheers,- jahman.

[Edspace 0]

What's important here is that the software is still in development, so of course they are going to concentrate all their efforts in one area for now, what's the point of modelling Seattle if you are still tweaking the code to get the best out of it. Better to concentrate on one area until you've got it right. Now is Hawaii the best location to work on for the development, that's a good question. Certainly should be good for weather, mountains, shadows, ocean etc. Maybe not enough big cities. The rest of the worlds default minor airports might still look only as good as FSX in the finished product. But what's important is that Flight allows 3rd party Developers the possiblity to make it as good as Hawaii, then you can upgrade your scenery as you like from the marketplace .

[mmann 72]

With Flight arriving on the scene 5 to 6 years after FSX as opposed to the usual 2 to 3 years between generations, the differences between the two simulators such be monumental. It should blow away FSX with Orbx with absolutely no problems!Regards, Mike Mann

[SamYeager 244]

What's your opinion on the oversized autogen houses?

After having to read through your many posts going on and on about b****y autogen houses I really don't give a ********** anymore. Please SHUT UP about them or go and plague some other forum.

[MatthewS 761]

After having to read through your many posts going on and on about b****y autogen houses I really don't give a ********** anymore. Please SHUT UP about them or go and plague some other forum.

:(

[JSkorna 137]

After having to read through your many posts going on and on about b****y autogen houses I really don't give a ********** anymore. Please SHUT UP about them or go and plague some other forum.

+10000000000