J. Howard Joshua Howard Interview with AVSIM

[tom79 6]

I think no one really asked for PMDG quality aircrafts and ORBX quality scenery for whole world.

So if MS made a tubeliner for Flight comparable in system-depth to the FSX default planes, would you buy it?

[g_precentralis 191]

So if MS made a tubeliner for Flight comparable in system-depth to the FSX default planes, would you buy it?

No, I would not. I would wait for PMDG quality one. But, because they ruled out 3pds, they have to do high quality addons themselves

[tom79 6]

Although I don't know any numbers, I can imagine that MS already made a bigger profit on that VC-less P-51 than PMDG did with the NGX.I don't see a PMDG-grade aircraft coming to Flight. They don't have the right people, they don't have the right image, they have too much overhead cost to do it.

[LHookins 3,113]

But, because they ruled out 3pds, they have to do high quality addons themselves

A lot of their high quality content wasn't made in-house. Read the credits.Hook

[tom79 6]

Something like a Dash-8 would be as far as I would go into the direction of an airliner.Anything bigger or faster doesn't make sense to me with the current and upcoming scenery.

[Attila 2]

How do you know that?

Because, JH said as much in an early interview, where he said that they decided to release it now instead of letting it age, as he put it. Doublespeak for having to release it early and unfinished.

[dburne 2]

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.

Well if you go by JH's comments regarding the initial release, it has exceeded their expectations in the numbers department. Now whether that overall appeal remains with future content remains to be seen.I think they are just painting with a much broader brush with this release and strategy , and hope to appeal to sufficient enough numbers of both casual gamers and serious flight simmers, to vastly grow the market for their civilian flight sim.I can say for this serious flight simmer - Flight has appealed to me - surprisingly so.

[dburne 2]

But in that way there is no profit (damn capitalism). I guess money is more important than tradition at М$.

Ahh how often have we heard that sentiment in today's global economic environment... :smile:Seriously though, tradition without sustainable profit gets them nowhere. Any company in business producing a product, eventually has to answer to the bottom line. And if the profit is not there - eventually - that product will go away.I myself am pleased that MS made the decision to bring on and create a team to develop another iteration in the civilian flight sim genre, especially considering their ROI < return on investment> for a venture such as this will probably be very small, especially in the early going, and really especially as compared to some of their other products.And obviously they recognized that any decent chance for a good ROI in today's market, requires capturing a much larger market for the product, rather than just the really serious flight simmer. I certainly think they hope to capture a certain number of the latter, while recognizing a certain number they will not.

[RoboRay 126]

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....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).

That is also what I appreciate about Flight and where I would like to see it go.

[g_precentralis 191]

And obviously they recognized that any decent chance for a good ROI in today's market, requires capturing a much larger market for the product, rather than just the really serious flight simmer.

This can be trap for them, someone said " you cannot please everyone". They know that for sure and thats the reason to get rid of some potential customers they trying to do.Beside that if previous model didnt worked well, they would stop developing FS franchise much earlier. I guess they had positive ROI with FS9 when they decided to continue to FSX on same business model.

[dburne 2]

Beside that if previous model didnt worked well, they would stop developing FS franchise much earlier. I guess they had positive ROI with FS9 when they decided to continue to FSX on same business model.

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.

[Stijn 21]

Well if you go by JH's comments regarding the initial release, it has exceeded their expectations in the numbers department.

Would you expect him to say the opposite? He's got to sell his product.

[kama2004 74]

Then you look at the other side of the street and see another company with 50 people making 50*X million per year. You want your 50 people to make more money. They were cashing in before, but greed is a powerful motivator for some people, even to the point of betting the farm by wiping out a profitable crop and plant something entirely different in the hopes of hitting the jackpot.

Maybe, thats what business do usually i.e. trying to get the maximum return on the money invested. Then they think : What is the best way to change my business model using all the know-how that I have developped in house for a long time. How they can reach the conclusion that they have to dismantle the whole team and wait several years to return with a different business model ? This could be done with the existing team just by changing the focus.

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.

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.That is probably what undermined the credibility of the development team at this time (and would explain also why the current development team is so obsessed by making sure that the product will run smoothly on lower end machines). When you realize that your development team have developped something so complex that it cannot be sold, youre certainly not inclined as management at letting them pursue FSXI development. MS management at that time was probably seen FSX as a "developper/programmer" trip disconnected from reality. The decision to dismantle the ACES team was took in that context. Not on the expectation of future sales without further development cost to support.Even 20 000 copy of fsx a 50 $ only makes 1 million which is small money for the endeavour to develop a new upgrades software.

[Spartan0536 49]

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.

[LHookins 3,113]

Would you expect him to say the opposite? He's got to sell his product.

As a matter of fact, I would. If the numbers were poor, he wouldn't lie about it, he'd just avoid the issue.Hook