J. Howard Joshua Howard Interview with AVSIM

[g_precentralis 191]

Agreed, but keep in mind the huge - really huge - financial meltdown that occured in 2008 and continues on to some extent through today.That and how the market has changed so much since development of FSX, with more and more going to digital downloads and delivering content/updates that way.Obviously they made enough on the FS franchise to continue on through several iterations, however I do believe they had some shakeup at it's core during all that time , maybe perhaps that had something to do with the franchise not being quite as profitable as they would like? Just pure speculation on my part there of course.

That makes sense.Every single product on this world can be more profitable. Question is just with how much money developer would be pleased, and do you want to collect all potential money or you want to allow someone else to earn some money. Dont get me wrong, every mode I made or im making for any software is/will be free, but there are people earning money for living. I think MS's business model is just selfish. :)

Yes, we can rewrite the history after the fact. But when FSX was released, the reaction was that it was sluggish and this certainly hurted the sales and the profitability figures where probably just not there. Probably MS made an internal inquiry to determine what was wrong on this product (when things goes wrong you dont trust 100% what your product manager tell you) and they realized that the development team have put so many features in it that even at low settings, it cannot turn on current machines.

Actually reaction was normal, they promised so much but most work been done to graphically improve FS. And performance was freaking bad.Apparently, MS overlooked (intentionally or not) that 3pds is actually guys that sales their FSX product, so they awarded them with no SDK for flight. How fair is that?

[tom79 6]

I agree that FSX shoule be GA/VFR/Bush aircraft based, I think the largest aircraft in the game should be REGIONAL Aircraft, such as an ERJ195 or CRJ 900 at the absolute largest, this would allow everyone to get what they want.I personally like this list:Cessna Corvails TTxBeechcraft Super King Air 350iBeechcraft Baron G58Bombardier Q400 / ATR 600Embraer E175/195Canadair RJ-900this list gives plenty of difference in flying, all are capable of doing passenger/cargo/medical in Flight, they range from Piston - Turboprop - Turbojet, and all can fit into the "Flight" world.

+1BUT what I really hope for is the Twin Otter that was already hinted at. A turboprop STOL aircraft makes so much sense for Hawaii/Alaska.I want to do lots of difficult landings on small airstrips.

[tom79 6]

... And I am also very pleased to see that this has finally turned into a discussion with people debating over individual points instead of everone shouting their opinion and running away afterwards.

[Arwen 289]

You're assuming FSXI would require the same amount of resources to make as FSX.

No I'm not. I rarely assume anything.My comment was: "Microsoft certainly has the resources to invest in a full civilian flightsim," but I didn't give my definition of what I meant by "a full civilian flightsim." So your reply was based on your definition, not mine. Flight could still be a "full civilian flightsim" (by my definition) without including scenery that covers the entire planet. There is nothing wrong with the way that Flight is being marketed: release the core part for free, with a very small amount of scenery and a few light aircraft, and expand that base through DLC (payware). This market strategy does however rely on producing enough DLC fast enough to keep the momentum going (the interest in Flight) . . . and I don't believe that will be possible without bringing in third party developers.Where Flight currently fails as a "full civilian flightsim" (based on my definition), is that it doesn't include enough of the simulation parts that flight simmers expect/demand in a full flightsim. If MS would add AI traffic, ATC, Stress Damage, and Real World Weather, Flight would then qualify as a "full civilian flightsim" (for me and perhaps for most others here). And they don't even have to add these features all at once . . . I would be thrilled if they just added the ability to get ATIS reports, or included Stress Damage when they release the next update. [Personally I will be very surprised if icing and carb heat are even modeled when the Alaska Pack comes out.]The problem is not that Flight includes gaming aspects (which are needed to attract more games). The problem is that Flight doesn't include enough simulator aspects (which are needed to attract simmers). Flight needs both groups . . . neglect either one, and I believe that Flight will fail. Based on Howard's answer: "When we consider the broad feedback we are getting, it’s fair to say that much deeper simmer functionality is not at the top of our list," they are apparently going to continue to woo gamers and neglect simmers. Yes, he also said that they plan to expand the simulator aspects at some point in the distant future. But will Flight survive long enough for that to ever happen?

