Multiplayer: Is it just me....?

[Mork 34]

Server browser is a great idea. In the interim, perhaps there is a way to provide session descriptions? Fast-movers may not want a rookie Icon blocking runway touch-and-go fun, and casual flyers who are putt-putting around may not want aggressive warbirds buzzing them.

 

When I start a public session it would be nice to have a short text field where I could enter a few words describing the session. People who are surfing can quickly determine which session is right for them, and hosts will feel more free to eject people who are unclear on the concept for that session.

 

Example of session description: Chase and evade, no crashing, 0.5nm min separation

Great ideas, and it also would be great if the host-session could be transferred to another player when the original host is leaving. Now everybody is switched to his own 'private' session when the host leaves.

[Simmo W 24]

 

Sure, that's a workaround, but even if you have a group of let's say 6 fellow pilots, what are the odds that you are all online at the same time? Sometimes i come home early from work (ok, almost never, but you know what i mean) and i just want to enter a room full of people.

 

A serverbrowser isn't that big of a change i think, so i hope they will do something with it soon.

 

Totally in the same situation! My flight time is unpredictable as my family's movements. It's gotta get better one day. Funny, it'd the gamer crowd they love, but MP is well below their expectations. Have you seen Battlefield 3? Up to 64 players. Not the most peaceful flying though!!

[Mork 34]

Totally in the same situation! My flight time is unpredictable as my family's movements. It's gotta get better one day. Funny, it'd the gamer crowd they love, but MP is well below their expectations. Have you seen Battlefield 3? Up to 64 players. Not the most peaceful flying though!!

Maybe they can increase the maximum player count in the future as well. I can't imagine they are

bound to 16 players because of high bandwidth consumption, so who knows.

In large regions like Alaska 16 planes up in the air is nothing, so i'm all for it.

[HiFlyer 9,343]

Alaska needed missions, badly.

 

The flight model seems to be one of holding patterns between major region releases, and Alaska was a bit of a mixed bag.

 

Without some new and exciting missions, its too easy for casual player interest to wane. It makes me worry about Flight a bit that they would give up the momentum like that. And since the teaser picture for the cockpit they have also been very quiet.

 

I am wondering whats up over there.

[RoboRay 126]

Maybe they can increase the maximum player count in the future as well. I can't imagine they are

bound to 16 players because of high bandwidth consumption, so who knows.

 

MS isn't bound by bandwidth consumption, but the players hosting it may be. MS puts a limit on the number of players because you never know if somebody is trying to host on a 768kbps DSL line. All data from every player seems to pass through the host for distribution to the other players.

 

I wish they would release an actual dedicated server for Flight so we can set our own reasonable limits based on available bandwidth and processing capabilities.

[RoboRay 126]

Alaska needed missions, badly.

 

The flight model seems to be one of holding patterns between major region releases, and Alaska was a bit of a mixed bag.

 

Without some new and exciting missions, its too easy for casual player interest to wane. It makes me worry about Flight a bit that they would give up the momentum like that. And since the teaser picture for the cockpit they have also been very quiet.

 

I am wondering whats up over there.

 

As much as I'm enjoying what we did get with Alaska, it's obviously unfinished. The Missions are missing. The Aerocaches are missing. The Seaplane Bases are missing (ok, they technically exist, but good luck finding one without any visible structures or markings, and they don't have any Jobs). Little to no QA was done on the small airports (yes, there are hundreds of them, but somebody should have been tasked with taking five minutes to look at each one for obvious defects like 100' spruces 5' off the end of the runway). Some airports and towns are reported to be completely missing. Some airports are in the wrong location, apparently placed where Bing/Google Maps POI flags say they are instead of where actual aeronautical charts correctly say where they are, several miles away from the in-game location. Obvious terrain mesh/texturing defects exist (although I haven't encountered any myself, I have seen lots of pictures), but that is somewhat understandable due to the sheer size of the area covered. There was no update to the weather engine to reflect temperature, pressure and humidity effects...

 

I could keep going, but that's enough. It's clear Microsoft is simply not allocating the resources a product like this needs. If the plan is for Flight to bootstrap itself, funding it's own development through DLC sales rather than Microsoft investing in the program, my doubts about it's future grow. I think even "three scenery releases a year" may be a bit of a stretch for the Team's available resources. Alaska can be finished, but it's going to require a concerted effort.

 

On the other hand, if they do consider Alaska finished and are just moving on to the next scenery, then Flight is finished.

 

And that would be a shame. Because with all that Flight fails to attempt, what it does do it does better than anything else.

