Some info from Mathijs Kok on flights demise.

[HiFlyer 9,343]

I know that feeling.

 

But nowadays before I add anything major on FSX I either do a System Backup or my own concoction: an FSX folders and registry backup and I run a small app I wrote that monitors all file changes. If something goes bad I rewind all changes.

 

Yet more digging into the innards for the care and feeding of this sim. I think we are getting as bad as the old ham radio community, or the early Apple computer users, cobbling together our own solutions in the confines of our home-built cockpits, soldering irons in hand. I wouldn't have much confidence in modern consumers being interested in sharing the experience, though.

 

I sometimes think this genre really is becoming as isolated as Galapagos. A good part of my enthusiasm was that I was really, really hoping for Flight to let some air into the attic.

[RamonB 449]

I think you are right and I wouldn't trust the man too much on this subject. Also I think it's rather unprofessional to be throwing mud like this, he is confirming a lot of the bad image MS has gotten but it's not necessarily the truth - Aerosoft is a publisher for FSX devs. What would have happened with them if MS succeeded in winning over developers to make all kinds of nice stuff for Flight...

 

I don't trust him blindly, but I wouldn't trust Microsoft either, out of the blue, they pulled the plug on a 4 month old game/sim (who knows why?), but still they have not to my knowledge posted a Warning on their Flight sites stating that the game is no longer under development, seems they want to squeeze whatever $ they can before new users find out there is nothing else to buy.

 

The truth is: We cannot blindly trust MS or third party developers.

 

None of us knows what went on between MS and 3P developers before, during or after Flight's launch. But Reading not only Mr. Mathijs comment, but many other, including some from here, it seems to me that MS wanted control of everything related to Flight.

[HiFlyer 9,343]

I don't trust him blindly, but I wouldn't trust Microsoft either, out of the blue, they pulled the plug on a 4 month old game/sim (who knows why?), but still they have not to my knowledge posted a Warning on their Flight sites stating that the game is no longer under development, seems they want to squeeze whatever $ they can before new users find out there is nothing else to buy.

 

How many new users frequent forums?

 

The truth is: We cannot blindly trust MS or third party developers.

 

None of us knows what went on between MS and 3P developers before, during or after Flight's launch. But Reading not only Mr. Mathijs comment, but many other, including some from here, it seems to me that MS wanted control of everything related to Flight.

 

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh..... change the font on that or somebody is going to yell at you about having to pull out a magnifying glass!!! :P

[fritzgohl 29]

A good part of my enthusiasm was that I was really, really hoping for Flight to let some air into the attic.

 

amen

[jcomm 5,890]

What I looked for in FSX was plain vanilla scenery, the default would do, even if some more specific add-ons, like CumulusX!, can profit from more detailed landclass and mesh for the generating of weather effects used in soaring, and one of the reasons I would like to use FSX is because I have almost all aerodromes and main landmarks / roads and highways we use in RL... The DiscusX is also a nice add-on.

 

Then I do like IFR practice, specially under IMC, or even adverse weather scenarios...

 

And of course I am picky regarding flight dynamics and aircraft systems....

 

I have been following A2A's latest announcements, I am aware of their "Accu" line of products ( I owned their Sptifire), I am a long time fan of RealAir. I was a beta tester for various versions of Active Sky (until 2007), and I myself tried using simconnect to inject and play with MSFS's internal weather engine...

 

After a few days with FSX optimized, thx to the prompt replies from many of the forum members, and a few sites, I was able to get FSX running acceptably, but then came my flight tests, ran even with the best aircraft models, and after that the tests with nasty weather scenarios, and finally my typical desillusion...

 

FSX's flight dynamics can be pushed to levels of satisfaction no doubt, with top products, but even that way, they don't come near the feeling I have in FLIGHT. Weather is simply impossible to get the right way, no matter how you try to implement your injectors, or to tweak even some internal parameters. Turbulence, shear, effects of precipitation, etc... will never get right in FSX - period! LM Prepar3d, specially v2, could make it work if they only use the visual platform and let the flight dynamics and weather models be run outside. A2A's accusim somehow does exactly this when simulating aircraft systems.

