Are you sure Flight will never "Grow up?"

[OHN 1]

Yeah, except an island - regardless of whether or not it is "far bigger" - doesn't make up a "FREE" FLIGHT simulator GAME.I don't care for the M$ FLIGHT "missions", whether it is 2 or 3 or 23 gold coin "bing"-ing missions that is totally irrelevant and besides the point.

Then go fly FSX, why are you even here, just to make trouble nothing else.

[Attila 2]

Then go fly FSX, why are you even here, just to make trouble nothing else.

He is here to balance the lemming-like attitude of some of the posters here.

[Guest jahman]

He is here to balance the lemming-like attitude of some of the posters here.

+1! :Big Grin:Cheers,- jahman.

[Rush1169 0]

No. You really need to read ORBX CEO John Venema's post. His message to MS: "Thanks MS, for all the fish."

John said "I doubt that a belated SDK will arrive quickly enough for us to hold any interest now." When the SDK is available and you learn what it takes to adapt your product to Flight and see 100,000+ sales standing-by as you write payroll checks for 25 people every week, I'm sure interest will return. . .

[rtodepart 761]

Absolutely not "milk[ing] the third party devs by skimming. . .". Pretend you own PMDG. You spend $500,000 to develop 737NG. Now you have to market the product (a *very* signiciant expense) and you have either have to buy, build, or rent a website to handle the distribution. Now multiply that times EVERY 3rd party developer - all paying for their marketing and distribution, essentially each duplicating each other's efforts. The development wasn't "hard" because that's their passion - it's getting it sold that is the hard part.With the new model, PMDG releases the 737NG. MS tests it out, looks at the code for "gotchas" or unstable techniques, and then SHOWS EVERY SINGLE INSTALLED USER the product, handles the commerce and distribution, and sends PMDG a check. That is not an example of "milking" the 3rd party - that is an example of economies at work and will result in MORE PDMG sales and MORE profit for PMDG to develop MORE planes. It is a win-win.Consider the guy who works alone and makes a near perfect C152. He can "send it to the app store" and wait for checks -or- he can borrow $20,000 to *maybe* do enough marketing to get enough sales to get back his $20K if he's lucky.

+1 an initial idea that seems to work and it can be tested with both partys in the same page and both willing to let go of the MONEY MAKING state of mind and test the grounds first if it does not work just dont do it but dont be negative about it without trying . once again it looks like its alot better to keep making money on your own instead of trying a diferent way.. Edited January 13, 2012 by rtodepart

[mikea76 184]

He would if he was a franchise dealership with the 'Ford' logo stuck outside. That's the revenue MS is after (of course).What they do with the cash remains to be seen.

Not quite, We purchase the cars from the manufactuer to sell to customers and we purchase parts for servicing the cars off of the manufactuer. As far as servicing goes, the manufactuer makes money on the parts but they get nothing out of the labor since dealers are independant franchises. In fact Ford pays us sometimes a higher rate ( they decide how long the repair takes) than customers pay for waranty repairs and we are allowed a certian level of profit selling their parts back to them for waranty repairs.Since MS has no parts to sell to companies like PMDG they have no revenue stream from the add-on's we buy. Edited January 13, 2012 by mikea76

[frankla 44]

For sure we know MS will use the DLC model. So, assume they offer a "pro pilot pack" for $69 which gets everything back to at least FSX standards in all areas plus improvements to some areas (as we would expect in an FSXI release). One download and you have a full-fledged FSXI exactly as it would have been released had ACES continued operations. Would you buy it? Since I've bought every version since FS4, I can confidently say that I would and I'll assume most of you would too. So, that puts their sales @ 300,000 (just a guess) downloads @ $69 - no boxes, no distrubution, no manufacturing, no shrinkage, no defects, just bandwidth - they are already ahead. Now add in all the other potential content for less-than-hardcore gamers and simmers. . .Oh, and don't forget about all the counterfiet copies sold or freely passed around, that'll stop.MS *knows* there are 200,000 to 300,000 "full priced" buyers waiting for the full version. They know $15,000,000 is waiting for them and they are not going to shelve a 25 year old, proven product. They are going to capture another $30,000,000 from the less hard-core simmers too which was not possible with an FSXI traditional release, nor are they going to just pick the "low hanging fruit" for $20M and be done - all the content and features already exist for that extra $15M, it just has to be converted to the new engine.FS is based on a very old engine and it's time to rewrite it from the ground up for all the reasons mentioned in this and my OP. MS is an expert with FSX and an expert at moving it's content and features to it's new engine. It will do it and you can expect it. Yes, Flight is a game for casual gamers and it's also, by design, a true sequel to FSX via DLC. It will happen. Just like how you can take a modern game engine and make many, vastly different games. Flight is a new game engine for flight and can be made into many vastly different experiences.

