Hi. may be SHOULD BE UPDATES AND ADDITIONS FOR MSFS(2004,X) from developers? It`s perhaps better too, as fair alternative. So, what about it? =)

 

Simply put, WHY? Why would MS spend money doing updates for games that are so old? It wont sell any extra copy's, and patches only effect people who ALREADY OWN THE GAME! FSX works. Nothing left to patch.

 

It sucks that Microsoft "took a big ######" on us. First with no updates to FSX, then with FLIGHT.

 

I dont see it this way. What does MS "owe" you? FSX works. Sure DX10 is still a "preview" but it works. I dont get this mentality that MS "owes" you something. You paid for a game, you got a game, and you enjoyed it. Do you think your entitled to a lifetime of free updates? Thats not how it works.

It's easy to hate the big company. I'm sure something will come along and fill the void. I realize we're not a huge market but I think we're large enough for someone to go after.

Pretty lonely at the AeroflyFS forum. Check it out. I have not got very far into it yet. Been stuck on Flight. But I am having fun with it. If given a chance it will grow.

 

Lately I've been checking a lot on aeroflyFS and I feel quite interested by it. However, what is holding me back is the poor distribution and the price (according to the official forums, the price is increasing over time). However, if they add ATC, AI, clickable cockpits, more aircraft options (engine on/off, lights), dynamic time of day and option to begin from parking or gates, I'm sold, whatever the price.

 

According to a thread in the forums, you can change the time of the day in the game's files. However, the lighting and shadows of the scenery will remain painted on. That's the biggest flaw yet; the scenery textures were probably taken at afternoon and they can't change.

You are correct, it does have a long long way to go. It is no MSFlight, that is for sure. Just something different. That is why Flight is still my main ride. I bought it on the rebound, it was like the day after Flight was cancelled and I was really down. So I will see what happenes.

I mentioned some of that catch 22's facing Aerofly in another thread, but amongst them is gaining the resources to expand. But then, how do you ever get those resources if people won't buy until you have already expanded.......?

 

The answers are: you start the project with deep pockets, or you expand as resources become available (in this case, very slowly)

 

Or...... you just hang there, possibly until you die.

how do you ever get those resources

 

 

You produce a business plan that convinces others that the future profits will justify the immediate investment.

 

 

That happens all the time when seeking investment, either from external sources or internally from within the company.

 

 

 

 

You produce a business plan that convinces others that the future profits will justify the immediate investment.

 

 

That happens all the time when seeking investment, either from external sources or internally from within the company.

 

The flightsim market, at least the civilian side, has shown very iffy growth potential. I am still amazed flight ever got the green light with apparently so little company commitment behind it. Or Microsoft just have the attention span of a gnat.

 

I could be wrong, but I have always tended to think of Aerofly as an extension of that company's existing (and apparently profitable) RC plane simulator business, and funded from there, primarily.

Will there be another MSFS?

 

I hope so, if...

 

 

Should there be another MSFS?

 

...if Microsoft finally unshackles itself from the legacy of FS2000 and makes a completely new top-to-bottom engine so that it looks good and flies good. And it should be do a nice job of making computers cry when the sliders are all the way to the right, it's been too long since there's been a MSFS release to make me upgrade my computer.

<br />I could be wrong, but I have always tended to think of Aerofly as an extension of that company's existing (and apparently profitable) RC plane simulator business, and funded from there, primarily.

 

That would raise the question does the RC business raise sufficient surplus to fund the simulator's continuing development, and is that, in fact, the best use of the surplus?

That would raise the question does the RC business raise sufficient surplus to fund the simulator's continuing development, and is that, in fact, the best use of the surplus?

 

Exactly. Especially in a market that is more than capable of turning up its nose at the product until it gets (place names of expensive to develop systems with alphabet soup acronyms here)

 

I admire their bravery; and since they likely already had experience with the necessary programming from their RC business, it was presumably less expensive than starting completely from scratch. Still, anyone watching from the outside would probably not be encouraged to jump into they Frey considering the time, effort and money necessary to have any chance of satisfying this genres very very demanding fan-base vs the potential financial rewards.

 

As has been pointed out in various ways by numerous people a number of times: If you are in this market, its almost certainly not just for the money.

I have to say I'm amazed at this thread.

 

Coming to FS via FS98 (thought it was awful and uninstalled it) spent 10 years on MSTS (MicrosoftTrainSimulator) and finally got back into FS with a cheap version of FS2004 followed quickly by FSX Gold I'm rather bewildered by the angst this subject produces.

 

In the 11 years MSTS has been going there was one minor patch early on. There have been TWO MSTS2's, Both of which NEVER saw release. The first was actually shown at a big games fest, the second was close to completion when Aces were all fired. Unbelievable that they spent all that money on a product development for 3+ (?) years, got REALLY involved with the community asking what we wanted, what needed most improvement and then a couple of months before release just ditched the lot.