 

Problem is, just like some of you feel, we are so close of what could make us satisfied that it is difficult to get back.

 

Even worse, after a few days the stuttering began, without me having installed any further add-ons!!!! I recalled this happening in the past, and never really understood why...

 

Instead of staying just with FLIGHT (and ELITE) and because I definitely abandoned the idea of diverging towards military sims, I decided to give xplane10 a try, again. Now it's done, and the best I can do is to try and start by seeing it's many positive aspects, and keep close contact with the team (a small and reachable one) and ask for this and that... At least an xplane user can do that, and although things run sometimes apparently erratic in xplane's wonderland, they are alive, progressing, and the sim is running - on it's latest beta 6 version - very well on my FLIGHT PC.

 

I will see if the next week disappoints me, oh well, you all know me by this time... but one thing is for sure - FLIGHT is still FLIGHT, and I am happy I have the chance to keep using it, and you don't even imagine my satisfaction when today I found an aerocache that looked new and more complex than those recently published :-) (some say it is a repetition, but I didn't have it....)

[fritzgohl 29]

None of us knows what went on between MS and 3P developers before, during or after Flight's launch. But Reading not only Mr. Mathijs comment, but many other, including some from here, it seems to me that MS wanted control of everything related to Flight.

 

My understanding was MS wanted to control pricing and quality, also it wanted to collect a percentage of the sale. Nobody can blame independent 3PDs from disliking the tax and surrendering the power to charge what they wanted to for their add-ons. I believe MS's pitch was a 3PD's sales volume would increase due to more exposure and stiffer anti-piracy protection that would off-set any burden a tax would inflict. But, this model does nothing to help resale houses who are in the same business, as a matter of fact, it is in direct competition. It is obvious those people with a stake in such business' would be vehemently opposed to that direction and may have been motivated to shoot a few arrows Flights way to help it over the cliff.

 

Regards;

 

Fritz

[RoboRay 126]

Sorry Ray, Devon and Don, but I must disagree; on both my systems, autogen in Flight with full max/ custom settings has the same behavior you are stating for FSX, (Especially in some dense areas of Hawaii)

 

I never saw any autogen popping in Flight, other than in the extreme distance as it spawned... and that was so far away it was barely noticeable. With FSX on the same computer (overclocked further, actually) it's very "in your face."

 

What is your LOD radius?

 

I found that going to LOD=5.5 gave me much better visuals than the standard 4.5 setting.

 

Also, if you turn down traffic a bit - try just setting road traffic to zero, the CPU has more time

to draw scenery and it does not pop quite as badly.

 

I've been at LOD 5.5, but am planning to try 6.5 tonight. That value doesn't affect autogen draw-distance, though.

 

I think road traffic is only 10%, but will eliminate that to see what difference it makes.

[RYR738 9]

What about the demise of FSX ? It's been dead almost 6 years.

 

The only hope for the future of flight simulation is in the hands of Lockheed Martin. (......and please don't mention Xplane as an alternative !)

 

Fred.

[jeff1155 0]

 

 

My understanding was MS wanted to control pricing and quality, also it wanted to collect a percentage of the sale. Nobody can blame independent 3PDs from disliking the tax and surrendering the power to charge what they wanted to for their add-ons. I believe MS's pitch was a 3PD's sales volume would increase due to more exposure and stiffer anti-piracy protection that would off-set any burden a tax would inflict. But, this model does nothing to help resale houses who are in the same business, as a matter of fact, it is in direct competition. It is obvious those people with a stake in such business' would be vehemently opposed to that direction and may have been motivated to shoot a few arrows Flights way to help it over the cliff.

 

Regards;

 

Fritz

 

How else would a free 'core' sim be developed and supported if not financed by a %age of the DLC sales? Why should MS put up the dev costs of a core and get no share of some of the commercial fruits of their labours? I never had a problem with this approach - 3PDs would undoubtedly have increased sales.