[arsenal82 120]

As much as I'm enjoying what we did get with Alaska, it's obviously unfinished. The Missions are missing. The Aerocaches are missing. The Seaplane Bases are missing (ok, they technically exist, but good luck finding one without any visible structures or markings, and they don't have any Jobs). Little to no QA was done on the small airports (yes, there are hundreds of them, but somebody should have been tasked with taking five minutes to look at each one for obvious defects like 100' spruces 5' off the end of the runway). Some airports and towns are reported to be completely missing. Some airports are in the wrong location, apparently placed where Bing/Google Maps POI flags say they are instead of where actual aeronautical charts correctly say where they are, several miles away from the in-game location. Obvious terrain mesh/texturing defects exist (although I haven't encountered any myself, I have seen lots of pictures), but that is somewhat understandable due to the sheer size of the area covered. There was no update to the weather engine to reflect temperature, pressure and humidity effects...

 

I could keep going, but that's enough. It's clear Microsoft is simply not allocating the resources a product like this needs. If the plan is for Flight to bootstrap itself, funding it's own development through DLC sales rather than Microsoft investing in the program, my doubts about it's future grow. I think even "three scenery releases a year" may be a bit of a stretch for the Team's available resources. Alaska can be finished, but it's going to require a concerted effort.

 

On the other hand, if they do consider Alaska finished and are just moving on to the next scenery, then Flight is finished.

 

And that would be a shame. Because with all that Flight fails to attempt, what it does do it does better than anything else.

 

================================

A SIM without any form of sdk available to the public - is a very very restricted sim !! Period !!!

[RoboRay 126]

I don't have a problem with the initial lack of an SDK, so long as there is one planned down the road. You can't put together an SDK for an unfinished product. Even though it's being sold, it's remarkably stable, and is relatively bug-free (gaping holes in Alaska DLC notwithstanding), the actual state of Flight's development is more akin to an advanced Alpha than even a Beta. There is still an awful lot of core functionality that needs to be added to Flight, and you can't produce an SDK until that is finished, or the next version of the core product may invalidate parts of the SDK as new features are added.

 

They said we might see an SDK in two years. If Flight's ongoing development returns to what we got at launch... Solid scenery, enjoyable content, good airplanes... I'll wait two years for an SDK because MS is on the right track. The previous Title Update adding TrackIR and Toe Brakes shows that they are listening to us and will incorporate things we say we want, even after they insisted their target audience doesn't want those things.

 

If we get another steady stream of useless remote-control toy planes and more half-baked scenery expansions, there may not be many people still wanting a Flight SDK in two years.

[Bobsk8 12,545]

As much as I'm enjoying what we did get with Alaska, it's obviously unfinished. The Missions are missing. The Aerocaches are missing. The Seaplane Bases are missing (ok, they technically exist, but good luck finding one without any visible structures or markings, and they don't have any Jobs). Little to no QA was done on the small airports (yes, there are hundreds of them, but somebody should have been tasked with taking five minutes to look at each one for obvious defects like 100' spruces 5' off the end of the runway). Some airports and towns are reported to be completely missing. Some airports are in the wrong location, apparently placed where Bing/Google Maps POI flags say they are instead of where actual aeronautical charts correctly say where they are, several miles away from the in-game location. Obvious terrain mesh/texturing defects exist (although I haven't encountered any myself, I have seen lots of pictures), but that is somewhat understandable due to the sheer size of the area covered. There was no update to the weather engine to reflect temperature, pressure and humidity effects...

 

I could keep going, but that's enough. It's clear Microsoft is simply not allocating the resources a product like this needs. If the plan is for Flight to bootstrap itself, funding it's own development through DLC sales rather than Microsoft investing in the program, my doubts about it's future grow. I think even "three scenery releases a year" may be a bit of a stretch for the Team's available resources. Alaska can be finished, but it's going to require a concerted effort.

 

On the other hand, if they do consider Alaska finished and are just moving on to the next scenery, then Flight is finished.

 

And that would be a shame. Because with all that Flight fails to attempt, what it does do it does better than anything else.

 

Well, I will be flying Flight as it is then, because I would rather have 5 root canals with no Novocaine, than go back to FS9 or X, and the bugs and crashes, and fortune one has to spend in add ons to make it 1/2 way flyable. There is nothing else out there as far as PC sims that gives me the sensation of flying, like Flight, and I have tried them all. If Flight fails, I seriously doubt if we will ever see another Sim developed by a company and survive.