[Faire 0]

I agree with that. If the next big DLC won't come with something for simmers it will harm the reputation badly - even when I take into account where it stands now :) And it would be a shame, they were able to do amazing things on the sim side, when they were allowed to invest their time in them.

[Guest Antlab]

I'm still trying to think of a way to make a career mode really compelling long-term. Where you can use your achievements to unlock things other than liveries or access to the next mission. But I need to think a little more over it.In the meantime, being an adventure guy, I wish for something like that in Flight too. I mean, a mission pack that has a real story line instead of isolated missions. Some aspects of it could be:

• The story could be non-linear (i.e. you decide first what you want to achieve and the world changes depending on what you've already achieved)
• it should make some use of the free-walk mode
• maybe you could also drive a car/boat/donkey in sections of those missions (thinking of the FScene Beagle missions for FSX)
• you need to fly to places, pick up things and bring them to other places
• it needs to have monkeys and pirates in it... :LMAO:

Something like that. It's not very refined yet...but hey, the MS people can also do something for their money.

Your ideas can be nice, the true problem for MS is that in that field, as Arwen and others said, Flight can't really compete against more rich games. Look at this video, from Just Cause 2, concerning flying over a tropical island and achievements, and consider if a casual gamer will have a doubt choosing between it and Flight:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1y9URSSdwI&feature=fvsrA

[japascoe 98]

No I'm not. I rarely assume anything.My comment was: "Microsoft certainly has the resources to invest in a full civilian flightsim," but I didn't give my definition of what I meant by "a full civilian flightsim." So your reply was based on your definition, not mine. Flight could still be a "full civilian flightsim" (by my definition) without including scenery that covers the entire planet. There is nothing wrong with the way that Flight is being marketed: release the core part for free, with a very small amount of scenery and a few light aircraft, and expand that base through DLC (payware). This market strategy does however rely on producing enough DLC fast enough to keep the momentum going (the interest in Flight) . . . and I don't believe that will be possible without bringing in third party developers.Where Flight currently fails as a "full civilian flightsim" (based on my definition), is that it doesn't include enough of the simulation parts that flight simmers expect/demand in a full flightsim. If MS would add AI traffic, ATC, Stress Damage, and Real World Weather, Flight would then qualify as a "full civilian flightsim" (for me and perhaps for most others here). And they don't even have to add these features all at once . . . I would be thrilled if they just added the ability to get ATIS reports, or included Stress Damage when they release the next update. [Personally I will be very surprised if icing and carb heat are even modeled when the Alaska Pack comes out.]The problem is not that Flight includes gaming aspects (which are needed to attract more games). The problem is that Flight doesn't include enough simulator aspects (which are needed to attract simmers). Flight needs both groups . . . neglect either one, and I believe that Flight will fail. Based on Howard's answer: "When we consider the broad feedback we are getting, it’s fair to say that much deeper simmer functionality is not at the top of our list," they are apparently going to continue to woo gamers and neglect simmers. Yes, he also said that they plan to expand the simulator aspects at some point in the distant future. But will Flight survive long enough for that to ever happen?

Ah, that clears things up a lot. Even so it's not only about having the resources, but also about allocating them where they will generate the greatest ROI. For now it would seem Microsoft has decided (unfortunately) that investing in sim features will not generate a sufficient return. It seems that Microsoft does not agree with you that simmers are necessary to make Flight a succes. Personally given how it's remained rather under the radar in general gaming areas I'm inclined to agree with you that simmers will be important to Flight's succes. On the other hand according to Mr Howard Flight is doing better than anticipated. I guess time will tell who is right.