 

Compared with Train Simmers you lot have had shed loads of developments, several versions of the base sim and have a much bigger 3rd party add-on back up. MSTS survived because the community has developed it into an almost completely new sim with freeware add-ons and a MAJOR freeware patch by an individual that revolutionised what the sim could do. However there are only a few (by comparison) 3rd party add-on publishers.

 

The next big Train Sim came from RS (Rail Simulator). They adopted a DLC delivery which causes many problems with customised set-ups and is much more expensive than the payware for MSTS. Further more a lot of professional graphics tools were used for creating add-ons which meant that few could afford to make freeware. IMHO DLC's are NOT the way to go because although automatic upgrades and patches sound wonderful they can trash customised set-ups and cause issues with 3rd party add-ons.

 

Since I got into FSX I've spent an awful lot of money on add-ons. P3D has compatability and IF I move away from FSX that's the way I'll go. As an "ex" PPL I want realism and prototypical systems and I want scenery and weather as real as I can get. I think what we've got is pretty good and succesive add-ons have proved it can get better.

 

Hankering after the new is a common enough human characteristic but as a technician I know that the best version of ANYTHING is the developed, patched, fixed version. Few things work as well when Version 1 arrives and by version 3, 4 etc they're usually much better.

 

Someone said M$ abandoned FSX? Really?! Two service packs and acceleration?! I don't call that abandoned. With Scenery like FTX and Flight models with Accusim, to name but two, I'd say FSX and the P3D development have a lot of life in them yet. As I used to post on the train sim forums when folk moaned about nothing new. Look around you. NOBODY has driven every loco on every route. If I sat down and uploaded 10 years of add-ons with an open mind there'd be more stuff than I'd ever have time to install and run.

 

Bottom line is that an entirely new sim would take years to develop and would need you to buy new add-ons all over again. Do you really want that? or are you actually tiring of Flight Sims?

 

Just "my two penneth".

 

Geoff

I guess for me the answer would have to honestly be "yes".

 

Both MSTS and FSX and probably any software product eventually reach the point where its time to move on so as to take advantage of new hardware, new software techniques, etc. The lifetimes of those two programs have been extended enormously by extremely clever and dedicated third parties (less so in the case of MSTS) but there eventually comes the time that all that can be reasonably done to extend functionality has been done, and it becomes logical to move on or risk treading water until its too late.

 

Just as MSTS has been supplanted by the newer Trainz and Railsim, which itself is undergoing a process of continual updates, (with Railsim 2013 to be released in less than a week) Fsx will inevitably need to be replaced, and the time for that to happen is probably long past due. I think even the third parties are aware of the need.

 

What hasn't been decided yet is: Move to where?

Should there be another flight simulator? Of course there should. If for not other reason than to keep up with technological improvments in computers. FSX is getting rather long in the tooth -- it is an old program, and it uses old technology. The modding community has kept it going, and has taken advantage of the more powerful computers which simply did not exist when FSX was first released. Who would really want to go back to the flight simulators we had in the 1980s, or even the 1990s.

 

Plus, there already is a large market for this item. There probably are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of potential purchases. The cost of updating FSX should be considerably less than starting from scratch. Plus a company like Microsoft has the strength to get their program in the distribution chain (i.e. Walmart). In fact, it would seem impossible not to make money at it, unless some Einstein comes along and decides that it should be designed for 12 year olds and remove things like the cockpit...

 

As someone has pointed out, corporations tend to be started by innovators, but eventually are taken over by bureaucrats. Can anyone imaging Microsoft showing the same audacity it had when it first started? Bill Gates pulled a lot of stunts, like selling IBM an operating system he did not have, or stealing Apple's graphic interefact (which Apple stole from Xerox). The suits at Microsoft just want to play it safe. In business, playing it safe leads to a slow death.

 

In fact, the bureaucratic infighting may very well explain a lot of Microsoft's actions. Selling the program to LM served to promote Flight, because the Flight team no longer had to compete against their own product. But when Flight failed, Microsoft's options were limited. Perhaps the best thing they could do is buy Prepar3d from LM?

 

What does that actually mean?

 

It's called typing incoherent thoughts after too much Hefeweizen

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You know, I wouldn't say that Microsoft shouldn't make FS11. I think they should. Flight fixed most concerns of FSX, and if Microsoft built an authentic simulator with Flight's engine, I think it would be a great result.

 

Though now I guess we're really not getting it.

 

So its good to look at other options. I have Joined the Aerofly Forums, and am now taking a much closer look at Prepar3d. Should probably join those forums as well.