you are a Dev? Do you work for MS?

 

Yes, I am a software developer, which is why Gareth's post hit my rant button. He hit on a topic that gets me riled up, and while I normally keep my mouth shut on these types of threads I couldn't help myself today =)

 

I don't work for MS or even in the game industry, just a man that enjoys Flight.

That kind of customer feedback is in every business, and even in 1 on 1 personal relationships. Have you seen the cartoons about developing a tire swing?

http://global-4-lvs-colossus.opera-mini.net/hs24-05/11444/0/-1/varoliiblog.com/Why-I-am-in-Business.jpg

:)

 

but yeah, i bet your industry is especially bad because of the scale and the already existing social network. Where as something like a new lawn mower model isnt going to garner as much vitriol because how many lawnmower blogs and message boards are there? ha!

@vonBobo (and all others who are moaning about Flight not being FS11): what if Flight had been released by Aerosoft or whatever other company and NOT by MS... Just think about that for a while.

Down this path leads to the dark side - or perhaps a padlock on the thread. I 'flew' both Flight and FSX today, since I was after different things from each session - and got what I wanted. FS2004 disc lives in the drive, for when needed. They all seem to work fine. I haven't had to break up any fights on the desktop.

 

Mike

@vonBobo (and all others who are moaning about Flight not being FS11): what if Flight had been released by Aerosoft or whatever other company and NOT by MS... Just think about that for a while.

i would be hoping that ms would learn a few things from flight and use it to make fsnext better.

i would be hoping that ms would learn a few things from flight and use it to make fsnext better.

 

May be MS cannot make fsnext: Lockheed Martin had purchased FSX. fsnext is Prepar3D. Correct?

MS haven't taken anything away from you. You still have FS2004, FSX and all the add-ons, don't you?

All that's changed is that FS is now accessible to people who want a slick, fun flying experience without having to tweak the software ad infinitum...

 

In my opinion this is a common mistake, often repeated by some Flight lovers.

Actually, if one consider the normal developing software landscape, MS HAS taken away much from the simmers.

More precisely, they killed a series with 30 years of important history, undoubtedly the most important in this sector. You know very well that in PC computing 6 years are a very long period, and obviously with more years passing, more obsolete FS9 and FSX will become.

Concerning the moon on a stick, many people would have simply liked a normal progression, nothing SCI-FI. Better graphics, possibly the resolution of FSX performance problems, and some advancements, as a more "Intelligent" ATC. For the rest the architecture was really solid, with a lot of aircraft, the whole world, many interesting missions, the flying school and a lot of other things, sorely missing in the new Flight.

You can also consider those lunar dreams, in the meantime many people are searching for serious alternatives, and I suspect that in this period Laminar should be quite happy about the market data.

 

A.

 

May be MS cannot make fsnext: Lockheed Martin had purchased FSX. fsnext is Prepar3D. Correct?

 

Not, but since here on AVSIM we are not free to discuss the complex questions related, I have to invite you to search the real answer, sorry. (hint ESP =! FSX)

 

A.

May be MS cannot make fsnext: Lockheed Martin had purchased FSX. fsnext is Prepar3D. Correct?

woops, looks like I broke the prepared club rule of "you don't talk about prepared club". Would be even doubly bad posting in this forum "you don't talk bad about Flight club". :Peace:

I will pay good money for a moon on a stick payware add-on, but only if it has a VC, and it will need the rudder as well as the stick.

 

Al

i would be hoping that ms would learn a few things from flight and use it to make fsnext better.

 

Well, stop hoping: there won't be an FSNext. MS has closed that book and won't open it again. There may however be an interesting updated/evolved MS Flight in the far away future...

 

fsnext is Prepar3D. Correct?

 

Wrong. P3D is FSX with a few fixes. P3D 2.0 might be interesting, though, but nothing is for sure yet about 2.0.

Remember when Microsoft shut down the flight simulation team? We thought it was over. There was no promise of a future. Microsoft had done all they were going to do as there was (apparently) no where else to go. Then they gave us Flight. Many of us are happy to have this and have the older ones which gave us the world to fall back on. Microsoft has given us the best and now they are offering something different. I'm thankful.

OK, no fsnext. There are 40000 users plus a lot of add-ons developers. Why this FS community cannot develop an open compatible platform with a core using current CPU's and GPU's?

Well, stop hoping: there won't be an FSNext. MS has closed that book and won't open it again.

 

This is all you had to say? Do you even realize that after your hypothetical alternate reality question, and your flippant attempt to put me in my place, you actually ended up reiterating the exact reason why I am frustrated with MS?

 

Please return to your game pad.

OK, no fsnext. There are 40000 users plus a lot of add-ons developers. Why this FS community cannot develop an open compatible platform with a core using current CPU's and GPU's?

 

I can think of at least three platforms that fulfill these requirements. Do you really want a fourth one?

There are 40000 users plus a lot of add-ons developers.

 

Unfortunately, 40,000 users isn't enough to pay development costs on FS11, which is why Microsoft went the direction they did. Four hundred thousand wouldn't have been enough, and maybe not even four million.

 

Hook