J. Howard Joshua Howard Interview with AVSIM

[Great Ozzie 101]

What really could make this a more real "flightsim" is simply to add "real radio communication" and ATC - and checklists to use them.

There is nothing simple about adding "real radio communication" unless you get a friend to do this for you.What is preventing you from making your own checklist? I did this for a number of RW aircraft where I was not satisfied with what was actually stowed in the aircraft. I am using my own "custom" checklist now for a BAV flight in the PMDG 74F in FSX.

[MacGoose 0]

There is nothing simple about adding "real radio communication" unless you get a friend to do this for you.What is preventing you from making your own checklist? I did this for a number of RW aircraft where I was not satisfied with what was actually stowed in the aircraft. I am using my own "custom" checklist now for a BAV flight in the PMDG 74F in FSX.

Well, either you don't get it or you don't want to get it. I don't want no role playing game. I don't sit on a chair and close my eyes pretending to fly talking to a friend that sits on a another chair pretending to be the ATC. Then I wouldn't need a computer. I talk about "real radio communication" and ATC as they where in previous MS flightsims with for example multiple choice - hence the use of "" in "real radio communication". I want to be able to "chat" with the tower and wait for ok to take off and land. This also means that I would very much like for the sky and ground to be populated with other computer controlled aircrafts too.I understand that the Flight team don't want to create a sim but an arcade flying game with a sim like feel to reach a wider mass. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the first step into getting flightsims onto consoles like the xbox. I love what they have done with Flight but it seems unfinished when compared to earlier flightsims.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Well, either you don't get it or you don't want to get it.

Let's back it down a notch or two...

[MacGoose 0]

Let's back it down a notch or two...

Sorry. That was a bit over the edge. But suggesting that I make a friend play ATC or radio felt a but rude. Maybe it wasn't intended to be, but it felt like it. Especially since ATC and "radio messages" have been used on a previous versions of ms flightsims with greate success in my opinion. And just swiping it off by having a friend pretent to be the ATC is not innovative. However, beeing the ATC in-game in multiplayer, now that would be cool - if implemented correctly.Again, sorry. But ATC is something I feel very strongly about.

[tom79 6]

I think your points make good sense, I quite agree with them.Only one remark: I did not know about the age restriction for JC, and actually I was thinking about more mature casual gamers. Also because if you consider the potential public under 15, you have other different competitors for Flight. Many kids probably will consider the broomstick of Harry Potter and the little colorful planes of Wii Resort (with the added benefit of the movement based controls) much more exciting than the Icon or the Maule flying over Hawaii for burger works.

You're probably right. But that was only the story for gamer kid. The stories for gamer youngster, gamer kid's dad or science club kid may look totally different.I still don't get who MS are actually targeting with Flight. Maybe they have no exact opinion either and use the current release as a field test to see how different people react and adjust the content in the direction that seems most promising to them.I should point out that the scenarios described in my last post are not total failures for MS. In two of them MS gains at least some cash in return, plus a registration for Games for Windows Live along with dad's credit card details, which makes the next purchase for gamer kid a lot easier, even if that is not for Flight.

[dburne 2]

Again, sorry. But ATC is something I feel very strongly about.

And apparently you are not certainly alone in that regard if you go by the recent poll results elsewhere on this forum.I have a feeling we will most likely see both atc and some level of ai craft come along before too long...

still don't get who MS are actually targeting with Flight. Maybe they have no exact opinion either and use the current release as a field test to see how different people react and adjust the content in the direction that seems most promising to them.

I think you are probably pretty close on there.My guess is they have put this core product out for free, to " reel in " a very large audience to give it a try - neat way of marketing a demo really - then additionaly put a little DLC out there available immediately to see how many purchase versus how many downloaded the product.Certainly with the ecosystem they can observe the flight habits of many, but this early on I doubt they can really get a good picture of what is going to be successful versus what is not - as they add more and more time goes by , things will start showing a pattern - kind of a common demoninator- and they will start to get a image of which direction they maybe should take. With the system setup such as it is, I would think they could react to any changes in direction without any major complications...

[mgh 89]

And apparently you are not certainly alone in that regard if you go by the recent poll results elsewhere on this forum.I have a feeling we will most likely see both atc and some level of ai craft come along before too long...

At the time of posting all of 138 members had responded to the poll. From those there were 86 votes for ATC and 96 for AI planes, cars, birds, other signs of life. Hardly an impressive demand is it?

[tom79 6]

You do understand that 'serious simming' is not entirely focused on airliner operations right?There are many people using FSX for GA flying utliizing RXP GPS type addons and in many cases actually using a sectional and charts for VFR or IFR flights in GA type aircraft.I have personally used this scenario for practicing cross country routes long before I got anywhre near to flying them in real life, including differing weather conditions for wind correction practice etc.So in summary, no, I dont believe Flight is great for GA/VFR/IFR simmers. At least not those who want to be able to customisze the experience and add in options such as RXP GPS units etc.I certainly do not consider this usage to be any less (in fact it is more so) 'serious' than someone wishing to pretend they are an airline captain.

