Any 'new' news from PCPilot ?

[january 19]

I would assume there will eventually be demanding add ons for Flight. Not on Day 1, but when the third party developers have a go at it. Also, if MS did not accommodate for this, many people would stick with FSX, which has a rich set of good add ons. Or people would stick with FS2004 (will that thing ever die?)

FS9 and FSX might well be killed off quickly by a new product (FLIGHT?) that performs better than any of its predecesors and that was accompanied AT RELEASE by some exquisite ADDONS. Ever wonder why the seeming never ending delay in releasing PMDG 737NG?AR

[MikeT707 1,181]

I would love to see FS9 killed off. I am amazed that so many people still use it as well as so many people still create add ons, etc. for it. I guess it goes to show how poorly FSX was planned an implemented. It would just be nice to have almost all simmers using just one Microsoft product. Crossing my fingers that MS Flight will put FS9 and FSX in the past.

[Chock 17,769]

Unless stuff can be really easily ported over to Flight from FSX or FS9 (unlikely), we'll be looking at FSX and probably to a lesser extent FS9 being around for at least four years after Flight comes out, because that's the kind of timeframe a developer needs to allow if they are going to do a really fancy and technically complex add-on aircraft.Some of the work necessary to make an add on for Flight will of course be done already by developers, for example, PMDG probably would not need to remake their NG's 3D model to have it available for use in Flight, it would almost certainly be simply a case of having the necessary export plug ins for 3DSMax to get it out in whatever 3D format Flight's models will use, and of course any research into the real thing they have done will still be available to them when making an aircraft for a new sim.But what will take time is learning the SDK for it and stuff like that, and of course they'd have to determine the market to see if it was something Flight users would buy in large enough numbers to make the project viable, and there's no way that info will be available until quite some time after Flight has been on sale. Similarly, a scenery developer that has already got the photorealistic textures for an FSX add-on will not need to reshoot them for a Flight add-on if they have them at sufficient resolution, unless there have been major changes to the subject material, but they too will have to get used to how Flight works 'under the hood'.So even a few years after Flight has gone on sale, we'll still be seeing FSX and FS9, if only for the fact that people have a lot of money and developing skills invested in them.Al

[MikeT707 1,181]

That is an interesting comment related to FSX being around for a few years after the release of Flight. I don't necessarily disagree with that, but remember that in the previous issue of PC Pilot, MS stated that one of the goals for development of the sim is to have faster version cycles, so possibly not a three year cycle between FS2004 and FSX, or a five year cycle between FSX and Flight. Perhaps MS will go back to publishing a new version every two years like they did from FS98 to FS2004. If that is the case, I wonder what will happen to the third party developers if a new version is announced before they release their product. My hope is Flight is build on a different enough platform that will move it way beyond FSX, but will allow good portability from Flight 2012 to Flight 2014 (just a guess) and beyond. That might be good protection for the our good third party developers out there. This is all just conjecture though.

[Guest jahman]

MS stated that one of the goals for development of the sim is to have faster version cycles

I'm all for yearly cycles! (Just another way to charge for SPs, which I'm all for, starting with SP3 for FSX with the fixes we were all asking for. Then MS could take longer to do Flight and do it properly (new engine, etc.).So if MS feel they can't release an SP3 for FSX because it's against their commercial policy to charge for SPs, well, call SP3 "FSXII", charge $30 for it and finish the DX10 implementation, fix bugs in scenery compilers, etc, and have $30 million in revenue to tide MS through until Flight is released (surely 1 million copies would sell PDQ, as in a month!)Cheers,- jahman.

[Chock 17,769]

Yup, if they knock out vastly differing versions too often and that becomes an issue for third party developers because of a lack of backward compatibility, it'll affect sales of the core software itself (because people won't buy a base program that can't easily be developed for) to the extent that it will be self defeating over and above the perceived advantage of being able to sell a new version more often, since it would affect the overall success and longevity of the Flight franchise itself. So this is something MS have to consider very carefully. One of the advantages of the FS series was that you could pretty much guarantee that when a new version came out, if you were a developer that was a year and a half through the process of making a cool airliner for it, you'd know that it would be relatively easy to patch your efforts up to the new version and still have it work in the two preceding versions as well, thus giving you a wide target market.You only have to look at how the continuously moving goalposts of X-Plane have put developers off committing to it for any really long term fancy add on aeroplanes. There are a few things for X-Plane sure, but that never-ending updating, chopping and changing has led to there being no PMDG-style four or five year long development processes culminating in anything really top notch for it.It's my guess that MS might consider expansions for Flight rather than new versions all the time - a bit like they did with Acceleration. In that way they can grow a core program's market and keep people handing over cash as well, which would be the best of both worlds for them. Sure, Acceleration was a pretty big download when I bought it, but it was nevertheless feasible for MS to sell it to me that way.Al

[january 19]

--------- One of the advantages of the FS series was that you could pretty much guarantee that when a new version came out, if you were a developer that was a year and a half through the process of making a cool airliner for it, you'd know that it would be relatively easy to patch your efforts up to the new version and still have it work in the two preceding versions as well, thus giving you a wide target market.---------Al

But suppose that FLIGHT is (deliberatly) sufficiently different so that previous addons will not work with it.That addons will only work if sold/processed thru' an MS addon store. Similar to an "App"? That developers suitable to MS were brought on board at the time MS announced FLIGHT and so will have had a year and a half to develop such addon "Apps" for release simultaneously. That in return, these developers may have even agreed to discontinue some projects for FS9/X.-----One wonders, for example, if PMDG 737NG will ever materialize for FSX. Did MS kill FS, only to subsequently realize there was money to be made from Apps? Apple has certainly done well!Just speculating!!!!AR

[Guest jahman]

But suppose that FLIGHT is (deliberatly) sufficiently different so that previous addons will not work with it....

