Flight project cancelled/on hold

[Tierborn 191]

thats what I have been saying .... guess I need a commercial membership for you guys to hear me

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

thats what I have been saying .... guess I need a commercial membership for you guys to hear me

Sorry, I didn't hear you...say again, please.

[dmaher 0]

There really aren't people on the forum saying the AVSIM type is the 'target-market'...it's the opposite ;)The chattering has always been - for years - we're not the 'target-market' - everyone gets that.I pretty sure I'm of a very-very few that's ever tried to make any sort of counter point to that ;)That's just been to show that we are on the radar...we are a market segment.There are components in these games that are built for us.For a marketer or accountant target market is the meaty part of the curve - it's that simple.For a game designer; it is more subjective and fluid.Designers have someone in their minds eye, a target, but it’s not what the accountant sees.So that’s only where the skew is. The target is still aviation fans – and that’s a rare breed.Really a monolithic ‘target market’ isn't a great tools for flushing out a design.It’s segments that count – MS has mentioned two in a recent PR release. We are a segment and so are newbies. It’s widely speculated FSX has hit 2,000,000squawkBox has hit 119,000 (unique IPs downloads only)40,000 seems a good practical number (for commercial wrk)

[andyjohnston.net 617]

I think maybe we should define add om. Are we talking payware only? If we include freeware ones (remember that MS doesn't see a dime of profit off either) then the top ones have been downloaded a ton of times. I have one that's had in excess of 27k downloads. If you look at the ones that are the most popular, they've been downloaded 150,000+ times. That shows that there certainly has been a market over the years. And that doesn't include all the other people who haven't bothered with those particular files.

[dmaher 0]

yes..certainly include freeware when we talk about the population of hardcore FS users - MS does.I mention squawkBox because it is a hardcore tool...but has no real bearing on commercial work.;) Lot's disagree...but I happen to say MS does earn off of freeware (and payware)...hence the SDK.To use a killer app you must buy the platform.MS would have to pay a great deal of money to build these add-ons.They get the benefit of the constant attention without footing the bill (aside from the 1-time SDK cost).Most games without user content languish after a few months…add-ons earn publishers money by boosting sales.But also by helping them to dominate the genre and stay top of mind.Even casual users want to own the most popular option.

[Attila 2]

One of the things we need to realize is that the FS product line has become so complex and advanced that it is no longer in the realm of games. It was built over two decades. These decades have seen a huge amount of changes in computing (hardware and software) and likely more people have worked on FS than any other game in history. Add to this the fact that most of the last people who worked on FS have been fired. All of these make adding stuff to FSX a tall order. Perhaps taller than MS initially thought. If FSX as a base is to be abandoned, get ready for a very simple Flight game, for that's what FS started out to be and that's the amount of new development $60 a copy can pay for. In this case, perhaps down the road, with each new version we'll get back some of the functionality that FSX had. There is evidence that this is not the route MS took in building Flight. If FSX is kept as a base, the task of improving it is quite different. In this case, $60 a copy can pay for some new features, even a small change in direction, but in the wrong hands it can end in disaster. I have no first-hand knowledge of the state of the FSX source code, but I can guess. Considering that there is likely no one at MS who understands even half of it, using people who have never seen the code to add new features and especially to make old code more efficient may take more resources than MS cares to spend on this project. Even if the rumor is not true, the fact remains that MS is not communicating with us, nor with anyone else for that matter. This cannot be a good sign and sure does indicate that MS is no longer following whatever schedule they envisioned.

[alainneedle1 97]

MS is not communicating with us, nor with anyone else for that matter.

I beg to differ.....after reading what MS posted about the market store there is no way in hell (you all keep my #79 post in mind) they are not talking to someone from the outside...have we already forget about NDA....what are they for?? Does that mean that they are paying attention to forums like this one...naaaa ....BUT...if I remenber correctly they did answer some of the worries raise by some peoples....have they not said that they will keep some of the stuff from FSX to be use in Flight where they see fit....was this "New engine" not a big debate between us..(still ).....why will MS take the time to be specific on something like that if they are not listening at all???....so if they are not listening or reading us who's telling on us..... ....

[dmaher 0]

One of the things we need to realize is that the FS product line has become so complex and advanced that it is no longer in the realm of games. It was built over two decades. These decades have seen a huge amount of changes in computing (hardware and software) and likely more people have worked on FS than any other game in history. Add to this the fact that most of the last people who worked on FS have been fired. All of these make adding stuff to FSX a tall order. Perhaps taller than MS initially thought. If FSX as a base is to be abandoned, get ready for a very simple Flight game, for that's what FS started out to be and that's the amount of new development $60 a copy can pay for. In this case, perhaps down the road, with each new version we'll get back some of the functionality that FSX had. There is evidence that this is not the route MS took in building Flight. If FSX is kept as a base, the task of improving it is quite different. In this case, $60 a copy can pay for some new features, even a small change in direction, but in the wrong hands it can end in disaster. I have no first-hand knowledge of the state of the FSX source code, but I can guess. Considering that there is likely no one at MS who understands even half of it, using people who have never seen the code to add new features and especially to make old code more efficient may take more resources than MS cares to spend on this project. Even if the rumor is not true, the fact remains that MS is not communicating with us, nor with anyone else for that matter. This cannot be a good sign and sure does indicate that MS is no longer following whatever schedule they envisioned.

