My take on MS Flight... and the future of simming

[torium 207]

I could have stomped off mad, refused to use Flight, and spent my days telling everyone on these forums how bad Flight is . . . just because they didn't make the sim exactly as I wanted them to.But my ego is not that big, and that didn't seem very productive to me, so I went with Plan B:

Why?Because you are solution oriented - focus your thinking on the solution instead of focusing on the problem. Turning one's attention to potential answers is more fun and gratifying than getting sucked into the downward spiral of pity that nearly always goes with concentrating on the problem."You can't depend on external circumstances for lasting happiness. It has to come from inside you."My starting point was subLOGIC Flight Simulator for Commodore 64 - and I became hooked on - "lines and wire frame". My imagination must have been heavenly. :(

You said a worldwide simulator can't work without a SDK (and a Community), and I said it can. You don't need an SDK if you have tools instead.

You're so right.

[sibtiger 0]

In other words, FSX was too intelligent, and that won't do will it? Needs to be diluted for the dumbed down masses like everything else.

Do you really need to insult the wider target audience to make your point? The mass may be ignorant, but certainly not dumb.

Quality products don't happen that way. The late Steve Jobbs has explained this many times, and criticised Microsoft for doing what they do. Quality products aren't born from the clipboard of a market researcher.

Ironic, considering Apple designed their products to be easy to use and dummy-proof. Edited February 12, 2012 by sibtiger

[JasonD210 0]

Do you really need to insult the wider target audience to make your point? The mass may be ignorant, but certainly not dumb.

Not insulting anyone because that audience is not reading this thread - unless you consider yourself to be in that catagory in which case I aplogise..

[torium 207]

Let's just be clear one one thing. Microsoft are trying to appeal to wider audience, and pursuing the new business model of owning add-on and social content, for ONE reason. The reason? To milk as much money as they can out of a predicted, potential market. That is the ONLY reason Flight exists at all. The scary thing is that many people think that is the way product development should be approached. You can see people here at AVSIM supporting it.

What about FSX? Charity?Yes, it's business. Like it or not. Without the shareholders, FS2004, FS9 or FSX would never have been born.Have you ever invested your own real money in developing a product?If MSGS - "milk as much money as they can out of a predicted, potential market" - then the shareholders would be happy - and could invest more $ in MSGS. Do you think it's better for you and me if MSGS losing their money? What then?Quote: - "In 2009, with the economy tanking and shareholders asking increasing questions about fixed costs, Microsoft axed the ACES Studio."Joshua Howard said: -"Microsoft Game Studios is always evaluating its business model to determine what is best for both gamers and the company. Many factors were considered in the difficult decision to close ACES Studio, but we feel the 2009 closure helped us better align with our goals and long-term development plans. "Microsoft Flight" is being developed by many of the same creative minds that shaped "Microsoft Flight Simulator," and we're excited about delivering a new take on this classic franchise."Join the real world - when you don't fly.

[JasonD210 0]

As I said, scary.

[simmerhead 885]

If you have tools that allows the total redefinition of the internal data structures (which can save and load objects you are using a SDK!These tools use an API that a SDK would define, nothing more, nothing less. But if you want to have universal tools they would be very expensive and hard to use, so you normally only offer an SDK!

No, you make it part of the game engine instead. There are countless games where you can build and edit objects and terrain.

[Longranger 148]

No, you make it part of the game engine instead. There are countless games where you can build and edit objects and terrain.

You are wrong. The game engine itself is only the program that interprets this data. For simple things editors are sufficient, but flight simulators are more complex.In fact the planes can have their own programs, that more or less rewrites the whole simulator. How would you adfminister such programs with a simple tool?Conmpared to the data that flight simulators use normal game engines are pretty small and simple.In fact that's the basic problem that flight simulators have: If you would try to use Photo sceneries for the whole planet you won't find a Hard drive that could cope with this amount of data.With such problems you pretty fast reach a point where the user has to know exactly what he is doing..The time efficient simulation of an airplane looks totally different compared to a plane.