+1

[frankla 44]

:(

that is indeed what confuses me after all this negative press in fora, blog and facebook...

Except, of course, if MS were developing said FSXI DLC, they would have made the announcement by now. But thet haven't.

They haven't announced it yet. But look at the fire storm of publicity it has caused. Perhaps a great marketing ploy? After all if they deliver what we want after all this controversy, they would have huge number of loving fans!

Not quite, We purchase the cars from the manufactuer to sell to customers and we purchase parts for servicing the cars off of the manufactuer. As far as servicing goes, the manufactuer makes money on the parts but they get nothing out of the labor since dealers are independant franchises. In fact Ford pays us sometimes a higher rate ( they decide how long the repair takes) than customers pay for waranty repairs and we are allowed a certian level of profit selling their parts back to them for waranty repairs.Since MS has no parts to sell to companies like PMDG they have no revenue stream from the add-on's we buy. If you accept it

When you buy a car you own it. A software does not change ownership because what you buy is a license, not the software itself. MS will always own it. As owners of your hypothetical car they can demand that you service it the way they want it. Its the same concept as a lease, When I leased a car many years ago, they required that I do not modify it or use aftermarket parts in repairs. The only aftermarket parts they accepted in "their" car were break pads, filters, windshield wipers and tires. Edited January 13, 2012 by frankla

[Guest jahman]

John said "I doubt that a belated SDK will arrive quickly enough for us to hold any interest now." When the SDK is available and you learn what it takes to adapt your product to Flight and see 100,000+ sales standing-by as you write payroll checks for 25 people every week, I'm sure interest will return. . .

WHEN and IF the SDK becomes available...Now is a matter of waiting game to see who blinks first, the third party developers or Microsoft.

+1. Now we're making progress! :Big Grin:Cheers,- jahman. Edited January 13, 2012 by jahman

[ahuimanu 50]

WHEN and IF the SDK becomes available...Now is a matter of waiting game to see who blinks first, the third party developers or Microsoft.

I am among the many who are upset that an SDK is not apparently part of the deal. However, we put too much emphasis on the current well-known, top-level developers. The greater utility of the SDK is that it allowed amateurs to also contribute and, perhaps, evolve into contributors to the commercial market as well.I don't like the notion that only the well-known and established 3rd-party devs might get a shot at an SDK once/if it surfaces. Now, many comparisons to what apple does with iOS are made, and I think they are valid. With that, I would not have qualms with paying some fee to access the SDK that is on par with what Apple charges ($100 per year). Edited January 13, 2012 by ahuimanu

[garsands 0]

I agree 100% with the OP you chose the path you want to take with MS Flight you make it as real as you want it to be.But it's not all going to be there from day one.So for you guys that keep on knocking MS Flight no big deal you will still be playing FSX so no rush.

[Rush1169 0]

But it's not all going to be there from day one.

