Where is MS?

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

My build is 30612.02 as well, but I have never experienced a CTD, evenwhen flying from Zurich to Lugano in winter which according to some, is one of the trouble scenarios..I find it hard to believe this MS's fault when some of the users, including myself have no problems.. on an overclocked P4-2.4 @ 2.8..

[John_Cillis 2,406]

LOL Bob....Glad you enjoyed that post. But really, we're talking about something much smaller than the Berlin wall, aren't we? :) What it comes down to is your statement "Microsoft will fix them when they decide to" When is that going to be? When they sell another release? If that's the case, then I think those hurt most by the issues being reported (keeping an eye just on seasonal CTD's) have a right to whine as much as they want, even if it bothers some in these forums. We choose to read what we want to--nobody forces you or any of those with issues vs. this thread to read it. Remember that not everyone here is privy to "inside information", not that we are. All they see is Microsoft's public face. I could tell them or you could tell them that Microsoft has listened, and why would they have to believe us? Point is ALL in the community deserve to have a dialog with Microsoft over issues in the sim--have that and I suspect you'd have fewer whiners here. Vendors with far fewer resources have such dialogs with the public. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, and in the absence of Microsoft having a dialog with the community I suspect these threads will appear from time to time--and we'll lose members in our hobby as they get disenfranchised with the sim. I'd hate to see that, but I know my success with the sim won't sell in someone who can't fly from hither to yon without a CTD...

[bob.bernstein 0]

John, when we compare MS to "other vendors", and pick which one is doing it "right", it seems like you're not using the true measure that all businesses use.From a business perspective, MS is not only more profitable than just about any "other vendor", but they've been so in the past for a long time, and they could be quite reasonable to point to the way they do business as highly successful.Thus, using measures business use, if any vendor imitates any other vendor, it would be most logical for the "other vendor" to change to an MS model...wouldn't you agree?B

[Geofa 108]

I certainly can't draw the conclusions you have from my post. I did not say a patch should not be released; I at the same time don't think one should be demanded or automatically expected. I have not seen a single beta tester that has stated that problems should "never be mentioned" or "swept under the rug". I have seen many persons who have complained loudly of problems, only to find that these problems came from their own doing (hardware/add ons)-and even more often, lack of knowledge (ils=autoland, wing leveller etc.). That doesn't mean that "show stopping" problems don't exist-and if it turns out there is such a problem that effects a large percentage of users- I would expect that ms would probably do a patch. In my case, perhaps luckily, I haven't had one ctd or the "fall from the sky" scenerio you mention. I supsect the ctd problem is not experienced by the majority and would also suggest a read of the ctd solved thread. I did have a situation in the past with fs2002 where it would crash before loading (which lasted for me 6 months) making it unusable-I was also frustrated too and understand that. I also was pretty sure it was a problem on my end-though I was never able to determine why I had this problem.I won't get into the debate about new versions being patches-but anyone who has been using the fs series along with other sims since the beginning knows that they are all a work in progression-both in reality , and bug fixing.

[Geofa 108]

The nda states that nothing from the beta testing time can be mentioned.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/Geofdog2.jpg

