J. Howard Joshua Howard Interview with AVSIM

[Guest russellbdavis]

Doesnt make sense to me. I remember that the ACES team was dismissed at some point in the past. This reality is inreconciliable with your point of view that FSX was a very profitable franchise. Very profitable franchise just goes on business as usual. They are not disbanded and abandonned for years ...Why they want to cash in right now (as you say) if they were already cashing in with the previous business approach.... They shut down the whole thing several years just to be able to make more money now ???? Well, thats an opinion but I certainly dont share it...

That's the point, FSX and FS9 have been selling non-stop since ACES was closed. Just because they shut down the development team doesn't mean the product hasn't continued to sell. Plus, there are dozens if not hundreds of 3PDs making a living through addons. This is a very healthy business, one that Microsoft hasn't been the benefactor. So, the only way to redirect the funds back to the company, is through something new that does not allow the existing 3PDs to participate. This way, Microsoft reaps the benefit and not the sim addon developer community. If Microsoft did not see the potential to rake in the money all for themselves, they would not have spent the time and effort to produce FLIGHT. Why else would they go after a "failed" franchise, if that is what you are trying to say? That would be foolish.

[dburne 2]

Agree with you on this Arwen. I think Flight is entering an identity crisis. If the developers concentrate on the gaming angle without enhancing the simming capabilities I doubt that Flight has much of a future.

Ok so Flight has been out what little over 3 weeks now, the next DLC is not release yet, and it is already in an identity crisis? How can this be?I am still the glass half full guy - look most of JH's comment were non commital - of course they were, that is what they do. Going into reading that interview, that is what I expected. They have the ecosystem they can literally change pace in a moment's notice. Or darn near close. They are trying to reach a larger audience - good for them, this flight sim hobby of ours needs more people, lots more people. Especially the civilian flight sim market. I for one do not want to see it dwindle away and die. A glass half full guy, or gal, can go back and read that interview - and I have - and see positive stuff in there for the flight simmer. A glass half empty guy, or gal, can likewise do the same and see negative stuff in there. One thing is for sure though, no one is going to read that interview, and be totally happy with everything that was said. JH did his job well in that regard.I would say to anyone, whatever category you happen to fall in, keep the faith - don't give up on the project. The foundation IS there, and it really is an incredible foundation from everything I have seen. Support Flight any way you feel comfortable doing so - whether it is nothing more than sending Feedback to the Flight team of your dissapoitment, why you were dissappointed, and what you would hope to see in it in the future - respectfully of course, - to donwloading the product and buying the dlc, and everything in between. But it does need all our support, for hope for the future. We never even thought 3 short years ago there would even be another flight sim developed by MS. The economy is still not that great today, not at all yet, they have put together a team, and produced a new civilian flight sim. Not one everyone would like, but it is there for sure - a long way from where we were in early 09. We may all have a little, depending on our tastes determimes how little, short term pain for hopefully long term gain.But keep the faith. It's all we have, that and a pretty cool new program we can knock around the Hawaii Islands with for some fun in the sun... and from what I hear Alaska soon as well...

[Coralon 0]

MS handling addons via the GFWL market place is no different to XBOX live arcade or iTunes or any other number of similar business models that have become the norm in recent years... long after the advent of previous incarnations of MSFS and the way that 3pd is done and marketed. The issue of users accessing this content is trivial and should not even be raised a month after a title is released. As for how MS works with 3pd in the future I am sure that is between those developers and the title publisher as a licensing issue and will be nutted out in the future after MS have fully discovered how and why Flight is being used.Give it some time guys, its not Flight that could turn new community members away; its the vehemence of the community in its ragging of the product. Trust me, I am new to both ;)

[ahuimanu 50]

That's the point, FSX and FS9 have been selling non-stop since ACES was closed. Just because they shut down the development team doesn't mean the product hasn't continued to sell. Plus, there are dozens if not hundreds of 3PDs making a living through addons. This is a very healthy business, one that Microsoft hasn't been the benefactor. So, the only way to redirect the funds back to the company, is through something new that does not allow the existing 3PDs to participate. This way, Microsoft reaps the benefit and not the sim addon developer community. If Microsoft did not see the potential to rake in the money all for themselves, they would not have spent the time and effort to produce FLIGHT. Why else would they go after a "failed" franchise, if that is what you are trying to say? That would be foolish.

