Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Zero_355

What Really is needed in Flight

Recommended Posts

Exploring the online forest I have discovered several differencing opinions about what People think needs to be in MS Flight.The most popular “Wish’s” seem to be· Career mode. Where certain requirements must be met Before getting certain aircraft· Auto Assigned Routes. Mostly people who have never heard of a Virtual Airline want this one.· “Hyper-Realistic” Aircraft. Laval-D Quality right out the box.These seem to be several Personal preference wish’s, but I can remember a Survey sent out by Microsoft asking if we would like to see these. And other things implemented in the next FS version In my own opinion I believe FS is fine the way it is. What needs upgrading is the “background’ stuffThings like· Up-Dates for Stock Navigation Data. Perhaps even by Navigraph. Since the price for updates has come down to affordable over the last few years.· Better looking wind sock. Seriously this low poly wind sock in FSX has been there since what FS98. It makes my eye twitch.· More realistic Physics. In a Cessna Sky hawk the landing procedure is Power for Altitude, and pitch for airspeed. Not the other way around like in the FS default Sky hawk.On a side note to that. I’m not expecting Level-D quality out the box. I simply want a more realistic “feel”. Even thou I know it would never be close to the real thing.· Better ATC. I know this was planned in FSX but was scrubbed for difficulty reasons. It would be nice to have the ability to open VFR flight plans. Or use Sids/Stars. But this is not something I would cry over if it’s not implemented.That’s just a few things that I think need to be in flight I don’t mind if MS don’t make Add-ons from FSX backwards compatible. In hindsight that would problem be a good thing. I have lots of money invested in FSX. So when Flight is released. Ill probly get it but not switch exclusively to it. Or I may hold off on buying it. And wait to hear what others say. I just think it needs to be mentioned that things like Careers need to be left to Add-ons like FSpassengers. And not implemented right out of the box. Not everyone wants. Or uses thou. I use FSP on my VA flights. But sometimes I like to relax in a Skylane and watch the sun set. I may want to do that in flight. But would be ###### if I have to get 5 licenses/Ratings and X number of hours before I can

Share this post


Link to post
Guest jahman
...I don’t mind if MS don’t make Add-ons from FSX backwards compatible. In hindsight that would problem be a good thing
I agree with your other comments, but compatibility with FSX is a must, for me at least.Usually the compatibility issue is presented as a binary eithor/or issue when it isn't necessarily so.For example, scenery: I don't think FSX scenery ought to be incompatible with FSX, but if it really must be for performance reasons, then rather than trash our expensive investment in such scenery, MS could release a scenery converter to convert FSX secnery to Flight format. I don't care if my PC runs for 2 weeks straight, as long as I am not required to buy all my scenery again "just because".Same for aircraft, where developpers could just recompile their source files for Flight format (again, if this must really be) and we could download a "re-release" for $5 apiece for their troubles. Then, developpers could add Flight-specific features and then charge full price for those releases.So let's all try to be intelligent and practival about Flight's compatibility with FSX.Just my .02sCheers,- jahman.

Share this post


Link to post
I agree with your other comments, but compatibility with FSX is a must, for me at least.- jahman.
I whish Flight would take FSX sceneries as I have a lot of $$ invested in FSX but how would the dev. make money (or MS) if the same sceneries were transferable from FSX to Flight, it's easyer for MS to give us a little something to boast FSX perf.(SLI) when Flight is released to keep us happy with FSX.....time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I just think it needs to be mentioned that things like Careers need to be left to Add-ons like FSpassengers. And not implemented right out of the box. Not everyone wants. Or uses thou.  I use FSP on my VA flights. But sometimes I like to relax in a Skylane and watch the sun set.  I may want to do that in flight. But would be ###### if I have to get 5 licenses/Ratings and X number of hours before I can
This can be said about every feature in the game... not everyone wants any of the features.  The fact that not everyone wants it, cant be the reason not to include it.

Share this post


Link to post

What will be included is what Microsoft thinks will make the game most attractive to its target market - which isn't the enthusiasts who visit here.

Share this post


Link to post
What will be included is what Microsoft thinks will make the game most attractive to its target market - which isn't the enthusiasts who visit here.
+10

Share this post


Link to post
Guest jahman
What will be included is what Microsoft thinks will make the game most attractive to its target market - which isn't the enthusiasts who visit here.
Every market has leaders and followers and every (successful) developper/businessman/company knows this.FS enthusiasts have pulled forward on the performance curve of MSFS ever since it was first released. Schoo off the enthusisasts and the FS franchise will be dead not before long (as we all flock to X-Flight). MS is far smarter than to pull such a dumb move, so we enthusisasts will continue enjoying high-end simming with Flight (BTW, what a coincidence, this is also what MS said in its press releases.)Cheers,- jahman.