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Albert, while you say you don't intend to be insulting, you are implying that those of use who do see some potential for Flight are ignorant rubes, too blind to see the obvious, and that we need some received wisdom to be passed to us from on high......and I find that highly offensive. Some of us like myself have been around for many, many years now and have devoted a large amount of our time in various areas of development. In my case I began with FS98 modeling and gauge/systems programming. I've also spent a significant amount of time learning about scenery, mesh, autogen, and flight dynamics. Most of my time was invested working with my fellow developers to discover new ways to enhance and expand on the base platform's capabilities. In some cases, what we collectively discovered and/or invented was incorporated into FSX and the two Service Packs.I can assure you that I for one am very much aware of what Flight lacks with respect to FS's many iterations. I'm also very much aware that Flight is something entirely new, and it's manifestly unfair to compare the new "peach" with the old "oranges."The great unknown as far as I'm concerned is what MSGS decides to do insofar as the entry path for "Development Partners" and what the cost of admission will be. Until they deign to provide that information, I'll be exploring on my own to see what -if anything- might be possible.In short, I'm not the least bit interested in "what Flight isn't."I'm only interested in discovering for myself what Flight is!

Thanks Bill,Very well put and a near exact mirror of my own thoughts and analysis.Kind regards,

[n4gix 4,961]

Maybe I am blind - so I would be grateful if you could point out where you see the potential of MS Flight as a true successor of the franchise.

Perhaps it's not a case of being blind, but rather a case of unknowingly wearing blinders, so you miss noticing what's on the left and right side views......sort of like the pilot who's so fixated on his instrument scan he forgets to look out the windscreen and see the big honking 747 about to cross the pilot's "T"... :( From simply looking into the internal structure of Flight, it's obvious to me that MSGS is using a "modular approach" to coding the program and ancillary support files.There's no good reason why the DLC has to be limited to "scenery" and "airplanes." There's a distinct possibility that future DLC could be a block of code that adds in ATC to Flight, another block of code to add in AI aircraft, another for "living world," et cetera. Please note that I'm not prognosticating that it will happen, only that the potential for such is provided for... :Idea:Honestly, the single biggest problem with the previous versions of Flight Simulator has always been that the code was a complete mess. Spaghetti may be wonderful to eat, but it is an absolute nightmare for those charged with maintaining, improving, and adding new features while trying to keep a stable codebase! It has long been the case that if you touch one seemingly unrelated bit of code, you ultimately wind up breaking one or more other parts of the program. Before too long you end up with many bugs that you may well never find and stomp out... :Worried:This new approach is brilliant, as it's coding a new, modular, and extensible block system that leverages the existing legacy ancillary support files. By adopting 21st century coding practices, they've now created a core program that can be easily and quickly extended such that it can evolve smoothly to become whatever they decide they want it to be.

[OzWhitey 3,353]

Yes, I became interested in flight once i heard they'd included serious flight modelling. Obviously you don't need this to fly a P51 from the outside.If they've used a block architecture with easy extensibility then the future possibilities are broad. My impression from the videos was that the Flight team were serious aviation fans - they just need the market to support development of more advanced addons.I note also there's often a lot of vitriol directed to microsoft on avsim. Chaps, is it really only me that has derived most (?90%) of my flightsim enjoyment from a microsoft product, for the last 28 years. Thx Bill G! And Steve B - it's good to have MS back in the game.

[carrotroot 77]

The graphics look good, but the real crux seems to be that you are restricted to just the scenery and planes that Microsoft allows you to download. I think consumers coming from fsx and x-plane platforms will probably frown up having their choices limited to them -- I know I do and that is why I have no interest in MS FLIGHT. But for a new user, they will probably be ignorant of the fact that their choices are being limited to them by Microsoft. FLIGHT will probably do well, it should make Microsoft some money, but I'm guessing that it will probably not hold people's interests for very long.

[frankla 45]

I believe the new structure allows for a world simulator not just flight.

[JSkorna 137]

I believe the new structure allows for a world simulator not just flight.

Only if MS releases the scenery for the world.

[Ben Cap 89]

Honestly, the single biggest problem with the previous versions of Flight Simulator has always been that the code was a complete mess. Spaghetti may be wonderful to eat, but it is an absolute nightmare for those charged with maintaining, improving, and adding new features while trying to keep a stable codebase! It has long been the case that if you touch one seemingly unrelated bit of code, you ultimately wind up breaking one or more other parts of the program. Before too long you end up with many bugs that you may well never find and stomp out... :(

Which is what I believe has been fixed with Flight.

[JSkorna 137]

No.