Only google could save Flight now

[c152flyboy 0]

Google is probably the only company that could afford the code from Microsoft, combine Flight with Google Earth, add Sketch up 3D models and make the planet look truly lifelike.

 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Google-can-save-flight-simming/391373234250032?ref=hl

 

if you think that it is a good idea, tell me so on the facebbok page, i know people who dont think it is a good dont need an invatation to say that , lol.

 

Kyle

[xplanery 250]

Google Earth image data has way too many problems for that. You would see a lot of borders between different satellite images that are in different colors, and also a lot of clouds + in many areas general quality wouldn't be that good for low level flying, and I have no idea how much space all that stuff would take, and it would also lack night textures.

[Mountain Man 142]

The problem with Flight wasn't a lack of pretty scenery, it was a lack of features that simulator enthusiasts cared about.

[OMGBBQ32 12]

The problem with Flight wasn't a lack of pretty scenery, it was a lack of features that simulator enthusiasts cared about.

 

Totally.

[rodger 0]

The problem with Flight wasn't a lack of pretty scenery, it was a lack of features that simulator enthusiasts cared about.

 

sorry, but they are all there for me!

[nothingreal 0]

I thought about this as well - Google taking over Flight..

 

It's mainly because google like throwing money at vanity projects though - there's really nothing in it for them to keep it going.

 

What could "save Flight" though.. is an investment in a new development shop which Microsoft would be willing to license (not sell) the IP to...

 

So if some Investor or group (let's just say Paul Allen.. just for giggles) decided that the there was a profitable business to be had in continuing to keep MS' flight simulation legacy afloat -- albeit on an adjusted trajectory (no more cockpit-less airplanes, just for example), it wouldn't be inconceivable that a 50 person development shop could be capitalized and spun up rather quickly and turn Flight into a profitable venture inside of 12 months.

 

It's actually a reasonable business proposition;

- MS Flight Sim (and flight sims in general) still have a large addressable audience - especially if you were to make good on the initial vision of Flight without alienating hardcore simmers.

- the underlying engine already works, it's already making some amount of money, turning the pipeline on again is only going to increase things..

- Multiplayer - typically the bane of game development - is already working smoothly -- better, in fact, that just about anything else.

- Missions.. there are already hooks for missions, and these could become highly profitable micro-transactions.

 

All they'd really need to do is take over development, release a new mission statement, crank out a few desperately-needed patches and start deploying newer, better deluxe aircraft on a monthly cadence, while working on an eventual SDK. -- oh, and take community engagement seriously.

 

I think it could work, if properly executed and given enough time to flourish.

 

Liklihood of this happening? about 1 in 500,000..

[Mountain Man 142]

sorry, but they are all there for me!

 

I suppose I could qualify my statement by saying, "Flight lacked features that the overwhelming majority of simulator enthusiasts cared about."

 

I say "overwhelming majority" with a high degree of confidence on the basis that the project was shutdown less than six-months after its debut. If more enthusiasts cared about the features it offered then it would have been a success rather than a failure.

[HiFlyer 9,332]

I thought about this as well - Google taking over Flight..

 

It's mainly because google like throwing money at vanity projects though - there's really nothing in it for them to keep it going.

 

What could "save Flight" though.. is an investment in a new development shop which Microsoft would be willing to license (not sell) the IP to...

 

So if some Investor or group (let's just say Paul Allen.. just for giggles) decided that the there was a profitable business to be had in continuing to keep MS' flight simulation legacy afloat -- albeit on an adjusted trajectory (no more cockpit-less airplanes, just for example), it wouldn't be inconceivable that a 50 person development shop could be capitalized and spun up rather quickly and turn Flight into a profitable venture inside of 12 months.

 

It's actually a reasonable business proposition;

- MS Flight Sim (and flight sims in general) still have a large addressable audience - especially if you were to make good on the initial vision of Flight without alienating hardcore simmers.

- the underlying engine already works, it's already making some amount of money, turning the pipeline on again is only going to increase things..

- Multiplayer - typically the bane of game development - is already working smoothly -- better, in fact, that just about anything else.

- Missions.. there are already hooks for missions, and these could become highly profitable micro-transactions.

 

All they'd really need to do is take over development, release a new mission statement, crank out a few desperately-needed patches and start deploying newer, better deluxe aircraft on a monthly cadence, while working on an eventual SDK. -- oh, and take community engagement seriously.

 

I think it could work, if properly executed and given enough time to flourish.

 

Liklihood of this happening? about 1 in 500,000..

 

Microsoft does not Google. I suspect they would probably rather walk across a mile wide expanse of broken bottles in their bare feet than do that.

[mgh 89]

If more enthusiasts cared about the features it offered then it would have been a success rather than a failure.

 

That's something of an urban myth. The total number of "enthusiasts" may still have been too small to make Flight commercially viable.

[MrSpeaker 121]

That's something of an urban myth. The total number of "enthusiasts" may still have been too small to make Flight commercially viable.

 

I agree. And I really don't think anyone will be interested in picking up the franchise again. Personally I love anything aviation, but if my job was to make profits for investors I wouldn't touch a flight sim with a ten foot pole, to risky

[LHookins 3,102]

That's something of an urban myth. The total number of "enthusiasts" may still have been too small to make Flight commercially viable.

 

Absolutely agree, and I've been telling people this since the beginning.

 

There's a lot of false concensus going on. "If I'm like this, then most people are." There are a lot of very dedicated simmers out there, but Microsoft was hoping to bring in the non-simmer and get them interested in flying to increase the potential market. This would have been a good thing.

 

Hook

[HiFlyer 9,332]

I agree. And I really don't think anyone will be interested in picking up the franchise again. Personally I love anything aviation, but if my job was to make profits for investors I wouldn't touch a flight sim with a ten foot pole, to risky

 

Despite all evidence to the contrary, the perception remains out there in the wild that we are a large, financially powerful and attractive market.

 

Honestly, If I was Microsoft, I would skip us altogether. If I ever came back to the Aviation market, it would be with a game called Microsoft Combat flight Arcade, or something along those lines, that made it super hyper mega-clear that this market was not the target, and to drive it home, I would post in advance that no planes would have cockpits or anything resembling a flight model.

 

I think they could get a green light on that, using flights discarded assets.

[Mountain Man 142]

The total number of "enthusiasts" may still have been too small to make Flight commercially viable.

 

There is most certainly a viable market for flight simulators as proven by the continued success of a certain competing product that shall remain unnamed. There is not, however, a market for a watered-down arcade simulator like Flight. As I said from the start, Flight would have been a success if it had features that sim enthusiasts actually cared about.

[LHookins 3,102]

There is most certainly a viable market for flight simulators as proven by the continued success of [XPlane].

 

A basically one man company can make a go of it with only a few tens of thousands sales. Microsoft needs millions of sales to even consider development. Their overhead is higher.

 

Hook

[HiFlyer 9,332]

Which is to say (again) that this market alone is probably about as attractive to a company the size of Microsoft as an Edsel.