Share this post


Link to post
Every market has leaders and followers and every (successful) developper/businessman/company knows this.FS enthusiasts have pulled forward on the performance curve of MSFS ever since it was first released. Schoo off the enthusisasts and the FS franchise will be dead not before long (as we all flock to X-Flight). MS is far smarter than to pull such a dumb move, so we enthusisasts will continue enjoying high-end simming with Flight (BTW, what a coincidence, this is also what MS said in its press releases.)Cheers,- jahman.
Too bad the people at Microsoft don't believe or follow what you wrote. And this is NOT my opinion, but direct from Microsoft themselves. No, you were not present in Seattle, at DevCon '07, when we discussed this topic, with those directly involved with the FS franchise. And no, I don't have it recorded, video taped, or a court transcript of the conversations, so please don't ask for proof!!

Share this post


Link to post

I would really like to be able to manually activate runways. I don't care about backwards compatability, because I know it's gonna mess it up and slow it down. I'd rather have a from scratch up and use FSX and Xplane on the side.

Share this post


Link to post

I sense that expectations for FLIGHT may turn out to be unrealized- at least in the sense that hardcore simmers hope for. Hence the following quotes from the original MS statement regarding FLIGHT-"a new PC game" "new perspective""game play elements""entirely new breed of virtual flight""redesigned to make the experience EASIER for virtual fliers of all interests and skills" (italics mine)."We believe the SIMPLICITY of MS Flight----" (italics mine).Regardless- I'm still very curious!AR

Share this post


Link to post
Guest jahman
Too bad the people at Microsoft don't believe or follow what you wrote. And this is NOT my opinion, but direct from Microsoft themselves. No, you were not present in Seattle, at DevCon '07, when we discussed this topic, with those directly involved with the FS franchise. And no, I don't have it recorded, video taped, or a court transcript of the conversations, so please don't ask for proof!!
In 2007? Weren't those people all fired?For more up-to-date info (as in December 2010) on what MS is thinking, planning and doing:
A number of you have asked, “Why did you drop ‘Simulator’ from the title of the game?”In addition to the FAQ on this topic, we want to directly address the concern that by dropping the “Simulator” from the name, we’re dumbing down the experience. Quite the contrary! We’ve developed on the “simulation” aspect for many years and have no intention of losing that legacy. What we’re doing now is improving the total experience while building on this legacy, enhancing the enjoyment for all who share a passion for flight. The more people who join us in the Flight experience, the greater the opportunity we’ll have to do even more. Many of you are concerned that because we want to appeal to a wider audience, we must be building an arcade game.We don’t need to create an arcade game to welcome a wider audience. But we do need to improve the total user experience if we’re to be successful in welcoming new audiences into the experience of Flight. The passion and fascination of flight is powerful, with so many different aspects to aviation and different levels of enjoyment to experience. There is distinct value and strength to be gained by welcoming a wider audience, and we can’t claim to have done the best job of it in the past.
Everything MS says in que quote above directly supports what I said in my previous post.Folks, the World is not binary, either all white or all black: It IS possible to improve the sim user experience for a wider appeal without dumbing down the flight experience, and that's exactly what MS will do (read the higlighted sentences.)With work and family demands many folks today just don't have the time to tinker with the insides of FSX for a good flight sim experience so these folks are lost to other hobbies and pastimes and that is a loss for the community as a whole (less $$$ for developpers, ergo less add-ons for the rest of us). This MS intends to fix and I for one welcome a more robust Flight from the user experience (faster star-up times, more robust, identify the crashing module after a CTD, better multiplayer, marketplace, add-on certiication program, etc.) with (and not instead of) the top notch flight experience we have all come to expect since FS9 and FSX.Cheers,- jahman.

Share this post


Link to post

What Flight really needs is more updates on it's progress, I'm dying to see some more development shots/news.

Share this post


Link to post

Im preety shure the reason we have yet to hear any new updates is becaues they are busy with the Alpha testingNot everyone wants it seems to be a perfictly good reason to not implament a feature. Majority ruels. IF only 10 out of 50 people want a carrer mode. i would not spend the money on programing and payrole on that feature, when that money/time can be put forth on something more important (or more people want)Personaly i would love to see backwords compatibilty. But not at the cost of of preformance and Gameplay (for lack of a better word). There is another thread regarding this issue, so i dont feel this needs to have to much fuel thrown of this particuler fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Not everyone wants it seems to be a perfictly good reason to not implament a feature.  Majority ruels. IF only 10 out of 50 people want a carrer mode. i would not spend the money on programing and payrole on that feature, when that money/time can be put forth on something more important (or more people want)
Guy, not everyone wants any of the features ... so, again, not everyone is NOT a good reason.  Also, by definition majority is greater than 50%.  So even with majority, not everyone wants.