Don't forget freeware, it was/is an important part of the pipeline.

[Bert Pieke 7,592]

And many simmers (like me) are already getting bored with the lack of flightsim content. If they expect Flight to last, it is the simmers who they now have to start wooing, yet based on Joshua Howard's answers, they seem to be doing the opposite. I've supported Flight, but I'm not going to keep supporting it unless there's some definite indication that more flightsim aspects will be added at some point. And I think a lot of current users have similar feelings about Flight.

Well said! I feel exactly the same way..

[AzureWX 0]

If anyone is looking for a beacon of hope for 3rd party support, there is a precedent using the LIVE architecture. Games created using Microsoft's XNA studio can be sold on the Xbox 360 after passing certification by other 3rd party developers, while a similar system exists for creating and selling user-generated add-ons for Rock Band 3 via LIVE called the "Rock Band Network."

[Tierborn 197]

Agree with you on this Arwen. I think Flight is entering an identity crisis. If the developers concentrate on the gaming angle without enhancing the simming capabilities I doubt that Flight has much of a future.

no way its an "identity crisis" .... They seem to be very clear on where they are headed. Its only a crisis to you, not microsoft.

[tom79 6]

This just begs for a (new) title "FLIGHT - ATC" (or add-in as you say) where aspiring (sim) controllers could do precisely this with FLIGHT pilots.

+AmenMaybe not a paid DLC, but they could just add the old FSX multiplayer tower view back to the core.

Amen! That and expand the total number of players to 40 or 50. Let the "tower" host the session...

+Amen

Actually I have an idea, that maybe could make happy the different categories of users.I must confess that is almost stealed from X-Plane, but with some (important) differences.I read somewhere, but I don't have precise data, that revenues from the simplified mobile versions of X-Plane are helping Laminar to continue and refine the development of the main sim platform.At present for MS there is an obvious problem: the phone/tablet market is dominated by Apple and Android, so there is a clear conflict of interests. But it seems that one of the strong points of the next Windows 8 will be just a sort of "unification" between the different type of platforms (PC, tablet, phone and so on). If this is true, MS could expressely devote Flight as a simplified "game" for mobile and casual users, without the need to add too much complexity (ATC, AI, AP and so on). At the same time, they could think, as EA decided with Simcity, to develop a real successor of FSX. Another source of additional revenues could came from DLC, but I see them in "parallel" with other independent developers, that should be free as they were with FSX.The possible benefits I see for the operation would be:- Sinergy between Flight and Windows 8 for gaining acceptance on the mobile gaming platforms, where MS at present is weak- Loyal customers and external developers would be happy to have a new serious sim platform, with moder features for graphics, physics and so on- MS would have several sources of revenues: Windows 8 and Flight (base and/or) DLC on many platforms. FSXI (BASE and DLC) on PCWhat do you think about the idea?Please remember this message in the future: if MS copies the scheme, I will surely ask for royalties :-)A.

Hey, Flight for mobile certainly sounds nice. Don't know if they can make Flight run on ARM architectures but it would certainly generate some revenue.I'm just not too sure if that revenue would be invested into the development of FSXI.

[tom79 6]

is there a non-serious sim market? Surely, a sim, by definition is "serious" (unless, of course you are talking OMSI (a bus simulator) or the Sims (not a joke!)..I think Flight IS a sim, just not a) finished; and B) whether it wants to or not, is being compared to its' older brother. It suffers greatly from the first, and perceivably from the second (depending on where you stand in the whole Flight vs FSX "debate".If it isn't a sim, and it isn't a game (by that I mean that "hardcore" gamers would find it somewhat lacking in the "game" department), then what is it? Not a challenge to anyone for another ten pages of discussion, but simply a question (to MS even)

Hm, maybe I should make clear what I associate with serious simming:

• trying to model reality as close as possible, including the boring parts that RW pilots wish they could skip
• flying IFR with SIDs/STARs
• one hour preflights
• extensive flight planning
• VATSIM
• airport ground services
• enjoying loooooong cruise flights

As the saying goes: A pilot's job consists of hours and hours of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terrorI like Flight for ripping out the hours of boredom and giving me only those with sheer terror (thinking of the RV gold coin challenge for example). When I want to do the points mentioned above, I can simply fire up FSX/X-Plane.I have multiple sims on my hard disk and enjoy them all, as they all fulfill slightly different purposes. But trying to make Flight like one of those sims would render another one redundant and probably get removed from my hard disk. And I have a feeling that would be Flight then, because the open architecture of the other sims make them more flexible thanks to 3PDs, leaving nothing to wish for.I don't think MS should make a PMDG-grade 777 for Flight. I wouldn't buy it.Why? Because a PMDG-grade T7 is already being made by...PMDG...for FSX (and soon X-Plane I guess).I think Flight should focus on the GA/VFR/Bush fun flying niche and keep the amount of overlap with the tubeliner-sims as small as possible. Of course they can make the aspects of what they simulate in Flight as realisitic as possible (regarding aerodynamics and such).But I like the idea of Flight as an easily approachable sim that draws more people into this hobby. And those people can move on to other sims when they grow in experience. And of course, us old simmer folks can enjoy it as well (at least I do a lot). But we shouldn't try to get MS into making Flight a new FSXI.

Word is not intended to be a serious flight simulator and neither is Flight.

LOL, I suppose you missed the hidden flight sim in Excel97 then. Guess it failed because it didn't have a VC...

[Stijn 21]

Ever since FSX was released, the software scene has shifted from having software on your own pc to software on demand, clout and other applications where the software is controlled by the publisher. MS follows the same track with Flight. Remember JH saying that Flight allowed them better insight into user behaviour? Flight is small fry for MS in comparison with its main revenue sources. Having axed ACES, axing another game is not a problem for them. They are a huge company and the only reason why they would invest in a small game is to get their hands on user data. In addition, they want control over all 3rd party revenue generated by their software. It's Microsoft's right to design Flight the way they want to, no question about it. But it's also the customer's right whether to go along with MS or not. We can request MS to add functionality to Flight, but MS is completely free to decide whether to act on those requests. It's then up to each user to make up his/her mind. This is a free market, right?In comparison with the game market, flightsim is a small niche. I can understand perfectly that investing into this market is not worth the effort for MS - there are far more lucrative things for them to do. However, to a smaller company like Laminar, Aerosoft or xxx, this nice market may be sufficient.

[tom79 6]

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.

[trevorbee 0]

I think Flight should focus on the GA/VFR/Bush fun flying niche and keep the amount of overlap with the tubeliner-sims as small as possible. Of course they can make the aspects of what they simulate in Flight as realisitic as possible (regarding aerodynamics and such).But I like the idea of Flight as an easily approachable sim that draws more people into this hobby. And those people can move on to other sims when they grow in experience. And of course, us old simmer folks can enjoy it as well (at least I do a lot). But we shouldn't try to get MS into making Flight a new FSXI.

Yep, with you on this, tubeliner-simms should be a seperate game.

It's Microsoft's right to design Flight the way they want to, no question about it. But it's also the customer's right whether to go along with MS or not. We can request MS to add functionality to Flight, but MS is completely free to decide whether to act on those requests. It's then up to each user to make up his/her mind. This is a free market, right?

Absolutely, at the end of the day, if Flight does not provide me with the rich flying experience which I would like (including challenges and missions, no problem with that) then I will not purchase the DLC. There are heaps of other things I can do with my time.

[japascoe 98]

So how did FSX ever get made?Microsoft certainly has the resources to invest in a full civilian flightsim.The problem with the current gaming content focus, is that I'm not convinced that it will actually draw in enough gamers. And many simmers (like me) are already getting bored with the lack of flightsim content. If they expect Flight to last, it is the simmers who they now have to start wooing, yet based on Joshua Howard's answers, they seem to be doing the opposite. I've supported Flight, but I'm not going to keep supporting it unless there's some definite indication that more flightsim aspects will be added at some point. And I think a lot of current users have similar feelings about Flight. Yes, the initial investment will be higher, but their marketing approach will work just as well with a full flightsim (actually I believe that it would work better).