 

There would be issues to resolve - should MS produce their own content or just manage the marketplace, how close should the editorial control be, should MS have any say on pricing - but fundamentally I saw nothing wrong. For me as a consumer Apple's AppStore is fine, and while their ate naysayers it seems a popular outlet for devs too.

 

When ACES was closed Aerosoft looked into creating their own core sim, but it was too expensive. There might also have been issues had other publishers found themselves shut out of an Aerosft core, either explicit or implied.

 

I'd love to see one of the larger 'sim' firms or a co-operative group talking to MS to get Flight up and running as a free or even subscription core, possibly feeding royalties to MS in return. With Flight's core a going concern and only support (currently an MS cost with little income) required, upfront cost could now be less of an issue. Updates and development could come after a market and income had been established. Based on the general tone though perhaps they would prefer to shoot themselves in the foot?

 

FSX won't last for ever, and if Flight could be kept alive we would all have a more certain future.

 

Here's hoping.

 

The only hope for the future of flight simulation is in the hands of Lockheed Martin. (......and please don't mention Xplane as an alternative !)

 

If you think Lockheed Martin has any interest in consumer-level/home flight simulation, I wish you a pleasant wait! Doesn't their license preclude that anyway?

[RamonB 449]

If you think Lockheed Martin has any interest in consumer-level/home flight simulation, I wish you a pleasant wait!

None of us know, so we can only hope and wait.

 

Doesn't their license preclude that anyway?

Jeff; That is a topic better not discussed here!

[tf51d 284]

What about the demise of FSX ? It's been dead almost 6 years.

 

The only hope for the future of flight simulation is in the hands of Lockheed Martin. (......and please don't mention Xplane as an alternative !)

 

Fred.

 

I think you mean 3 years! FSX was first released 6 years ago, but as long as the 3rd party developers keep developing for it, (Which I don't see stopping anytime soon!) FSX is far from dead. The same can not be said about Flight, since there is no other developers for it without MS, unless MS opens it up to them. Look at the new capabilities FSX is now capable of since MS sacked ACES. GEX, EZDok, Culminated HUDS (ie:PMDG NGX). FSX is a canvas that the developers keep expanding on. As long as there's room on that canvas to expand capabilities, FSX will live.

[HiFlyer 9,343]

None of us know, so we can only hope and wait.

 

 

Jeff; That is a topic better not discussed here!

 

Yup. I read that and could almost see the great Guillotine in the sky glinting sharply overhead! (wonder if there will be time to rescue the cat before it chops off our typing fingers) :lol:

[RoboRay 126]

If you think Lockheed Martin has any interest in consumer-level/home flight simulation, I wish you a pleasant wait!

 

None of us know, so we can only hope and wait.

 

Considering that Lockheed-Martin's total world-wide, company-spanning involvement in consumer-level products is zero, I'm going to say "no, it's not an interest."

 

That said, many professional-level products find usage among "serious" consumers. I mean, how many amateur photographers do you see with top-end Nikon or Cannon DSLRs? Not a lot, no. But enough to notice. Consumers with demanding needs will often adopt professional products that meet their requirements.

[HiFlyer 9,343]

Considering that Lockheed-Martin's total world-wide, company-spanning involvement in consumer-level products is zero, I'm going to say "no, it's not an interest."

 

That said, many professional-level products find usage among "serious" consumers. I mean, how many amateur photographers do you see with high-end Nikon or Cannon DSLRs? Not a lot, no. But enough to notice. Consumers with demanding needs will often adopt professional products that meet their requirements.

 

I still tend to want to look at the whole thing only from a distance so far. I think there is no real reason why they can't drop us just like Microsoft, and with just about as much warning.

[Guest]

I won't look at LM until they release v2. And even then I won't jump into it too soon. As it is now it is nice to know at least one company is working on improving FSX but I learned not to have too high hopes for 'the next best thing'...