Share this post


Link to post

Microsoft's interest is making money and that doesn't depend on satisfying the enthusiasts who visit these forums. There aren't enough of us to justify the franchise - which will stand or fall based on its wider appeal. The direction Flight takes will be determined by the findings of Microsoft's Masrket Research Department which will have identified Flight's attractive features. In my opinion, ACES was disbanded because Microsoft felt it was going in the wrong direction by adding features that were only of interest to the enthusiast and had little wider appeal. Also, I belive that's why Flight re-emerged in Microsoft Games Studios - which knows more about marketing games than ACES ever did. The various quotations are perfectly consistent with Microsoft doing no more than tidy up FSX around the edges with no significant new features enhancements but concentrating on adding features to attract the new audience.If Flight provides no more than FSX's features then is isn't being dumbed down into an arcade game.

Share this post


Link to post

Gerry, I do believe you've got the long and short of it. Although, to be honest ACES was neither fish nor fowl, since although they were a wholly owned MS studio,......and they where technically under the ageis of MS Games Studio, they weren't under the direct control of MS GS, which frankly was -from their point of view at least- an entirely untenable situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Gerry, I do believe you've got the long and short of it. Although, to be honest ACES was neither fish nor fowl, since although they were a wholly owned MS studio,......and they where technically under the ageis of MS Games Studio, they weren't under the direct control of MS GS, which frankly was -from their point of view at least- an entirely untenable situation.
Yeah, and the question is why have ACES in the corporate structure to begin with?From MS's POV...it served to confuse the chains of command and increase overhead. (?)With ACES there was a layer of middle managers between MSG and FS.That complicates communication and management as well as adding expense and risk.In the atmosphere of MS-2008 this would have been a good opportunity do some streamlining.The upshot of ACES (for us) was these managers were real advocates for FS and the ACES simulation engine.I think MSG management will have a broader corporate view and be more risk adverse.And if the promotional material for Flight is any indication, they are taking a low risk strategy.Look at FSX, particularly the introduction material on the CD, it reads exactly like Flight...almost to the word.The new target market is the old target market...and that’s as low risk as you get.Bottom line, if FSX appealed to you - so will Flight.

Share this post


Link to post

While I have done some pretty complex things in FSX, I later found myself mostly enjoying the simpler aspects of the game. I find myself quite happy just flying around in places I'd like to explore in real life, in a relatively slow airplane, enjoying the scenery. Manual touch and go's are always fun too. And I especially like flying around at night in a very dark room (pitch black if possible, while using a lighted keyboard such as my Logitech G15. I wish all second screen windows could be on a black background and extremely dimmable.Most of all I enjoy a good second screen navigation program with autopilot "fly to" features. The old FSNavigator and FSCommander both fit that bill very well. And yes, I really enjoy doing full IRS landings at times. All those little cars buzzing around on the interstates at night when coming into major airports is pretty neat too.Pretty simple these days for me !!!Bob (Las Cruces, NM)PS.... Short of a good navigation program capability, I'll probably go back to FSX now that even cheap computers are cranking out at nearly 5 G's on O.C.

Share this post


Link to post

As I see it a key requirement is for MS to enable 3rd party developers to add greater value to Flight. I realise that previous FS versions already allowed this to some extent through the SDK and the associated APIs. I'm merely saying that they need to further build upon this. To my mind the last article in PC Pilot hinted at this.I don't particularly expect MS to add much in terms of additional features as such. I fully expect them to look at existing features, sort out the worst of any outstanding bugs and possibly enhance them. Its possible that they may cull the odd feature depending on perceived popularity and MS support cost.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with opening up Flight more to third party developers. Important things will be 3rd party aircraft, AI traffic, scenery, ATC and weather. These all need to be fully open to developers with guidelines the developers need to follow properly.I feel the ACES team missed the mark big time with FSX. It was FS2004 with more eye candy. We are almost 6 years into FSX and still can't really run it smooth. I have a high end system and still am not happy with FSX. I am still using FS2004. It will be important that Flight run not good but great out of the box with full features. It has to be realistic out of the box to satisfy everybody. It has to be completely new code that is efficient to run on current hardware.

Share this post


Link to post

Why does everyone think that FS has been so closed off to third party developers? FS 2002 is open, FS 2004 is open, FSX is open. I just don't get it!

Share this post


Link to post
Why does everyone think that FS has been so closed off to third party developers?
I don't think that and I never said that either. I merely said they need to enhance further so that 3rd party developers can create even better add-ons.

Share this post


Link to post

Sam,You used the words "some extent" and "need to build upon". The tools are there, though they may not be the easiest to use at times--especially with FSX, that I will agree with!

Share this post


Link to post

Flight is new and it seems likely to involve an on-line market so what happened in the past may not be too relevant. Microsoft's approach to 3rd party developers could change. For example, it could contract/licence selected companies to develop for that market place Such evidence as I've seen (job advertisements including the word SDK) would are equally applicable to that approach as to any other.

Share this post


Link to post

Jim,Never said they were so closed off. I just said they need to open up more. Reason why is take two third party ATC programs. They both have problems interacting with AI. Expecially on the ground handling. You have said before that ASE has limitations because of the weather engine in FS2004 and FSX. If they open up more to third party developers then those limitations will be fewer and easier to work with.Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...