Hi,John, I like your posts... well put. My opinion? Well, I'm not going to try and say that putting time and effort into making a patch or service pack doesn't cost money. I would think that everyone knows that when people at a company do that, that they are getting paid to do it. But I don't think doing so puts companies out of business. No, quite the opposite I imo. I think that when they do so, they do it because it's good relations. In the spirit of the orginal poster here, they earn the customers respect. You get a feeling that the company cares about customer service after the sale. It makes it easier for you to feel you can buy from them again, and feel good about recommending the product to friends(or business associates as the case may be). Many other game companies release numerous patches and updates long after the game has come out. Battlefield 1942 has been updated a whole bunch of times to continually improve it. IL-2FB has been patched a good number of times. The list goes on. The people who bought these games probably won't hesitate to buy the next version from Ubi/Maddox Games and EA/Dice. I'm not trying to say that the developers of FS2004 didn't care or take pride in making the sim. I think they did and I think it shows. I like it, a lot. Probably enough to be greatly interested in the next version. But I just don't get the same feeling of customer caring/service after the sale to fix a few obvious and glaring flaws the same as I do from other game companies. Sure, I can recommend the sim to friends. But not without mentioning that it has a few flaws in it that they absolutely cannot expect to be addressed by MS. Unless, perhaps, MS deems it to be what they consider a showstopper, and/or quite severe. It is just something to take into consideration. If I tell them about an EA game, I can tell them that from past experience they should expect that an update will be made to the game if it's initial release has a some flaws. Now, I will pretty much repeat what I said in another post concerning this topic. I will not be 'pre-purchasing' FS2006 like I did with FS2004. Doesn't mean I won't buy it. But I will wait quite a while to see what people have to say about it. If it has some flaws that I feel can be lived with, then most likely I will buy it. Otherwise, I will wait and see if MS fixes them. When it comes to this Sim and MS I think we have to vote with our wallets. Either we buy the Sim because we like it a lot and feel we can live with the flaws it has, because we know they won't be addressed(at least not by MS), or we decide to keep our money because there is no customer service after the sale. Here I am speaking in the way of a patch or service pack like the vast majority of other game companies provide. Obviously it is up to individuals to decide how big a deal 'knowing there will be no patches' is. I would like to end by saying, once again, I like the sim, a lot. And I hope that MS continues to develop future versions. Nonetheless, I won't be jumping right in by 'pre-purchasing'.Regards,Jim

>Almost all of you have missed the point.>>A patch, service release, or whatever, is a business decision.> Microsoft's Sim division, is only so large, and they have>three products that they primarily maintain.>>Fighter Ace (The online WW2 game)>Flight Sim>Combat Flight Sim.>>Each of these products have roughly a 2 year product cycle and>are alternating.>>The patch for FS2000 was unique. The performance issues that>were generated were easily reproducable, the "fix" was of low>risk, there was no known "work around" and a significant>number of people experienced the problem.>>Fast forward 4 years.>>The CTD problem is easily reproducable, but only in certain>locations. And it is quite easy to see how it got past>testing.>>A significant number of people have experienced the problem.>>However,>>What we don't know, is how deeply imbedded is the bug. >Currently the "fixes" so far, that are out there, severely>affect the appearance of the airport, to "FS98" standards. So>it's possible that a "patch" would only do the same as what>has already been done, because it's the only safe way, and how>many would accept THAT?>>Secondly. It is easily worked around. If we can Sim>anywhere, we can sim anytime. The areas which contain the CTD>can be simply flown later in the year, with no ill effects.>>As a result of the probable High Risk and the fact that the>user can work around it, means that as reproducable and>widespread as it is, it is unlikely that a business case can>be made to fix it.>>Many have claimed on how other companies such as Janes and>such did "fixes" ad-nauseum on their products. Yes that is>true, Jane's and all the others are also now out of business. >>>The plain and simple fact is Patches cost money. Money that>noone in this community is willing to spend. If the product>can be enjoyed by a majority of the people without the need of>a patch, none will be granted. That is how you ensure you>keep any profit you have made on the product.>>Since the Seasonal CTD has a work around and can be avoided,>It is not a critical fix from a "sales" standpoint.>>I really don't see how people can continue to bash Microsoft>for providing continuing improvements on Flight Simulator,>without charging significantly more for the product.>>When EGA Flight Simulator for the PC XT was out, the software>was $49.95. Compare Flight Simulator of 1984 to Flight>simulator of 2004, and see what a $5.00 change in price>(without accounting for inflation) has bought you.>>I guess it's easy to criticize when you don't have the big>picture and instead focus on the negative and ignore the>positives.>>>>I can only stand gobsmacked. Windows is patched every day. Office is Developed and re-developed at an astronomical cost. Notice the "Microsoft Games" written on FS... Do you also see that written on their Xbox games. Microsoft make in excess of