You're correct. There is an incredible amount of potential content for this product and it would be rather silly for MS to have 300 3rd party planes for purchase when they have their cache of planes to sell, not to mention the "Pro Pilot Pack" that makes it a sim. They'd also prefer not to have Orbx scenery for sale when they haven't yet sold the base scenery classes that take one beyond Hawaii. MS isn't going to release free Hawaii only and then have you go buy Orbx to complete the coverages. First you'll have to buy the standard area, then you can buy the upgrade. MS isn't going to let Carenado sell a better 172 until MS has sold theirs first. In other words, first you buy all the components to bring you to FSX(I) level and then 3rd party will be invited to inject their upgrades into the mix. It's no different than it is with FSX. First you buy FSX (and all it's planes and scenery and missions), then you buy add-ons. Flight will be no different in that respect but will be stable, compatible, modern, easy to upgrade, fresh, new, and appeal to (and be installed by) many, many more people than the hard-core folks. Just a side story: With FS4 the plane would start at Miegs ready for takeoff. I had no clue about most of the instruments, especially the NAV stuff and no clue about traffic patterns, stall speed, pitot heat, or really anything other than how to (crudely) get it up and get it down. Because of this, it was pretty boring after at few hundred TO cylces. So, my friend and I would create "race courses" with (at the time) timing gates and obstacles and had a LOT of fun racing each other for best time. The point was, I loved the idea of flight, but had no clue whatsoever about actually doing it correctly and so I made it into something fun. One day, flying out of Miegs on runway heading, I was practicing/playing taking a left turn and landing at O'Hare and what happened next took my love of desktop flying to new levels. By default, NAV1 was tuned to the ILS at O'Hare and on this day, I noticed the needle move across the gauge while passing perpendicular to the extended centerline from O'Hare. It was by just spending enough time, having the NAV1 default to the right frequency, and the proximity of O'Hare to Miegs that I discovered what that instrument actually did and why it was there. My knowledge began to "snowball" as I figured out how to use the frequencys and charts to turn the ILS to different airports. That led to natural curiosity about VORs and ADF and general navigation and figuring out how those work. That led to more enjoyment and many, many more hours. That led to private pilot lessons (didn't complete due to nausea). That led to buying rudder pedals, yokes, switches, panels, new planes, new scenery, more new planes, etc.I'd bet most people installed FS, played around with takeoff and landing and otherwise "horse around" and never make it to the part where you know what all that stuff on the panel is used for or why it's used or how to use it, much less how to properly fly the plane. So, it could be, and you don't really have to imagine too hard, that Flight and it's future DLC will actually "train" a new round of younger people who are not hard-core simmers but will be as they download and learn to operate progressively more complex planes and all in a progessive, logical fashion. MS realized that a complete newb to flight is utterly overwhelmed with the content of FSX, the seemingly impossible operation of a 737, the completely foreign gauges, switches, and levers littering the cockpit, and the cryptic ATC chatter. In more recent FS editions, MS included some lessons/training stuff and then missions which are all intended to "train" a new virtual pilot, but found it was often missed, maybe because of the 99,000 other things the sim can do.They don't need to "hook" the 100,000 hard-core simmers (us) right off the bat. We have FSX for now. They need to bring in a fresh round. Some will never make it past the "arcade mode", others will immerse themselves and absorb and expand and learn and many will even take it "all the way" to "as real as it gets" mainly due to the way the product is offered (via DLC) where one can develop their personal flying skills and add complexity in logical phases all the way up to 747s.This is not to say MS is simply going to "dumb it down" and we have to wait "forever" for more advanced sim features. It's just that they know dumping the entire FSX product in the lap of a newbie often results in that person never really "getting it" and thus never interested in the next version, much less buying add-ons or upgrades. MS intends on growing it's user base and the number of more serious virtual pilots and the number of people who become like us.

[DAD 2,650]

@rush1169: well stated

[flyingscampi 2]

Just a side story: With FS4 the plane would start at Miegs ready for takeoff. I had no clue about most of the instruments, especially the NAV stuff and no clue about traffic patterns, stall speed, pitot heat, or really anything other than how to (crudely) get it up and get it down.

Good post, this is exactly how I started tinkering with FS1 on a Compaq Portable in the early eighties. I loved the WW1 'Combat' mode.IL2: Sturmovik is probably the best WW2 flight sim and has an arcade mode with a greatly simplified flight model, controls and a hud that tells you where everything is. This makes it accessible and fun for novice pilots that don't want to learn about propeller pitch, fuel mixture and cowl flaps just to get the plane off the ground without blowing the engine up.As long as Flight has the simulator element intact, I don't see the harm in appealing to a wider audience and enlarging the community. Edited January 13, 2012 by flyingscampi

[Arwen 289]

You're correct. There is an incredible amount of potential content for this product and it would be rather silly for MS to have 300 3rd party planes for purchase when they have their cache of planes to sell, not to mention the "Pro Pilot Pack" that makes it a sim. They'd also prefer not to have Orbx scenery for sale when they haven't yet sold the base scenery classes that take one beyond Hawaii. MS isn't going to release free Hawaii only and then have you go buy Orbx to complete the coverages. First you'll have to buy the standard area, then you can buy the upgrade. MS isn't going to let Carenado sell a better 172 until MS has sold theirs first. In other words, first you buy all the components to bring you to FSX(I) level and then 3rd party will be invited to inject their upgrades into the mix. It's no different than it is with FSX. First you buy FSX (and all it's planes and scenery and missions), then you buy add-ons. Flight will be no different in that respect but will be stable, compatible, modern, easy to upgrade, fresh, new, and appeal to (and be installed by) many, many more people than the hard-core folks.

This is pretty much the way I envision Flight progressing.And I enjoyed reading side story. :)