And, I would add that it is surprising to see so many people clamoring for the return of these same developers when just six years ago they were disparaged on this forum for their "bad coding" and their "poorly conceived" program.

:(

Microsoft Game Studios did not eliminate all the ACES Developers; in fact, many of the principal developers that worked on FS X have also developed Flight. And, I would add that it is surprising to see so many people clamoring for the return of these same developers when just six years ago they were disparaged on this forum for their "bad coding" and their "poorly conceived" program.

True and Ironic. Five yrs ago most wanted their heads on a platter! Now their Gods?

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by Barnstormer1

True and Ironic. Five yrs ago most wanted their heads on a platter! Now their Gods?

As a software developer myself, I certainly would not be proud if I had worked on FSX. However, we don't know what constraints were put on ACES, so I am not knocking their effort. At least now we have something that has been around for six years and we'd rather use it than the new kid on the block.OTOH, Flight appears to be a great implementation of a terrible design philosophy.

And, I would add that it is surprising to see so many people clamoring for the return of these same developers when just six years ago they were disparaged on this forum for their "bad coding" and their "poorly conceived" program.

Bad coding is one thing, gutting the sim is quite another. :( You not too far gone on the Flight bandwagon to understand this (well maybe you are). That's like out of the frying pan into the oven. You know you can't compare the two. That being said Aces could have done better if they would have been communicating to the other areas of Microsoft as to where things were with Vista. Some may not remember like FS2k2 was to Windows XP , FSX was to Vista DX10 which Aces had to back pedal out of when Vista went on hold. Although FSX was compatible with XP the sim was to correspond with Vista. The same goes for hardware, Aces was developing single core compatible software when the world was moving toward multi-core hardware. Aces could have done allot better with FSX but to say after efforts like FS2k2 and FS2k4 we were wrong for pushing the same team is crazy. Aces has always had bad versions of FS as innovation was evolving only to end up with a stellar version once the dust settles.

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by Dillon

View PostLuisFelizTirado, on 09 February 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:Whether you choose to download the free basic module of Flight is entirely up to you, but if you do and are a systems management simmer who prefers pushing buttons to flying, then you will certainly be disappointed. Because Flight is about flying. About holding your game controller in your hands at all times and flying the airplane all the time.Another false dichotomy. The really neat thing about FSX is "leave no flying enthusiast behind". There was no need to lobotomize FSX. It is perfectly feasible to develop both the scenery and button-pushing aspects of simming as was already demonstrated in FS9.

Yes the beauty of a "complete" flight sim software is that you can switch easily between fly by wire airliners and ultralights.

I've been reading lots of bickering, entertaining at times, and actually feeling some of the anger with regards to MS Flight and its incomplete, yet eminent release. How can I be excited about a new sim that is really NOT a sim? How can I support a company that fired it's old team, then told us that there would NOT be another sim? How can I consider buying a toy software from a company that never cared enough to fix FSX? HOW? They can't possibly think I'm going to fall for it again.

Exactly!I'm not angry about it but I refuse to be suckered into this farce called "Flight"! Afer all is said and done, this is a flight sim site...... not a gamining site!

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by JoeD

All them statements are written by a legal/mareting department and can be interpreted in any fashion reguired. They mean nouthing similiar to a political statement.

What Planet do you live on where people believe political statements are the truth or can be trusted. I want to live there!! :(

For those of us who like to fly, Microsoft Flight is what FS should always have been. And we, and many, many people who love flying and have always dreamt of it, will enjoy it immensely.Best regards.Luis

Wow, that's some elitism there... So, basically, "get stuffed" if you like: IFR flight and procedures, flying complex and heavy aircraft, flying long haul, simulating things that exist in reality, etc.Gotcha... only stick and rudder need apply.Well, glad you guys will have your toy to play with.

What, you can't stick fly the A2A Cub in FSX? Please...

+1

Aces was developing single core compatible software when the world was moving toward multi-core hardware.

I agree with you generally, but FSX was already to far along on single-core development bu the time multi-core was evident to be able to switch.Lack of proper multi-core CPU and GPU support, and an unfinished finished DX10 is why it's so sad MS gave up on FSXI. There was so much opportunity for improvement on the already great program FSX is, with the advantage that all of these improvements would have preserved add-on compatibility.Cheers,- jahman.

@Luis, are you speaking from experience as a beta tester? or just a fan of a product you have yet to experience for yourself?I'm a beta tester and I am finding it difficult to have a desire to even fire it up for testing...(and I've even got unlocked content already that isn't in the FREE download)..So what does that tell you?

Edited February 10, 201214 yr by russellbdavis

I agree with you generally, but FSX was already to far along on single-core development bu the time multi-core was evident to be able to switch.Lack of proper multi-core CPU and GPU support, and an unfinished finished DX10 is why it's so sad MS gave up on FSXI. There was so much opportunity for improvement on the already great program FSX is, with the advantage that all of these improvements would have preserved add-on compatibility.Cheers,- jahman.

I agree 100%.FSX could have been improved past SP 2 or Acceleration. For those with a short memory, Acceleration was an additional purchase. I think I paid about $90 for FSX + Acceleration. It wasn't cheap. This is for a product that I could NOT use until years later. Then what? It was dismissed!This new version MS Flight can't even be like the Flight Unlimited Series. FU II & III were imersive with dynamic ATC and weather. I haven't read anything that makes this new product worthy of consideration.

Edited February 10, 201214 yr by DJJose

FSX could have been improved past SP 2 or Acceleration

I keep wondering perhaps if they had not released SP2 and everyone would have had to go the payware route of Acceleration, then maybe the ACES revenue numbers would have looked better, they might not have gotten fired and today we would all be simming in FSXI (again more revenue for MS).... sigh.Cheers,- jahman.

Edited February 10, 201214 yr by jahman

I don't know that poor sales of Acceleration were the reason for their demise. I think that they, AGAIN, released an unfinished program (poorly coded) that would run terribly on most systems. That scared a lot of people. 6 years later and users are still having problems, even with the latest hardware.

Edited February 10, 201214 yr by DJJose

So what does that tell you?

It simply tells me that we all have different styles of flying that we enjoy, none of which makes anyone's style "better" or "more realistic" than anyone else's.I'm certainly not going to ridicule anyone's choices for their enjoyment. Some folks like tea, others prefer coffee, both are beverages however... :(