Ms Flight FAIL

[Christopher Low 5,400]

You win a copy of my FS4 for the Apple 2E because we know that was a true simulation and not a game, before MS started to water it down in order to make more kids happy.

Strangely enough, I preferred the clean looking vector graphics in FS4 to the awful, shimmering mass of textured garbage that greeted my unprotected eyes in FS5.

[Attila 2]

Your logic is ridiculous. You are speculating that a game not even in beta testing yet will be unfinished and need a bunch of patches based off of what ONE of 10 versions (FSX) needed in over 30 years. This really does not make any sense.

Sure it makes sense. You forget that FS9 came out in 2003 - 8 years ago and game developers actually had different views about how to write and release software then. FSX started a trend and I don't see Flight going back to what FS9 was. It is far more likely to follow what has now become the industry norm.

[dmaher 0]

Software updates and patches are normal...at least since the internet made them possible.It's not like the old software had no need of patches, patches were just less practical.FSX was not the first FS to get an update.What I think was unusual, was it got two updates.And also the updates were critical for performance.Skill-ramping and audience-profiling separate.The target audience hasn't changed, you can tell that from Flight's screen shots and movies.They have no appeal to a broader casual market...ask around most people don't 'get' a game about flying.Unless you’re an aviation buff -that's our audience- Flight isn't on your radar...and isn't going to make an impression.If you are an aviation buff, Flight will strike a chord.The problem with all games designs is they have to appeal to beginners, draw them in, and teach them skills.That's skill ramping and this is where FS has put a lot of effort over the years.As far as games go FS has an extremely long and steep learning curve….like few other games.It actually takes years and thousands of hours to ‘win’ FS ;)The way to grow the audience is to pull in new beginners.But that’s not about redirecting the audience profile…it’s still for ‘aviators’If MS ever decided that this audience couldn't sustain a game, they’d kill the franchise.Re-targeting the audience doesn’t work….better to start fresh.

[frankla 45]

Strangely enough, I preferred the clean looking vector graphics in FS4 to the awful, shimmering mass of textured garbage that greeted my unprotected eyes in FS5.

To me FS5 was okay. I hated the FS95/ FS98 look. The scenery looked like a moving land fill.

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

Sure it makes sense. You forget that FS9 came out in 2003 - 8 years ago and game developers actually had different views about how to write and release software then. FSX started a trend and I don't see Flight going back to what FS9 was. It is far more likely to follow what has now become the industry norm.

Again, speculating that a game not even in beta is going to be unfinished and need a bunch of updates makes no sense. It's technically not part of the FS series, so anything can happen. Now, we would all expect it to get updates, just as any piece of software, but not because it's incomplete and is just a big mess. The more logical need for updates is for stability and adding more features...after getting feedback and letting thousands of people use it.

[dmaher 0]

:(

[Attila 2]

Again, speculating that a game not even in beta is going to be unfinished and need a bunch of updates makes no sense. It's technically not part of the FS series, so anything can happen. Now, we would all expect it to get updates, just as any piece of software, but not because it's incomplete and is just a big mess. The more logical need for updates is for stability and adding more features...after getting feedback and letting thousands of people use it.

We can go around on this forever, but my views, reservations, speculations are just as valid as yours. I base mine on what I saw with FSX and other recent releases. You base yours on the opposite of whatever I say. That's fine, but I find your blind faith in MS illogical.

[bsmfinegan 12]

We can go around on this forever, but my views, reservations, speculations are just as valid as yours. I base mine on what I saw with FSX and other recent releases. You base yours on the opposite of whatever I say. That's fine, but I find your blind faith in MS illogical.

Agreed, the trend is indeed towards DLC, more and more publishers are seeing this as a way to earn extra revenue rather than a one off purchase model.Patches for released products are also a fact of life because products these days are often rushed out the door. Companies get away with this because they know conusmers will put up with this approach, cutomers from the flight sim community will put up with more than any others becaue they are desparate for any new flight sim.Bryan.

[Tierborn 197]

Agreed, the trend is indeed towards DLC, more and more publishers are seeing this as a way to earn extra revenue rather than a one off purchase model.Patches for released products are also a fact of life because products these days are often rushed out the door. Companies get away with this because they know conusmers will put up with this approach, cutomers from the flight sim community will put up with more than any others becaue they are desparate for any new flight sim.Bryan.

Products of the past , before the widespread use of the Internet, were rushed and needed patching as well. There just wasn't an easy way to patch. Man often thinks that the past is better than present or future. In nearly all cases, the present and future are way better than the past ever was....

[mmann 72]

Products of the past , before the widespread use of the Internet, were rushed and needed patching as well.

Can't agree with this statement. Out of all the many programs I had for the Apple II, none required any patches. Out of all the many programs I had for the Atari ST, only one required a patch (an assembler I bought that I had to patch myself once I figured out the coding error). Both the Apple and the Atari had their operating systems in ROM (both had only minor but well documented bugs that one could work around).The big difference of course is that the programs have grown massively in size and complexity over the years. I think Microsoft could place a team of a thousand programmers to work on their new Flight game for a period of years and still not deliver a totally bug free program in the end. Could you image Windows 7 being placed in ROM!Regards, Mike Mann

[jhefner 0]

(both had only minor but well documented bugs that one could work around).

But therein lies the flip side of what you are talking about -- bugs in ROM based code never got patched; instead, it was treated as a "feature," and as you said, workarounds were written. (Sometimes, they were even turned into positives -- I think some of that was done with the display on the Commodore 64.Yes, stuff is massively complex now, but we are getting so much bang for our buck now as a result. I don't think any of us would want to go back to multiple systems that could barely even talk to each other, forget running the same programs; and graphics, sound and features pale compared to what we have now. I can do much of what I used to do on my Commodore on my not-so-smart cell phone now, and my cell phone has way more storage, better graphics, and a built in digital camera to boot. And, it syncs up fairely well with my PC without having to build my own serial cable and come up with the terminal programs and file converters to transfer files back and forth. We are truely spoiled these days....-James

[frankla 45]

How do they patch console games?

[Christopher Low 5,400]

Borg nanoprobes.

[speedbird2001 0]

Borg nanoprobes.

And...''resistance is futile''

[Katana1000S 0]

Again, Blah Blah Blah, defending Ms to the hilt no matter what.

Be-Jeezus HughesMD ... how can you deny you are not an MS a really excited user? Time and time again you respond to reasonable discussion with your love of MS over everything else ... take a step back dude and look at yourself.Most likely the reason MS put up that shot of the battleship was to test waters to see what they could get away with, they quickly pulled it when they realised they went a photo shop to far with all the derision here.None of us are fools after the DX10 magic screenie stunt.What do you hope to gain by grovelling to the MS gods so much my friend? a coveted beta tester position so you get a free copy? I know that is exactly what some do in the community ... to tell the truth I've beta tested both hardware and software flight sim in the past ten years ... its damn hard work if you do it right and don't just look for a freebie at the end of it ... also I'm not popular for speaking my mind, some company's just want beta tester Yes Men that totally defeats the whole object in the first place IMHO.I'd rather pay for my software than go through some company's charade again to be honest ... much less work and I don't mind paying for decent quality.EDIT: Not condemning all FS Software company's outright, but I'm willing to name Saitek as not worth beta testing for, they ignored every word I said about one product in particular that had faults and as a company are keen to ban users from their forums with problems ... one day there will be a law against such practise ... meanwhile its called burying heads in sand.