[dburne 2]

If MS would add AI traffic, ATC, Stress Damage, and Real World Weather, Flight would then qualify as a "full civilian flightsim" (for me and perhaps for most others here). And they don't even have to add these features all at once . . . I would be thrilled if they just added the ability to get ATIS reports, or included Stress Damage when they release the next update.

Just curious,Were things such as this nature much discussed between the beta users and Flight team, or were they pretty much off limits and discussion all related to observations of the current product as it was only? I hope it is ok to ask this, I presume it is as the NDA was lifted after release?

[Arwen 289]

Were things such as this nature much discussed between the beta users and Flight team, or were they pretty much off limits and discussion all related to observations of the current product as it was only?I hope it is ok to ask this, I presume it is as the NDA was lifted after release?

We were only asked not to discuss our experiences with the beta until after Flight was released on Feb 29th (and the NDA ended).The simulator aspects were discussed a LOT on the Microsoft Flight Beta Discussion board (and still are).My first post there, which I wrote on Jan 6th, included the following:"For Experienced (Hard-Core) Flight Simmers: Flight NEEDS ATC, AI planes, a Flight Planner, a Detailed Weather System (that can be based on real world weather). Include these things and Flight will attract flight simmers … in a BIG way. If it is not possible to add them in the free version, offer them as DLC (and advertise that they will be available as future DLC).""For Gamers and Less Experienced (or Casual) Flight Simmers: Flight seems to be focusing mostly on Aerocaches, and Achievements, and Awards; which make it way too arcade-like (look at the way that this month’s promotional video was so poorly received). The Instructional Flights, Procedural Missions (like perfecting landings, under various conditions) and Job Board are where Flight really shines. Expand and improve these three areas (before releasing), and Flight will stand a much better chance."My thread was fairly popular, and we had a pretty good discussion about this. The majority of the beta testers who replied agreed with my suggestions . . . but MS apparently didn't.

[tom79 6]

Your ideas can be nice, the true problem for MS is that in that field, as Arwen and others said, Flight can't really compete against more rich games. Look at this video, from Just Cause 2, concerning flying over a tropical island and achievements, and consider if a casual gamer will have a doubt choosing between it and Flight:

Hmmm...interesting. What's the game about?I googled the title and went on the game's official site. But I only see a guy standing on a Harrier shooting into a cockpit. After spending two minutes on the site I still see no word about the actual gameplay.So in which way do you think does this appeal more to gamers?

[dburne 2]

My thread was fairly popular, and we had a pretty good discussion about this. The majority of the beta testers who replied agreed with my suggestions . . . but MS apparently didn't.

Ah ok, so by that I take it these " suggestions" did not get a lot of feedback from the developmental team, ie - yes we know and hope to implement xxx soon, etc...Thanks,

[Guest Antlab]

Hmmm...interesting. What's the game about?I googled the title and went on the game's official site. But I only see a guy standing on a Harrier shooting into a cockpit. After spending two minutes on the site I still see no word about the actual gameplay.So in which way do you think does this appeal more to gamers?

I actually never played Just Cause titles. I found some references to them by searching for discussions about MS Flight. Several people write they would like that modern flight simulators had the graphics of Just Cause. So, for curiosity, I went to Youtube, and found many videos on JC and flight scenes.Wikipedia says that in JC2 "the player is free to roam the game's open world, not having to focus on the game's storyline".By comparing that sort of videos to Flight, I think that a casual gamer could think:- The graphics is much better, and actually I think they use DX10, so no compatibility with Win XP- The world seems more lively, they can interact (actually destroy :-)) boats, cars, and probably other things.- There is some plot behind, instead than disconnected missions.So, in summary, I think that the characteristics quite resemble some of your ideas, but implemented in a more decise way, and more appealing to the eye.And consider that this is only one example of similar games, I sincerely I am not expert of "open world" games, as GTA, but if you search for videos you will find plenty of them.I remain convinced that Flight, with outdated graphics and quite poor content, can't compete in that direction. I hope some assets developed for it can become the basis for a new more serious simulator.A.

