Will there be another MSFS? Should there be another MSFS?

[Gibbage 199]

I have seen the first question asked over and over and over. I think the 2nd question should be asked first. Please let me explain.

 

I was working at ACES with MS closed the studio. They let go 90% of the close to 250 staff, and kept a core group of guys to start what would be known as Flight. I can say this since its been said publicly by people way over my head. The flight sim "group" was never 100% disbanded.

 

When we were working on Flight, it was known in the office that this was THE LAST CHANCE in MS's eyes for flight simming. We knew that, so we put 110% into everything we did, so simming would have a future with MS. The problem is, the big leaders of simming like Bill Gates, Bruce Artwick and Paul Allen are no longer at MS, so nobody high up the chain was fighting for simming. It was a loosing battle against corporate pencil pushers, and leadership that only did things "by the numbers". Flight under that type of atmosphere has no chance.

 

Now that Flight failed, MS has re-assigned or dismissed ALL of the simmers. From what little I can tell, there is no more "core" to build the next product. They all have been fired, or assigned to non-simming jobs within MS. Simply put, simming is dead within MS. It just wont make the numbers that will even interest MS, and there are no leaders willing to fight for it. RIP.

 

That brings me to the 2nd question. SHOULD THERE BE ANOTHER MSFS?

 

After what happened to Flight, I say no. Microsoft, while a great company, is no longer a fit for producing a flight sim. Like I said, you NEED leaders high up the chain that will FIGHT for simming. You also need a company willing to gamble and take a risk. I said it over and over, but I truly dont think a flight sim under Microsoft's flag will work.

 

Is there no hope for simming? I wont say that. There is a void, and as we all know, all voids are filled. There IS a market, someone just needs to be willing to fill that market. Who will? Maybe Lockheed Martin? X-Planes? (doubt that) How about Aerofly FS? Maybe someone new? I dont know, and it may take years to fill this void, but it wont be from MS.

 

P.S. Why do I say X-Planes wont fill the void? They seem to be more interested in the "professional" simmers, and not entry level. Without entry level, there wont be a lot of "professional" simmers who are not already pilots. There MUST be an easy entry to simming, or simming will die from attrition. Im not saying Flight easy, but easier then XP!!!!

 

Kevin "Gibbage" Miller

[1mikel151 71]

Nice read Kevin and I tend to agree with you. In saying that and spending so much time with most of the past MS FS titels, I can say that despite the low performance overhead in FSX when adding 3rd party addons, that title has treated me well. Which is probably why i wanted Flight to succeed so bad, yet also why I felt that it also was lacking in so many areas.

 

It's funny, I am a big Ghost Recon fan and have followed the various squabbles over what the game studios have wanted/produced over what the actual fans have wanted with each new version not living up to the original and the communities expectations, very similar with the FS franchise.

 

I am not opposed to MS doing another FS title and see no technical reason why they can't include many of the features that will appeal to both the community and casual gamers alike, but as we well know it's all up to the company number crunchers pulling the strings as to what the final product will be..

[Mike_CFII_MEL 825]

Hi,

 

I've already moved on, and have no intention of ever going back to MS... P3D is my sim of choice and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

[Prune 0]

I have seen the first question asked over and over and over. I think the 2nd question should be asked first. Please let me explain.

 

I was working at ACES with MS closed the studio. They let go 90% of the close to 250 staff, and kept a core group of guys to start what would be known as Flight. I can say this since its been said publicly by people way over my head. The flight sim "group" was never 100% disbanded.

 

When we were working on Flight, it was known in the office that this was THE LAST CHANCE in MS's eyes for flight simming. We knew that, so we put 110% into everything we did, so simming would have a future with MS. The problem is, the big leaders of simming like Bill Gates, Bruce Artwick and Paul Allen are no longer at MS, so nobody high up the chain was fighting for simming. It was a loosing battle against corporate pencil pushers, and leadership that only did things "by the numbers". Flight under that type of atmosphere has no chance.

 

Now that Flight failed, MS has re-assigned or dismissed ALL of the simmers. From what little I can tell, there is no more "core" to build the next product. They all have been fired, or assigned to non-simming jobs within MS. Simply put, simming is dead within MS. It just wont make the numbers that will even interest MS, and there are no leaders willing to fight for it. RIP.

 

That brings me to the 2nd question. SHOULD THERE BE ANOTHER MSFS?

 

After what happened to Flight, I say no. Microsoft, while a great company, is no longer a fit for producing a flight sim. Like I said, you NEED leaders high up the chain that will FIGHT for simming. You also need a company willing to gamble and take a risk. I said it over and over, but I truly dont think a flight sim under Microsoft's flag will work.

 

Is there no hope for simming? I wont say that. There is a void, and as we all know, all voids are filled. There IS a market, someone just needs to be willing to fill that market. Who will? Maybe Lockheed Martin? X-Planes? (doubt that) How about Aerofly FS? Maybe someone new? I dont know, and it may take years to fill this void, but it wont be from MS.

 

P.S. Why do I say X-Planes wont fill the void? They seem to be more interested in the "professional" simmers, and not entry level. Without entry level, there wont be a lot of "professional" simmers who are not already pilots. There MUST be an easy entry to simming, or simming will die from attrition. Im not saying Flight easy, but easier then XP!!!!

 

Kevin "Gibbage" Miller

 

Interesting read and it`s just as I thought Kevin. Once the decision had been made I never for once believed that Flight would start up again, despite all the threads going on about glimmers of hope and so on.

It`s so sad but nowadays money talks and I think you are right about Bill Gates & Paul Allen . With them still there we would probably still have a sim but now MS won`t take any risks. They should remember - if it wasn`t for Bill and Paul taking a risk all those years ago MS would not even be around and they would not have a big fat paycheck to take home.