[RoboRay 126]

Oh, I'm not likely going anywhere. I do intend to give Prepar3D a good hard look now that I know how to patch a DLL to trick TrackIR into working natively with it (without paying for any additional third-party software to hack support together), but I honestly don't expect anything significantly different from FSX in the "sensation of flight" category, as ESP-based code is ESP-based code.

[HiFlyer 9,343]

Oh, I'm not likely going anywhere. I do intend to give Prepar3D a good hard look now that I know how to patch a DLL to trick TrackIR into working natively with it (without paying for any additional third-party software to hack support together), but I honestly don't expect anything significantly different from FSX in the "sensation of flight" category, as ESP-based code is ESP-based code.

 

Prepare3D just feels like a stop-gap to me for people desperate for a "Fixed" FSX. We have tried tweaks and miracle cures and faster processors and better graphics cards and pretty much exhausted all the available possibilities with little to show for it.

 

Some say they see better results and most are just waiting to see the light while the rest of us wonder about placebo effects and bandwagons. For me right now, Prepare3D is what you do when you run out of options.

 

I would place Flight ahead of that for potential......... If the flight team had the resources to compete, which is a question that is up in the air.

[Bobsk8 12,545]

Oh, I'm not likely going anywhere. I do intend to give Prepar3D a good hard look now that I know how to patch a DLL to trick TrackIR into working natively with it (without paying for any additional third-party software to hack support together), but I honestly don't expect anything significantly different from FSX in the "sensation of flight" category, as ESP-based code is ESP-based code.

 

$200 for Prepar3D is a tad more than Flight. Would be nice to see some screen shots. I saw some posts about "stuttering" and how to reduce it on their forum. That' sounds creepy.....

 

Prepare3D just feels like a stop-gap to me for people desperate for a "Fixed" FSX. We have tried tweaks and miracle cures and faster processors and better graphics cards and pretty much exhausted all the available possibilities with little to show for it.

 

Some say they see better results and most are just waiting to see the light while the rest of us wonder about placebo effects and bandwagons. For me right now, Prepare3D is what you do when you run out of options.

 

I would place Flight ahead of that for potential......... If the flight team had the resources to compete, which is a question that is up in the air.

 

 

MS has some pretty deep pockets, certainly more than Lockheed, I would think. I also think that if they release a product and people start immediately burning them at the stake citing every little flaw that the initial releases have, they decide that the hassle factor is not worth it and move onto something else that has more earning potential and less grief. Look at how long it took them to fix issues with previous sims, sometimes years, and not just MS.

 

Looking at their forum, I see reports of crashes, things not working, aircraft losing power, etc,etc.. Looks like a Beta report more than a finished product.

[RoboRay 126]

Prepare3D just feels like a stop-gap to me for people desperate for a "Fixed" FSX. We have tried tweaks and miracle cures and faster processors and better graphics cards and pretty much exhausted all the available possibilities with little to show for it.

 

Some say they see better results and most are just waiting to see the light while the rest of us wonder about placebo effects and bandwagons. For me right now, Prepare3D is what you do when you run out of options.

 

I would place Flight ahead of that for potential......... If the flight team had the resources to compete, which is a question that is up in the air.

 

Yeah, we're on exactly the same page. I'm just going to look at it as an alternative in case MS pulls the seemingly little support they give Flight now. It's effectively FSX under the hood, but at least it's getting updates.

 

$200 for Prepar3D is a tad more than Flight.

 

I currently fall within the criteria of the $50 Academic license. :p0304: I do need a good bit of refresher training, as I'm thinking seriously about getting back into flying.

[HiFlyer 9,343]

MS has some pretty deep pockets, certainly more than Lockheed, I would think. I also think that if they release a product and people start immediately burning them at the stake citing every little flaw that the initial releases have, they decide that the hassle factor is not worth it and move onto something else that has more earning potential and less grief. Look at how long it took them to fix issues with previous sims, sometimes years, and not just MS.

 

Not doubt immaturity reared its ugly head in copious amounts. I know I will never see this community in the same way again. At the same time, Microsoft has been staggering around with the type of finesse one normally associates with half-blind and seriously wounded water-buffalo rather than the aggressive marketing and surefooted stride towards a goal normally seem in a modern mega-corporation.

 

The only ones plodding along doing their jobs as best as they can seems to be the flight team itself. They are producing what appears to be exemplary (work given the circumstances) but I repeat that from the outside it appears that they are not being given what they need to succeed.

 

I am not even sure anyone knows exactly what success in this case even looks like, but the lack of apparent numbers on multiplayer just after a major release is not what I want to see.

[FrankFasi 0]

This site?

 

http://msflights.net/

 

Thanks, yes, that's the one I was thinking of.