You're assuming FSXI would require the same amount of resources to make as FSX. Based on the development of the game industry in general and the improvements called for in FSXI (PMDG quality default planes! Whole world Orbx quality scenery!) I strongly suspect that developing FSXI would cost much more, perhaps even several times as much as developing FSX. Most of the improvements to FSX that could entice FSX users to switch (better graphics, better flight models, more systems fidelity) could only be developed at the cost of more man hours. If FSXI would cost more than FSX to develop it follows that it must also sell to more people in order to make the development a profitable proposition. Adding in more game elements to achieve that market growth might be possible, but it would also mean even more resources need to be invested.Whether or not Flight will appeal sufficiently to the gamer market I don't know, but from Microsoft's strategy it would appear that, by their calculations at least, appealing just to the simmer market is not sufficient for them to recoup the required resource investment.In the end there are two important questions:1. Does Microsoft have the required resources? Probably yes, certainly if they pulled people off other products2. Will the product sell enough to earn back the money invested and make a profit? Microsoft's actions point to the answer (according to Microsoft) to this question being no. Yes past versions of FS were profitable, but past versions of FS were also cheaper to develop.

[xplanery 250]

Yep, with you on this, tubeliner-simms should be a seperate game

Naah, I believe that one flight simulator should be able to simulate all kinds of flying machines like FSX does. But Flight certainly is not made for big planes so it can remain as seperate GA simulator, but if MS ever plans to release simulator with big jets and whole world, its really not big job to also include all smaller planes to it.

You're assuming FSXI would require the same amount of resources to make as FSX. Based on the development of the game industry in general and the improvements called for in FSXI (PMDG quality default planes! Whole world Orbx quality scenery!) I strongly suspect that developing FSXI would cost much more, perhaps even several times as much as developing FSX. Most of the improvements to FSX that could entice FSX users to switch (better graphics, better flight models, more systems fidelity) could only be developed at the cost of more man hours. If FSXI would cost more than FSX to develop it follows that it must also sell to more people in order to make the development a profitable proposition. Adding in more game elements to achieve that market growth might be possible, but it would also mean even more resources need to be invested.

Yeah, I cant see how seriously improved new whole world simulator would be possible with old code and stuff that FSX & Flight use. Its also impossible to model whole world with very high quality. They could either make most flown areas like USA, Western Europe, Australia and such in very high quality, and then rest of the world like FSX, with maybe better mesh and texture placement but mostly generic, and then third party devs could add coverage for those areas too.Or, other possibility would be completely new way of doing the world, maybe little like how its done in X plane 10.

[g_precentralis 191]

You're assuming FSXI would require the same amount of resources to make as FSX. Based on the development of the game industry in general and the improvements called for in FSXI (PMDG quality default planes! Whole world Orbx quality scenery!) I strongly suspect that developing FSXI would cost much more, perhaps even several times as much as developing FSX. Most of the improvements to FSX that could entice FSX users to switch (better graphics, better flight models, more systems fidelity) could only be developed at the cost of more man hours. If FSXI would cost more than FSX to develop it follows that it must also sell to more people in order to make the development a profitable proposition. Adding in more game elements to achieve that market growth might be possible, but it would also mean even more resources need to be invested.

I think no one really asked for PMDG quality aircrafts and ORBX quality scenery for whole world.If you look FS franchise from FS2000, default content is only there to demonstrate what can be done with FS engine, and because of fact that you cannot sell just engine without any content. So they could concentrate resources to engine update for FSXI and to leave same content from FSX or 9 with SRTM mesh, and publish SDK for 3pds. But in that way there is no profit (damn capitalism). I guess money is more important than tradition at М$.Note for admins, you should update your word correction system, this one is broken, its trying to change М$ into Microsoft.