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"Thus, using measures business use, if any vendor imitates any other vendor, it would be most logical for the "other vendor" to change to an MS model...wouldn't you agree?"I'd have to accept that Microsoft is more profitable than any other vendor. Let's say they are, because that is a great place to start. How many business giants have come and gone over the years because they reached a point where they felt their business model could do no wrong, and they could dictate to the customer vs. having to "listen" to the customer? Microsoft's business model may work today, but what about the future? We recently released a vendor from contract which went to a similar "no talkie to customer" business model. We had used their produce for years, but with an in-house IT staff we decided to license just the software, and not pay for support as we were allowed under contract. I had investigated upgrading to a newer product, and contacted the vendor. They said I could upgrade, as long as I was willing to pay "back support". I said "What if I am a new customer, would you sell me your product?" They said, "But you aren't, are you? Call us back when you are willing to agree to what we propose."Initially, they were hungry for business and would have bent over backwards to sell product. But because their product was good as it was, they soon learned they could dictate to the customer vs. the other way around. I went with an inferior product...and another vendor. Microsoft's business model, if it is to truly to distance themselves from the customer in order to be more efficient, won't allow it to last for long. The company which I discussed above no longer sells product in the niche they were in--they managed to get a rather large community PO'd almost overnight. And nope--I can't mention the company name, much as I'd like to trash talk them.... They rewarded themselves anyway with their attitude. I think little of the suggestion such a business model, which is very similar to what Microsoft is doing at the moment both on the small sim scale and the larger networking O/S scale, makes a business one to be emulated. I have been in business for many years, and I'd rather have a small profit and customers I have a relationship with vs. a large one.... Believe it or not, there's still some of us who think that way, and I suspect we live happier lives :)

[chumley 0]

What else would there be to disclose?After the beta testing we moved into consumer testing.At least beta testers who had a test copy for free got some things fixed. The larger test team - the consumer - had to pay for the right to find errors and be ignored.Andy B

[Guest rogue1]

Probably get in trouble for this, but back to page one. And ready to accept my lumps.

[Guest baksteen33]

Hi everyoneI believe, John's arguments are more than valid. I hope you don't mind if I jump in and add a few thoughts. It's all about attitude... 1. There's a concensus, FS9 is a highly complicated product. If there is 'no service' towards this product, it could signify, that only Microsoft IS capable of releasing such a complex product bugfree in this universe and today... Wouldn't that be slightly snobbish..? 2. THE top European computer magazine (I dare claim.. c't), has an annual 'game highlight list.' Some 30 games appear therein. This year, for the first time in ages, MS's FS wasn't on it... 3. How could anybody without 'our' knowledge (default.xml, etc), or Chris's special clouds, run the FS9 product out of the box in a satisfactory manner, for more than an hour? I wonder... 4. I know a few 'common gamers,' who enjoy flight sims. Never, since I'm into FS, have I heard so many strong comments. Condensated: 'FS9 didn't like my sys...' It's sad. Really, this breaks my heart! Mainly because, this HIGHLY educational 'game' has become too hard to handle for an 'average user' (i.e. hidden config files, files in diff folders, no patch-policy, etc). I'm certain, if they could have, they would have stuck to it... Instead, they revert to shooters and LOMAC (which will get or has been fixed) etc. Looks like non-combat has a hard stand nowadays... 5. I'm convinced, they're many highly educated and positioned people in this forum. MS could create a lot of (even corporate) goodwill for themselves, if embracing a more cooperative and 'willing to deliver service' attitude... As a kid (loooong time ago), I questioned a petrol station owner about his reasons, for being so extremely friendly (thought it was exagerated) to young '50-cc people,' barely getting a few litres of petrol? His reply, full of wisdom and making me feel like a 'young fool' somewhat: 'Today's 50-cc customers, are the automobilists of the future...' How true... Kindest regards to you all and a happy new year. Jaap

[maxter 0]

John,Thanks for the excellent points raised above. I would like to add also that the mere fact that MSFS has no real "commercial" competitor at present (save for the niche X-Plane), that it feels that this so called "business model" is an appropriate one.The time of the Sierra Pro Pilot and Fly sims, that I supported with great vigour, was one where MS made IMHO some of the greatest strides in development of PC Flight Simulation. The advent of Autogen and viable ATC were introduced around the time of the demise of FLY II and in my view sealed the fate of that promising development. It would have been interesting to see what an injection of funds approximating half of the MSFS promotional budget would have done for that title.In short, until there is a viable and serious competitor to MSFS, they will dictate the pace of development and problem resolution. Unfortunately this is symptomatic of most significant monopolies.Regards,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern AustraliaMy "Around the World 4" flight pagehttp://members.iinet.net.au/~portercbp/fly...e%20World_4.htm