In the news this morning, Microsoft has anounced the release of yet another patch to fix some sort of security problem in WindowsXP. Microsoft is recommending that all their customers download and install this patch as soon as possible. That was from the media so I don't as yet know how true it is.However, after SO MANY PATCHES for Windows3.1, its a wonder that Microsoft didn't go bankrupt during production of Windows 95.After so many patches for Windows 95, its amazing that Microsoft didn't go bankrupt before Windows 98 was released.After so many patches for Windows98, is amazing that Microsoft didn't go bankrupt before WindowsNT was released...Ditto for Windows MEDitto for Windows 2000Ditto for Windows XP.......Heck.....according to Wat.77, its TRULY AMAZING that after SO MANY PATCHES for its line of Windows OS software, that Microsoft is still in business today. Chapter 11 should have been a frequent phrase spoken at the offices. So the fact that so many patches have been released, yet Microsoft continues to post profits, their stock continues to do well, means that maybe they're the exception to the rule that patches make you go bankrupt?I guess they are the exception....which means that they could safely release a patch for FS9 without fear.So give us our patch for FS9 Microsoft!!!!!!

yawn

>As a result of the probable High Risk and the fact that the>user can work around it, means that as reproducable and>widespread as it is, it is unlikely that a business case can>be made to fix it.>well said. It's (I've never experienced it myself, however much people may call me a lyer for saying so I can't change the facts...) not a critical issue and therefore not worthy of being patched.If there is to be a service release (which is also a businessdecision) a fix would probably be appropriate for that.>Many have claimed on how other companies such as Janes and>such did "fixes" ad-nauseum on their products. Yes that is>true, Jane's and all the others are also now out of business. >Correct. Thought they didn't go out of business because of releasing patches and service packs it won't have helped them stay in business much either.They went out of business because they couldn't make enough of a profit margin on selling simulators.Part of that is because they spent a lot of effort in releasing updates, but that's a small part. A far larger part is that their parent companies set the required margins higher than any that a flight simulator can hope to match no matter what the development team does.Simple fact is that creating a first person shooter costs 1/10 the cost of a flight simulator (if not less) and generates 10 times (or more) the income. For a company like EA who don't care what they sell as long as it sells that means it's a bad investment to continue making flight simulators if the same team of people can make 100 times the income generating first person shooters.>I really don't see how people can continue to bash Microsoft>for providing continuing improvements on Flight Simulator,>without charging significantly more for the product.>Same way people bash any company for not providing support ab infinito...Ignorance of the cost of supporting a product in both manpower and (in large part because of that) money on the part of the average customer.>When EGA Flight Simulator for the PC XT was out, the software>was $49.95. Compare Flight Simulator of 1984 to Flight>simulator of 2004, and see what a $5.00 change in price>(without accounting for inflation) has bought you.>In other words, given a roughly 30% inflation in that period, FS2004 is now over a quarter cheaper than the equivalent product in 1984 while offering a wealth more in functionality.A product with the functionality of FS2004 back then would have cost many thousands (if not tens of thousands) of dollars (that is, 1984 dollars).>I guess it's easy to criticize when you don't have the big>picture and instead focus on the negative and ignore the>positives.>Ignorance is a bliss to the ignorant, a plague to those in the know.