MS has always bent over backwards to ensure new versions of their programs are always compatible with previous versions (within reason). Any incompatibility (aircraft, scenery) with FSX would mean driving the value of those add-ons straight down to zero. Considering the value of the Flight franchise follows the Metcalfe Rule as applied to a multiple component software ecosystem, incompatibility by design would dramatically reduce the value of the Flight franchise and would therefore be an extremely dumb business decision.Cheers,- jahman.

[MikeT707 1,181]

MS has always bent over backwards to ensure new versions of their programs are always compatible with previous versions (within reason). Any incompatibility (aircraft, scenery) with FSX would mean driving the value of those add-ons straight down to zero. Considering the value of the Flight franchise follows the Metcalfe Rule as applied to a multiple component software ecosystem, incompatibility by design would dramatically reduce the value of the Flight franchise and would therefore be an extremely dumb business decision.Cheers,- jahman.

They might be able to capture more sales, however, from average Joe (the casual gamer that likes the way the "game" looks). Also, the rest of us simmers will likely purchase Flight anyway. It's mostly about return on investment.

[january 19]

MS has always bent over backwards to ensure new versions of their programs are always compatible with previous versions (within reason). Any incompatibility (aircraft, scenery) with FSX would mean driving the value of those add-ons straight down to zero. Considering the value of the Flight franchise follows the Metcalfe Rule as applied to a multiple component software ecosystem, incompatibility by design would dramatically reduce the value of the Flight franchise and would therefore be an extremely dumb business decision.Cheers,- jahman.

jahman- you refer to "new versions" (italics mine). But I interpret the MS statements about FLIGHT as meaning a NEW product- not just another version of FS. My interpretation is that FS will soon reach its expiry date- to be replaced by an entirely new product - in the same way that GM killed off Oldsmobile and Pontiac in favour of the VOLT et al.I look forward to a new concept despite approaching my eighth decade!!AR

[alainneedle1 97]

MS has always bent over backwards to ensure new versions of their programs are always compatible with previous versions (within reason). Any incompatibility (aircraft, scenery) with FSX would mean driving the value of those add-ons straight down to zero. Considering the value of the Flight franchise follows the Metcalfe Rule as applied to a multiple component software ecosystem, incompatibility by design would dramatically reduce the value of the Flight franchise and would therefore be an extremely dumb business decision.Cheers,- jahman.

With all due respect, dumb to whom?How will MS make money with their market store if our FSX addons can be use in Flight, now that would be dumb. I myself has a lot of $$$ invested in FSX but I can't see MS allowing me the use of my FSX addons in Flight, and what about the dev. do you seriously think they would be happy about that?? I asked a question the other day (or was that a statement I made?), why after closing Aces will MS put a new team together and build Flight, I mean seriously just because we all are nice simmers here at Avsim and MS felt bad about closing Aces, they felt our pain so from the goodness of their hearts they put a new team together just for us? :( they did it for the money, MS IS A BUSINESS, they will open a market store for us to buy addons for Flight NOT for us to use the same one again.....

[tgibson 11]

The main reason I'm still using FS9 is exactly due to the fact that FS9 scenery and aircraft are *not* compatible with FSX. The scenery needs a whole new terrain system (airport polygons, terrain exclusions, etc.) - the FS9 system is not supported at all. And FS9 prop aircraft have invisible blurred props when around clouds (or visa versa) - so also not compatible. There's only one thing worse than being incompatible, and that's being partially compatible - just enough to be annoying...AFAIK this is the first time that the previous FS version's scenery and aircraft are not compatible with the current version, and I've been using FS since FS5.1. I spent a lot of time and effort making my scenery fully FS2004 coded so I could be sure that it would be compatible with FSX. Never again...

[Christopher Low 5,390]

Crossing my fingers that MS Flight will put FS9 and FSX in the past

If MS Flight is not compatible with any existing addons, then be prepared to be disappointed.

[alainneedle1 97]

If MS Flight is not compatible with any existing addons, then be prepared to be disappointed.

I don't get that?As I can tell the dev. are in bed with MS this time from the beginning of Flight so if I'm right addons will be available at the released of Flight in the store, as a business man myself it does not make sense to open an empty store, so starting from there and knowing MS was never in the addons business our favorate dev. should have something to sell in the store. so why should we be desapointed? I mean I don't use any FS2004 or FS9 addons with FSX, why should I use my FSX addons with Flight? I know I'm repeating myself here but since they are opening a store to make money with addons why will they let use the same FSX addons with Flight, where is the money for the dev?

[MikeT707 1,181]

As I can tell the dev. are in bed with MS this time from the beginning of Flight so if I'm right addons will be available at the released of Flight in the store, as a business man myself it does not make sense to open an empty store, so starting from there and knowing MS was never in the addons business our favorate dev. should have something to sell in the store. so why should we be desapointed? This is a really interesting comment and I hope it is true. I would love to see some good quality add ons day one. Can you let us in on why you think this is the case?I mean I don't use any FS2004 or FS9 addons with FSX, why should I use my FSX addons with Flight? I know I'm repeating myself here but since they are opening a store to make money with addons why will they let use the same FSX addons with Flight, where is the money for the dev?

I just hope that Flight is so much different and better than FSX that add ons do not port. What that would mean is the sim would have moved to being more of a modern title and look and play like something which would more leading edge of 2011 rather than leading edge from the early 2000's. Really hope that MS truly modernizes the sim to take advantage of todays technology and surprises all of us.