 

Maybe this will finally put an end to all those threads about hope for Flight ( although somehow I doubt it ).

[fsxkitty 62]

Hi,

 

I've already moved on, and have no intention of ever going back to MS... P3D is my sim of choice and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

 

How did you get a hold of P3D? It's not supposed to be used as a personal entertainment product.

[1mikel151 71]

How did you get a hold of P3D? It's not supposed to be used as a personal entertainment product.

 

There are plenty here in the community using it. You need to read between the lines ;-)

[kannwar 47]

How did you get a hold of P3D? It's not supposed to be used as a personal entertainment product.

 

FSXkitty I have reported your post to the mods as being off-topic and hopefully they will remove it. If you want to talk about who can use P3D and who can't there have been several threads where this has been discussed to death in the past week. I just hope this isn't going to change the course of the whole thread now.

 

Anyhow, back on topic for my contribution, I've always been of the opinion that our interests would be better served by a smaller developer who makes it a priority to create a sim that is well optimized with awesome production values. Harder to do for larger corporations in this kind of market because their aim is to get maximal profit in shortest time which = cutting corners on quality = the mess we have with FSX to this very day.

[scotchegg 4,271]

Well put and I agree it's time we all accept Flight is MS's finale in flight simming.

 

But as the OP said, the interesting question is where do we go from here. There's clearly a huge market waiting to be exploited by a truly comprehensive sim with a dlc model. P3D v2.0 sounds promising although details are light. What I would love to see is the big developers (Orbx, Carenado, PMDG, Aerosoft etc etc) start working together on a sim, each bringing their particular expertise to the table. It's a mouthwatering prospect which a bit of sound project management could make hugely profitable.

[JDWalley 354]

Anyhow, back on topic for my contribution, I've always been of the opinion that our interests would be better served by a smaller developer who makes it a priority to create a sim that is well optimized with awesome production values. Harder to do for larger corporations in this kind of market because their aim is to get maximal profit in shortest time which = cutting corners on quality = the mess we have with FSX to this very day.

 

How do you propose a "smaller developer" come up with the resources/funding to create such a product from scratch?

 

 

[HiFlyer 9,409]

Is there no hope for simming? I wont say that. There is a void, and as we all know, all voids are filled. There IS a market, someone just needs to be willing to fill that market. Who will? Maybe Lockheed Martin? X-Planes? (doubt that) How about Aerofly FS? Maybe someone new? I dont know, and it may take years to fill this void, but it wont be from MS.

 

P.S. Why do I say X-Planes wont fill the void? They seem to be more interested in the "professional" simmers, and not entry level. Without entry level, there wont be a lot of "professional" simmers who are not already pilots. There MUST be an easy entry to simming, or simming will die from attrition. Im not saying Flight easy, but easier then XP!!!!

 

Kevin "Gibbage" Miller

 

I agree will all of it, unfortunatly.

[kannwar 47]

How do you propose a "smaller developer" come up with the resources/funding to create such a product from scratch?

 

Ask that to someone who understands economics lol I'm just saying that I don't think we were ever going to get a high quality flight sim from a corporation whose only interest is profit. From what I've read, for example, the actual staff members of Aces were all incredibly talented individuals who had a passion for flying yet it was all squandered because MS has only one priority. Now, obviously money is always a priority where business is concerned but some businesses are also in it for the passion of doing what they do really well and they still manage to make a profit while also earning goodwill in their area for creating value.

[Mickel 42]

Orbx did a number on starting from 'scratch'. I believe $30M was it. So not small chips.

 

If the institutional knowledge at MS is essentially gone, then no, there shouldn't be another.

[1mikel151 71]

FSXkitty I have reported your post to the mods as being off-topic and hopefully they will remove it. If you want to talk about who can use P3D and who can't there have been several threads where this has been discussed to death in the past week. I just hope this isn't going to change the course of the whole thread now.

 

Really? Glad you are not a mod.

 

Anyhow, back on topic for my contribution, I've always been of the opinion that our interests would be better served by a smaller developer who makes it a priority to create a sim that is well optimized with awesome production values. Harder to do for larger corporations in this kind of market because their aim is to get maximal profit in shortest time which = cutting corners on quality = the mess we have with FSX to this very day.

 

The problem with a smaller develper is the lack of resources, kind of a catch 22 situation

[Alaaar 34]

Entry level or professional simmers ? well that's explaining the whole problem we are facing at the FS industry....should we develop products that good enough for the larger segment of customers as entry level??? but they will find it very boring and it wont achieve sales numbers? or should we target the the smaller professorial segment??? that will not cover the initial cost of the development? That's why Microsoft gave up developing FS and that's why a lot of smaller developer ran out of business, and that's why we pray that people like PMDG, & others will stay in business as long as possible and later on we try to handle & put up with the enormous problems of FSX, it's weaknesses, instability and lack of completion. Because we are still awaiting for some one to come with the correct idea of a (Beginners-Intermediate-Advanced) buttons and this should not only reflect on systems and flight realism, but also the entry level should be full of mission like adventures so it will work for all. Plane like NGX, weather like REX, full navigational updates, sceneries like Orbx or Earth sim. it should be designed cleverly enough so base package is simple and with a reasonably price tag and by adding modules to it it gets more professional if you want (for example if you are not interested in HD textures you wont have it...if you do you might have to pay a little amount for it). At the end it will be "One SIM For All".

[scotchegg 4,271]

Orbx did a number on starting from 'scratch'. I believe $30M was it. So not small chips.

 

If the institutional knowledge at MS is essentially gone, then no, there shouldn't be another.

 

Big for one developer, not so big if several got together.