>>So give us our patch for FS9 Microsoft!!!!!!>the harder you whine, the less likely the MSFS team is to release your precious "patch".If I were them I'd disband the team and go sit in the sun (or snow more likely this time of year in Redmond) contemplating the next killer FP shooter for X-box.

>Ignorance is a bliss to the ignorant, a plague to those in the>know.And those who beleive they are free of Ignorance, are a timebomb to Humankind.Have you tried those files yet?Jason

>If I were them I'd disband the team and go sit in the sun (or>snow more likely this time of year in Redmond) contemplating>the next killer FP shooter for X-box.He,he........That's what I've been saying for a few years now..! #### on all the simmers who expect & demand an exact working flawless world....L.Adamson ------ leaving town for the "sun"

"Heck.....according to Wat.77, its TRULY AMAZING that after SO MANY PATCHES for its line of Windows OS software, that Microsoft is still in business today. Chapter 11 should have been a frequent phrase spoken at the offices. So the fact that so many patches have been released, yet Microsoft continues to post profits, their stock continues to do well, means that maybe they're the exception to the rule that patches make you go bankrupt?"You were really quick in assuming that I meant that patches cause companies to go bankrupt.But you failed to read where I said that patching a product is a business decision and requires several criteria to be met.Is it reproducable?Does fixing it cause a risk to crash the product?Is there a work around?Will NOT fixing it adversely affect sales?In your RANT, you will see that all the patches that were OS related windows patchs met those criteria.The security issues were reproducable, the fix was relatively low risk to causing other problems, there were NO work arounds, and NOT fixing it would adversely affect sales because it would appear that Microsoft is not concerned with the security of it's product.Let's apply this same criteria to the Flight Sim problems.Is it Reproducable? YESDoes fixing it cause a risk to crash the product? WE DON'T KNOWIs there a work around? YES, you can fly in the same region on a different date and still function. The CTD only affects seasonal transitions, so you can still fly in the area spring summer winter or fall, just not two of the "inbetween" times.Will NOT fixing it adversely affect future sales? NO. Your personal feelings aside, a great many of the people enjoy flight sim, in their own area and never experiencing the crashes you speak of. To others, it is simply an annoyance. But even MORE important, Microsoft again is ALONE in the Civilian Flight Sim arena. So, it knows that we will buy their product because they are the only ones there. Since this issue does NOT meet the criteria, then the business case made for the patch, is lacking.Contrast this with the FS2000 patch.Performance issues were widespread and widely reported. The risk for patching was deemed to be low. There was no "work around" to make performance better. In fact, the patch itself merely provided a "work around" so you could sacrifice guage response to get better out of the cockpit performance.And MOST IMPORTANTLY!!!! At the release of FS2000, there were NO FEWER than THREE viable competitors in the Civilian Flight Sim Market. Sierra had put out a very impressive Pro Pilot 99, that when merged with a Voodoo card, blew FS2000 out of the water. In fact, I was a Pro Pilot 99 user up until FS2002 was released.Looking Glass had Flight Unlimited 2 and 3 which provided great VFR flying although the flying area was limited.TRI was releasing Fly!So from a business stand point, not fixing FS2000 could not only affect FS2000 sales, but drive others to it's competitors. This is most likely why Microsoft pulled out all the stops for FS2002. Does it suprise anyone that Microsoft released it's most ground breaking Flight Simulator, in terms of performance and functionality in the midst of it's hottest competition? And in doing so, basically killed it's competition. Sierra killed it's next version of Pro Pilot in mid production and shut down Dynamix. Fly! had released to very mixed reviews and did not prove to be the killer sim people had anticipated. Fly 2 also released in a very poor condition. Looking Glass closed it's doors, despite the fact that they consistently put out quality product (Flight Unlimited, Thief, System Shock 2), when EA decided that better margins were made of mindless sports games and FPS games.So Microsoft finds itself alone again, and as a result, while all of your points are valid, they simply do not make a business case for a patch.If Ubi soft takes it's experience from Flanker series and LOMAC, perhaps they may wish to take on Microsoft in the Flight Sim realm, but they would be risking a whole bunch.

