Given that any numbers can be interpreted to support anyone's position, and the degree of polarization in this community, the only thing I'm interested in is if Mr. Howard and Microsoft think Flight is successful, because they're the ones who will be making the decisions to go ahead or cancel Flight.

In the end, no one outside Microsoft has enough information to make an informed opinion.

 

Actually the only real numbers we have at present are the public Steam statistics (Live for some reason doesn't release them) and the percentages easily extracted from the opinions on the web. And these numbers, combined, seem indicate a quite precise situation.

You are however right about the fact that the fundamental thing for the future of Flight will be the reaction of MS to the data, but I hope you know enough about PR strategies to realize that we probably will not know it directly by some interviews

 

A.

I hope you know enough about PR strategies to realize that we probably will not know it directly by some interviews

 

I've been around a long time and have been bullshat and lied to many times. I've been in situations where I knew the truth and watched the lies being told. I have even been on the inside and seen lies being told to the outside. And yes, I've studied business and marketing. I've dealt with sociopaths who are extremely good liars and will tell a lie when the truth would serve them better. I'm very sensitive to lies being told, and can usually spot them quickly.

 

Had Flight been failing at the time, or expected to fail, Mr. Howard wouldn't have said it was doing better than expected, he would have avoided the subject. I'm guessing you've noticed how good they have been at avoiding subjects, as it's pretty hard to miss.

 

There's another interpretation that would be that Mr. Howard expected Flight to fail catastrophically and it was only failing badly. But managers don't let themselves get into the kind of positions where they're leading a failure, as it affects their future opportunities.

 

Mr. Howard said it was doing better than expected, they had to expect it to at least break even and maybe make a small profit. Therefore, Flight is succeeding. Maybe not wildly, but succeeding nonetheless.

 

Hook

There's another interpretation that would be that Mr. Howard expected Flight to fail catastrophically and it was only failing badly. But managers don't let themselves get into the kind of positions where they're leading a failure, as it affects their future opportunities.

 

Mr. Howard said it was doing better than expected, they had to expect it to at least break even and maybe make a small profit. Therefore, Flight is succeeding. Maybe not wildly, but succeeding nonetheless.

 

That's makes sense. But then a question arises: what does your lie-meter detects about the declared (by Howard) motivation to kill the successful FSxx series to gain millions of new users with Flight?

 

A.

That's makes sense. But then a question arises: what does your lie-meter detects about the declared (by Howard) motivation to kill the successful FSxx series to gain millions of new users with Flight?

 

You'll have to quote the passage you're referring to. And quote a bit around it as well to give it context. A link would be good, and a general location to look within the link.

 

Hook

So where's the part about killing the successful FSxx series?

Uh, yeah. You're adding editorial slant there and then stating that it's what the interviewee said.

 

Is this the Today show?

Everyone wants to believe what they want to believe, and many even think their opinion matters.

 

As it generally doesn't I'm out of here, off to fly a VOR intersection or two :)

 

Laters...

Two posts by the same person were just removed from this thread for breaking the MS Flight Forum posting rules. The poster was told to not post in the Flight Forum whatsoever for 30 days. If he does, he will be suspended from AVSIM for the same length of time.

It might make more sense to think of the Hawaii DLC as being the entire product, with Alaska and follow-ons as expansion packs. You wouldn't wait for the final expansion pack in a series to be released before buying the base product, would you? You could be waiting years as in the case of The Sims 2. The Sims 3 hasn't issued the final expansion pack yet and is already a few years into production.

 

If you're worried that Microsoft will cancel Flight development because no one will buy their "expansion packs", well, I think we all considered that at some point. You're still getting the entire product at any point, so you haven't lost anything.

 

If you're waiting for Flight to become a drop-in replacement for all of FSX plus all third party content... you'll be waiting a very long time. If you're actually hoping that Flight will fail and Microsoft will decide to make FS11 instead, just keep in mind that the first condition makes the second one impossible. If Flight fails then Microsoft is out of the flight simulator business for good. But don't worry, it won't fail. It's already successful, according to interviews with Mr. Howard... "better than expected." Will Flight grow into something recognizable as FS11? Give it a few years. In the mean time, enjoy it for what it is.

 

Hook

+1 totally agree and effective examples.

Allow me some additional remarks: IMHO, a legal and in this uncertain times quit a logical production choice: not launching just one (1) product (e.g. FSX2),

but choosing for their company/section-continuity by launching MSF in a chain sale.

If it becomes reasonable successful (financial), it gives more raison d'être for the company over a longer time (in this case for the MSF-team).

At least modeling whole world in same quality that it has been done in Hawaii & Alaska would be practically impossible. Even if they did some areas in a bit lower quality it would still take years with this release rate. And in terms of graphics Flight is already a bit outdated, in some years it will look like absolute rubbish when compared to its counterparts.

in terms of graphics Flight is already a bit outdated, in some years it will look like absolute rubbish when compared to its counterparts.

 

If Flight were a box release with two updates and it was done, you'd be right. But with the current DLC model, we'll be getting program updates and enhancements for the life of the product. We already know this for certain because the developers have said so in response to questions about how Flight would handle performance when we have additional complexity.

 

Hook

I would like to greet you all, I have finished for ever my activity in this forum due to obvious reasons but I'll be in the PMDG one and in many other world forums

 

Cheers

If Flight were a box release with two updates and it was done, you'd be right. But with the current DLC model, we'll be getting program updates and enhancements for the life of the product. We already know this for certain because the developers have said so in response to questions about how Flight would handle performance when we have additional complexity.

 

Hook

Its not that easy to just first release core product and then do major overhauls to graphics engine later by releasing them as updates or DLCs. It would mess things up pretty much and would be really take lots of work. What Flight graphically looks now will be pretty much what will it look also in future. Idea of the DLC model is they releasing DLCs as addition for this game, not making any major changes into its basic structure.

 

But during maybe 1 to 3 year lifetime I expect Flight to have it should look good enough.

Its not that easy to just first release core product and then do major overhauls to graphics engine later by releasing them as updates or DLCs.

 

Flight doesn't need a major graphics overhaul, just a few incremental improvements.

 

The graphics aren't perfect, but are more than adequate for a flight sim. A few places need touching up.

 

Hook

I also wondered if MS would keep on working on the graphic engine or not. And I also think that what we have now is about it. When I think of enhancements I think of things like ATC, AI, etc. The problem with graphic engine updates or changes is that the system recommendation would change and that would be a bit odd. Usually you don't see huge graphic enhancement in games unless they call it version 2 or 3. It would be a bit scary too because changes are forced upon you: you HAVE to accept every update. Suppose there comes an update to the graphic engine that makes Flight run okay on only the fastest available systems... That wouldn't be nice! I already wonder how new DLC and enhancements will make the game run slower...

 

BTW I don't think the graphics look outdated at ALL but maybe that's because I myself am a bit outdated... I think they look great!!! I don't think you should compare Flight with other games like first person shooters or racers or whatever because the scenery in Flight is meant to be looked at from an airplane and not close up like in an fps.