[tom79 6]

I actually never played Just Cause titles. I found some references to them by searching for discussions about MS Flight. Several people write they would like that modern flight simulators had the graphics of Just Cause. So, for curiosity, I went to Youtube, and found many videos on JC and flight scenes.Wikipedia says that in JC2 "the player is free to roam the game's open world, not having to focus on the game's storyline".By comparing that sort of videos to Flight, I think that a casual gamer could think:- The graphics is much better, and actually I think they use DX10, so no compatibility with Win XP- The world seems more lively, they can interact (actually destroy :-)) boats, cars, and probably other things.- There is some plot behind, instead than disconnected missions.So, in summary, I think that the characteristics quite resemble some of your ideas, but implemented in a more decise way, and more appealing to the eye.And consider that this is only one example of similar games, I sincerely I am not expert of "open world" games, as GTA, but if you search for videos you will find plenty of them.I remain convinced that Flight, with outdated graphics and quite poor content, can't compete in that direction. I hope some assets developed for it can become the basis for a new more serious simulator.A.

OK, my time as a gamer kid is long gone, but let's pretend I am one:Just Cause2----------------Assuming I have heard from a friend how awesome it is instead of looking at this dull website, I want it because:

• cool graphics
• can blow up stuff
• maybe I have even heard about the cool story

However, I'm not gonna get it, because this is not for kids (rated 15-18 depending on country). My parents are not gonna buy it, because they are good parents and care about what I do on the computer. I'll probably play it over at some friend's house who has less caring parents. 2 players, 1 sale. Probably good enough for the producer.Flight-------Seen this somewhere, I can acutally download it for FREE, don't need permission from my parents for that. So have it on the computer. I'll start to evaluate it:

• can circle around hot air balloons, wondering what the gunsight is for
• maybe chase some gold coins, still wondering what the gunsight is for
• maybe do a mission, still wondering...you get it

At some time, I'll get bored and want something more exciting. So,a ) I want to buy the P-51, because I think the gunsight is there for some reason. Must nag dad for Microsoft points. Maybe dad sees Flight and thinks ("Hey this is cool. But what's the gunsight for?"). Could get dad interested. Dad inserts credit card details and buys P-51. Big disappointment because gunsight still useless. I'm frustrated and will remove the game unless dad still wants to play it. FAIL!b ) I decide to buy the Hawaii Adventure pack instead of P-51. Adventure sounds cool, right? Will probably be disappointed that the adventure pack doesn't really contain anything like the title suggests. Just more islands and some missions/challenges like the free ones. I'm frustrated and will remove the game unless dad still wants to play it. FAIL!c ) I don't decide to buy the Hawaii Adventure pack because it's pooly advertised so that it doesn't give me a compelling reason to want it in the first place. FAIL!Old Tom says:There's certainly something wrong with the concept of Flight. Must be done better!But I also think that there is potential and that it can be done better.PS: Last post for today. See ya all tomorrow!

Edited March 23, 2012 by tom79

[styckx 1,872]

Did something happen after this interview? It's been four straight days since a word from them about anything was said.. How do you go four straight days without saying something for a release that's just 3 weeks old? I follow, and have followed a lot of official game and simulator pages and MS Flights has to be the least active one by leaps and bounds. I've tried staying excited about Flight but it seems they are hardly excited themselves.

[EagleSkinner 36]

Really? Funny that I've always thought keeping the engine running was a bit more important... :shok:How silly of me... :acute:

Obviously not a glider pilot, Bill. ;)But to the topic on hand - I really enjoyed the interview and you are to be commended on your questions,Tom. The answers may not appeal to the hard core simmer, but then again - nothing has been lost and we have gained a new "flying programme".So back to business...