Maybe to some amusement to some and horror to others, lets look at what exactly was fixed and changed by the last time MS put out a patch for FS namely FS2002.Besides the visual 'fix' that removed the WTC towers that is.Flight Simulator now includes shadows for aircraft, buildings, and dynamic scenery. The complete redesign of the scenery system in Flight Simulator 2000 made the previous method of displaying shadows obsolete.- OK s they basically changed the whole way the sim displayed things, TINY fix that everybody really needed to be able to run the sim ;-)More things it changed:To view shadows, make sure that the Aircraft Shadows and Ground Scenery Shadows settings are selected in the Image Quality tab of the Display Settings dialog box. Autopilot-induced oscillations while following the ILS glideslope have been fixed. Displayed ATIS frequencies are now limited to frequencies tunable with the Communication radios. The Learjet 45 and the Boeing 737-400 ADF needles now correct for magnetic variation. Gauges are now correctly rendered by Voodoo2 video cards. The VSI needle in the Learjet and the 777 move in full scale when metric units of measure are in use. - Oh looky there, they even got time to fix up a specific graphic card having problems.Some of the above fixes were certainly important, others werent really. So the aircraft got nice shadows back then, that would correspond nicely with a bridge- and landscape fix for this one.Mind you this stuff was only what the second patch corrected. The first one had shiny moments such as:The update includes several changes that should improve the smoothness of the simulation, especially during turns.Modified the weather feed from the server at Microsoft so that the Real-World Weather feature displays weather more accurately in areas where weather stations do not report 24 hours a day- OMG they actually tweaked the weather machine AFTER the release, will wonders never cease.Other fixes include stuff from tweaking of a aircraft.cfg file (concorde) to the backcourse function to work properly.Stuff for you all's brains to chew on :)

>>And MOST IMPORTANTLY!!!! At the release of FS2000, there were NO >>FEWER than THREE viable competitors in the Civilian Flight Sim Market <

For me (and MS likely) the issue isn't whether or not the seasonal ctd bug exists (I haven't tried the files but I certainly don't doubt the problem occurs and can be reproduced), its how many people encounter the problem without running the pre-arranged situations. I mean, if we asked folks on this forum to post if they've experienced the seasonal ctd without actively trying to make it occur, how many would respond? I don't know, I'm mearly asking the question. If hundreds of people here had had the problem and had contacted MS about it, maybe they'd look at it. Otoh, if only a couple of dozen people here (where presumably way more hours are actually flown in the sim than the average (meaning non-hardcore/serious) user would ever fly) have actually had this occur randomly, then I doubt MS is going to consider it a "must fix" issue.The Autogen bug seems to me to be a similar situation. If I understand correctly, the problem only occurs at the highest Autogen setting? Is it theoretically possible that given a powerful enough system, the autogen bug would cease to be an issue? In other words, a year from now when everyone is running 4ghz cpus and 256 meg vid cards, maybe the autogen bug will become old news. Therefore, perhaps its not so much a bug as it is a performance issue?Don't get me wrong, I'd happily download and install any patch MS chose to release for flightsim. There are obviously things that could be improved. I just don't feel the product is "broken" to the degree that MS is obligated to do so. It certainly isn't true that every game gets a patch. EA never released a patch for F12002 and hasn't (won't) for F1C even though I'd argue both of those sims have issues that are considerably more serious than any I've encountered in MSFS. They did patch F12001 but that was primarily becuase the game shipped without the ability to make use of any Nvidia card, which is a pretty serious issue.