Attila, IMO you’ve nailed it. Flight needs to do less and expose more. I fear even if it makes it this round; the next, or the next, it will hit a wall. It’s expanding like a cauliflower. And that problem is not unique to FS. The complexities are growing. And good tools aren't quite keeping pace. In these organizations there are folks that wield an axe. It's this sort of feature-creep they are looking for. So IMO anything Flight can do to leverage their third party developers is going to save huge money and keep them profitable. And that’s not a cop-out…FS has cultivated these 3PD units. If they need to they can carry the load. Likey that’s not the hardcore fan’s choice. But it will deliver the best sim platform. Take trees, or clouds, or ATC, aircraft, scenery…these are already being externalized to freeware and payware. Maybe that’s not an option for users, I’m not sure, but IMO - I think we should be concerned FS software is heading towards a coffin corner here - at some point. With respect alainneedle1, I’m not sure we’d recognize a new engine if it fell out of the sky and into your boat.I'm happy to let the Flight team do that job, I think they got the message.A new engine does not mean better performance – it just means new engine.

[Chock 17,769]

I suspect 40,000 is a fairly good estimate for pretty hard-core flight sim enthusiasts, although it would probably help if we knew exactly what a hard core enthusiast actually was, and opinions on that description might differ somewhat among us all. Personally, I'd say a truly hard core flight sim enthusiast would be someone with a dummy project magenta 737 cockpit in his basement that he or she (almost certainly male) has thrown a lot of their earnings at, and I'd guess that there are nowhere near 40,000 of those types in the world. So, I assume that our rough 40,000 would be more likely to be those who have stuff like a dedicated flight controller set up for FS on their PC (which is probably a PC that was bought or built specifically with FS in mind), who have spent a fairly large amount on add on aircraft and scenery, and most likely frequent one or more FS forums or chat groups. But, within that group there are probably several sub groups who are at least a bit more hard-core, such as people who indulge in repainting aeroplanes, or making scenery or tweaking FS or whatever, many of whom will end up as either enthusiastic amateur or more commercially-oriented developers. i.e. the ones who've actually installed and looked at the SDK with more than idle curiosity. When we consider that the most commercially successful flight sim development company is in fact Abacus (yup, sorry die hards, it's true, by a very long margin), then you have to figure that there are probably some 'not hard-core, but neither gamers with a passing interest' types out there who would still buy a GA/Commercial Airliner flight sim. That is to say, people who sit between hard-core and those who would happen to pick up a copy of FS for more casual reasons (i.e.a gift from a relative, bundled with a PC, or whatever). That probably goes at least some way to explain a lot of FS sales when there are certainly more than 40,000 people who attend all the airshows around the world, and the fact that there are TV programmes and books made for people interested in aviation and all that sort of thing. So I'm willing to bet that the kind who would pick up a boxed copy of an Abacus airliner from somewhere such as PC World whilst they are in there buying a new mouse, are a big target audience for Microsoft. Not hard-core, but not soft-core either, and I'd bet there's more than 40,000 of those kind of people around the globe, although you can see from the generally unfavourable comments Abacus garner on these forums that they are not the core of people who you'll see posting on here and other flight sim forums, and I'm pretty sure Microsoft will be aware of that. They'll know that our enthusiasm drives things along a lot, but they certainly won't expect our enthusiasm to bankroll the development of a sim on its own, as that would be commercial suicide, so you've just got to hope that someone in MS knows that we're not the only ones who'll buy Flight and base the decision to proceed with it on that, and if they do, then you can expect it to be a product that will be geared toward what the largest target audience would want, and like it or not, I think most of us are aware that audience ain't us lot. Al

[Tierborn 191]

what i have been saying . in a lot fewer words. Target market .. group that will provide the largest sales. Total sales is combination of casual and hardcore flight sim fans. Hardcore simmers are a small fraction of the total MSFS sales. If Flight comes to market, it will have something for all.

[Ops Normal 57]

So the million dollar question 'is FLIGHT cancelled'? Someone made mention of a demo... Maybe that could explain the pause. With the pictures and video on thier site they seem to have advanced quite a bit.

[Mochi 82]

After all the development up to this point, it would be crazy for M$ to pull it but when you see the crazy antics of the Windows 8 GUI... You should be worried.

[Christopher Low 5,393]

Well, I certainly wouldn't class myself as a hard core enthusiast, since I don't even know how to do VOR navigation! However, I do class myself as a perfectionist, which means that I like to have the best scenery and planes that I can get. This is why I purchased the PMDG Jetstream 4100 and Captain Sim 707-300, and yet hand fly them "low and slow" like a GA plane. It's also why I have purchased multiple UK scenery addons, so that I have the very best view when I look out of my high resolution cockpit windows (I fly exclusively around the British Isles) In short, even though I am clearly not a hardcore flight simmer in the true sense of the word, I am also not part of Microsoft's "target market". I guess that means that I am in some kind of twilight zone....which is ironic, since that's the time of day when I enjoy flying the most

[brucets 94]

I'm a hard core AVSIM reader, but by others' definition just a casual simmer ---- who spends a hell of a lot of time and money on this hobby!

[alainneedle1 97]

With respect alainneedle1, I’m not sure we’d recognize a new engine if it fell out of the sky and into your boat.I'm happy to let the Flight team do that job, I think they got the message.A new engine does not mean better performance – it just means new engine.

You missed my point, I was not trying to talk about a new engine or reworked engine again.....my point was about peoples who are saying that MS is not communicating with anybody and that is why I wrote about the debate we had about Flight's engine and MS taking the time to clarify this point. I don't see any reason why MS would have to post something about their engine (new or not) if they don't listen at all, why will they see the need to explain themself on that specific subject.....as I said they may not be reading in this forum but others are...the simple fact that they will have a marketstore for add-ons should give you (us) a big clue about who may be involved in the talking....OR....is MS just taking a shot in the dark by opening a store hoping to attract add-ons developers in it without any feedback from them....what's plausible to you?