Yes, I do understand that there are serious GA simmers. And many of the aspects I listed apply to both GA and tubeliner flying. I made a reference to the tubeliners because most of the criticism against Flight seems to come from the people who fly the heavies.But, if MS were to implement all the features required for serious GA simmers I would have to ask myself: What's the benefit of having yet another serious/hardcore sim on the market? Don't the serious simmers already have FSX/P3D/XP10?I would like to see Flight stay focused on the GA/VFR/Bush niche and keep the sim easily approachable for newcomers. And I bet many of the FSX/XP 3PDs want to keep that the same.

[dburne 2]

Hardly an impressive demand is it?

Unless you look at it as a percentage of the total voting and extrapolate those numbers from there. Granted may be too small a number of voters for that to be very accurate however, but obviously those two items are high up on the desire list by those who did vote.

I would like to see Flight stay focused on the GA/VFR/Bush niche and keep the sim easily approachable for newcomers. And I bet many of the FSX/XP 3PDs want to keep that the same.

Certainly an interesting take on a direction for Flight...

[RoboRay 126]

At the time of posting all of 138 members had responded to the poll. From those there were 86 votes for ATC and 96 for AI planes, cars, birds, other signs of life. Hardly an impressive demand is it?

Actually, those numbers are adequate to perform a valid statistical analysis of the responses. They indicate that ATC and AI vehicles are highly desirable to those members of the AVSIM Forum who feel sufficiently motivated to answer the poll.

[Spartan0536 49]

its not so much that GA flying is that much easier than commercial flight (yes there are plenty of differences and if we had to do what real pilots do we would not play at all). However the appeal of GA/Regional Aircraft is they GENERALLY have less complex avionics than the heavies do. The other appeal is maneuverability and the fact that GA aircraft can land in a multitude of runways that larger jets simply can't thus opening up more of the world (see what I did there :P) . There are lots of great GA and Regional aircraft to fly, hopefully the DLC picks up like their "personal regions" are on fire.

[g_precentralis 191]

 

I would like to see Flight stay focused on the GA/VFR/Bush niche and keep the sim easily approachable for newcomers. And I bet many of the FSX/XP 3PDs want to keep that the same.

Thats fair, but they have to improve flight to that level to enable serious GA/VFR/Bush flying.AI is much more required for GA traffic that for airliners where you cannot see aircraft anywhere near you (only at airports)We need out of envelope realistic behaviors, and realistic CG, and some restrictions for overweighted aircrafts (as I see in this forum, you can fly overweighted without any problem). We need better documentations for aircrafts. We need simulated atmosphere with in depth customizations and RL wx depiction.And the most important, we need much wider areas, Alaska is just fine, but I (and many others) prefer to fly in my own country, so we need that SDK for free (to be able to make our own scenery). Real map is nice, but not too important since we have skyvector and even ability to print the newest sectional charts.I think in this way flight would still be frendly for beginners/gamers, but acceptable for "hard core simmers" :)Sincerely, the forum cockroach.

[mgh 89]

Actually, those numbers are adequate to perform a valid statistical analysis of the responses. They indicate that ATC and AI vehicles are highly desirable to those members of the AVSIM Forum who feel sufficiently motivated to answer the poll.

AVSIM has over 70,000 members. 136 is are less than 0.2% of them so their views are statistically unimportant in thems of influencing Microsoft.

[dburne 2]

 

(as I see in this forum, you can fly overweighted without any problem).

Allright now, ok, that is enough. I will be the first to admit, yes I am a little overweight and really need to get some of it off, especially with the health issues I have had of late. But I should be able to fly in Flight with no problem irregardless!!

AVSIM has over 70,000 members. 136 is are less than 0.2% of them so their views are statistically unimportant in thems of influencing Microsoft.

Perhaps statistically they are not so important, but from what I hear the Flight Team are very interested in the feedback in this forum and do visit it to view the feedback that is being presented here... so it at the least does carry a little importance for them to take the time to do so.

[Oracle427 45]

AI is much more required for GA traffic that for airliners where you cannot see aircraft anywhere near you (only at airports)

If a realistic level of traffic were modeled to mimic the amount that I observe flying just outside or below the NY class B on weekends, then there would be relatively little AI traffic to see.The TIS shows a lot of contacts, but they are usually far away, unless I get near an airport or a VOR.Sadly, many of the small airports have so little traffic, that you would think all humans have perised. It is spooky when I land at one and don't see a soul. Nothing moves until I call for fuel and then it's just one guy running out to move the hose and then run back inside somewhere.Except for the traffic I immediately around airports or the large jets flying overhead at higher altitudes and at high speed, there isn't much to "see". However they are extremely active on the radio and it's hard to get a word in with approach some days. You know they are there if you listen.Frankly, with people in multiplayer frequently choosing to buzz around airports or some other point of interest, it seems to replicate real life in a way. I think if the servers were hosting much larger games, this would be even less of an issue.This is based on my GA experience and clearly does not apply to airliners at busy airports.