"....just don't feel the product is "broken" to the degree that MS is obligated to do so...."I actually agree with this. My whole argument on this issue is related to the conduct of those towards those who even SUGGEST that Microsoft release a patch. It seems standard form (and your post was a refreshing one, since you didn't take the "low" road) to discredit, debunk, trash, label, name call, etc...anyone who suggests that Microsoft patch the product. My feeling is people should be allowed to suggest it, and I also feel Microsoft would be seen in a better light in entertainment circles if they factored in mid-term service releases into their product programs. But I don't believe in conspiracies, or that Microsoft is out to shaft us, Microsoft releases buggy product, or any of that garbage.... But I also believe in regards to autogen, and weather, that the sim has some issues. Waiting around for a 4GHZ system is fine, but that is another type of fudge since the XML issue is well documented on those with the fastest systems.... I will be very direct--anyone here who thinks it is sporting to bash those who ask for a patch is not someone I hold any degree of respect for. That has nothing to do with my opinion of those who demand a patch or even threaten to pull out of the hobby if they don't get one.I suspect many do "blanket trashing" on hearing the word "patch" thinking they'll get in the good graces of Microsoft and be asked to participate in the next beta. I was just as outspoken on the same issue in FS2002, and Microsoft did ask me to participate. We're all on the same team--one seeking enjoyment of a hobby--and I think Microsoft recognizes that and does see our experience in the hobby. I think some have forgotten that... They are certainly entitled to say they think the sim is fine, but not at the expense of others... Some in this thread are treading a very fine line between bashing, and simply discrediting themselves.-John

I guess I am in the middle. I think it would be great if MS decided to patch Fs-on the other hand I don't think it particularly needs one , and I don't expect that it will happen. It would be even greater if like xplane-the MS people put out weekly patches that added a bunch of things, and broke a bunch of things, and we would really have something to talk about and continually tweak. I don't see it happening though.I, like an above post have yet to experience either the ctd or autogen bug. I have no doubt that they exist and that if I fly in exactly the manner that duplicates these bugs as posted I could reproduce them-but why go looking for these bugs when many countless hours of simming hasn't produced either one on my two machines? I bet given enough time other bugs can be uncovered too-I am sure there are a plethora to be discovered given enough time,the huge number of simmers, the variety of ways of using the program, and the complexity of the program.I see lots of mentions about the fs2000 patch. If I recall-that patch improved frame rates of out the window views at the expense of robbing smooth working gauges. It added shadows back at the expense of performance. Many (most perhaps) saw this as an improvement-I personally did not. I am still missing the smooth gauges of the original fs2000-much more useful imho for true simming . The shadows I thought looked very comic like,robbed valuable performance, and in my case were left off-however the cries of that missing feature were as huge then as the missing bridges are now.Did we gain so much with that patch? Not to me-but that is my opinion.Was the 3d screen stuttering and non inclusion of shadows a "bug"-or was it a choice of the programmers-a balancing act?Now if MS had provided a patch for the ice cube looking clouds in fs'98 that would have been something! While Pro Pilot at the same time had beautiful 3d clouds and real 3d terrain much like we have today in MSFS, I can't seem to remember seeing any complaints about the ice cubes and crudely drawn 2d terrain being "bugs"-in fact many defended MS at the time as being superior despite these lacking features that are now considered standard in a sim. These factors were improved with the newer fs2000-a patch or an logical evolution?On flightsim.com a few weeks ago was an editorial called "What Is "Real" vs What Flightsims Can Realistically Accomplish".A brilliantly written piece imho and really puts all of this into perspective.Perhaps MS will patch fs2004-reduce the possibility of max autogen slider, or remove a whole slew of variety of buildings making the landscape less interesting-and eliminate the autogen bug when it occurs in those very specific instances.Perhaps MS can remove all the huge number of worldwide bridges that autogenerate-and go back to the hugely smaller sample of accurate hand drawn .Perhaps MS can find that source of the ctd going on seasonal changes.Will it be an improvement to everyone? (In my case the autogen and bridges would not be-the ctd perhaps if and when I get it without going looking) -will the complaining stop there or will we just move on to a whole new other set of issues?http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

There are some things that could use some fixing, but for the most part I have been relatively happy with FS2004. Thanks too all the hardcore simmers, that have figured out ways around some of these problems. After buying Lock On, I can't complain much about FS2004 anymore. Fligt Simulator at least runs well on my system.