no FS2004 patch ?

[Guest OneTinSoldier]

Hi,I jumped in on these discussions before. Here I am again! :-lol IMO, MS should have put out a patch, or service pack, update, whatever the proper name for some fixes to issues is.The overcast is a good one.But the two that I think really should have been fixed are:Autogen performance in densely populated areas. A known issue.Severe/Abrupt winds aloft changes causing an untimely demise to your flight. :-mad A well known issue. For the second time now, this has been fixed by Pete Dowson and his FSUIPC addon, because MS has not fixed it in two iterations of the sim. And we had to wait a very long time for this fix for FS2004 from Pete. It only came in the latest version of FSUPIC released what, a week or so ago? But thank Pete Dowson for continuing to work on the problem and come up with a solution. :)Thank MS for making a great Flight Simulator to begin with. But, IMO they should have Patched up a couple or even several issues. Many other games have a patch made for them to fix problems. I'm sorry John, but to just give the no patch issue the brush off by saying FS is complicated doesn't sound like a very good excuse to me. I have other games that are complex. Perhaps not quite as complex as FS, maybe. But they are indeed complex and patched by their maker(s)/developers. Perhaps MS needs to hire more people to be on the MSFS team and charge a little more for Flight Simulator since we are after all, a pretty demanding group. Ok, maybe I should shut up and speak for myself.The problem of Flight Simulator needing a bug to be a 'showstopper'(the sim won't run) seems a little cheap to me too. So, because the sim will run I should put up with it running like crap? No, FS2004 doesn't run like crap. Not at all. But it has been known to run a little crappy for quite a lot of people that haven't implemented a fix for the Autogen issue. And this is where I'm trying to make a point. I don't think it's a black and white line where a bug can be deemed as a 'showstopper'. So I can see where determining what should be fixed and what should be left alone could be difficult. But C'mon! Your plane overstressing/crashing due to severe/abrupt winds aloft changes? Should have been fixed, period. I paid money for the sim. I don't think I'm out of line expecting certain things, to work properly, in order for me to feel I got my money's worth. If it means sepnding a little more time on the drawing board after the product is out the door, like many other comapnies do(probably the majority), then so be it.Don't get me wrong with my rant. I love FS2004. I'm very thankful to be able to use it to fly around on my computer screen and I do feel most of the time it does seem fairly realistic(keep in mind I've never been a real pilot). I don't regret my purchase. But as I've said before, I pre-ordered FS2004. I will not be pre-ordering FS2006. I will most likely buy it eventually ;)... but I will not be pre-ordering it due to the fact that MS obviously has a hands off attitude about Flight Simulator once it's out the door. And it's my opinion that MS should spend a little more time getting it just a little closer to perfection after it's release.Just my opinion,Jim

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Jim...I agree with everything you say. I don't mean to give the no-patch issue the brush off, but I do want people to understand that it's not as simple as black and white. Microsoft culturally doesn't treat entertainment titles as "mission critical", and even in the days of FS2000 which was a simple sim compared to what we have today, they were very reluctant to commit to a patch.Then, 9/11 happened and we almost had no sim at all. I think Microsoft admits there's a market for the sim, but doesn't want to place too much attention on it since they were (wrongly) presented by the media as providing a product that aided 9/11 in some obscure way.That's the Catch-22 here I think, because without Microsoft I think X-plane would be the only player, although the Fly franchise might have survived.I could cite more than Autogen and winds aloft as patchable issues. Multiplayer is still crummy, and someone has discovered that unless fps matches up closely on participating machines, multiplayer experience is still useless, with bobbing aircraft and so on.I also disagree with members like Jeroen who say such issues are really directed at a service release vs. a patch. I've been around software shops for many years--since the 80's. A "patch" for us has always been to fix something broken, whether it is a show stopper or not. We don't have to refer to someone's dedicated site for definitions of patch vs. service release vs. updates either.Some of our programmers have been programming since the 60's and they helped define practices for the generations of programmers that followed. My opinion on a patch is I'd like to see one, but I don't like the signs from Microsoft outside of the MSFS team towards our hobby in general. I think as a community if we fly under the radar and don't demand too much from each release in terms of post-release support, we may see another release. But it is apparent (and recently reported) that Microsoft is cutting back. I just don't want the company to decide we're more trouble than it's worth.... Pretty selfish motivation on my part, I admit...-John

[Guest OneTinSoldier]

Hi John,Your points are well said and well taken. And you have me thinking about how great a loss it would be if for whatever reason MSFS were to be given the axe.Still, my opinion about maybe MS should hire more developers for the MSFS Team and charge more for the sim, and, I'm not going to be 'pre-ordering' FS2006, still stands. As well as my opinion on post-release support in the way of patching to fix a few issues that come to light.X-Plane is allright I suppose. I've played it before when it was version 5. But if MSFS were to be given the chop I think I would move over to FlightGear.Take care,Jim

[LAdamson 240]

>I think I undestand the resource x time factor, but why a>large company like microsoft can't release an update and a>single guy software like x-plane can release one update/week>Give me a break.......I have X-Plane, and yes, you get an update just about weekly!Problem is, with each update, some things are improved, and then a whole lot of things don't work anymore. To use all these updates, it's a process of making configuration, file changes daily. You nearly have to be tied to your CPU to know whats going on! And luckily I can download a 150 meg update in 10 minutes or so.But..........I've personally gave up, and will just use an older stable version for the moment. At least with MSFS & third party updates for aircraft & scenery, I know what to expect & how to run it all!!! Sometimes a one man outfit & beta feedback from users doesn't work all that well....L.Adamson

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"At least with MSFS & third party updates for aircraft & scenery, I know what to expect & how to run it all!!!"By the way Sir, I digress but I was thinking of you yesterday while I was working out the last few bugs of my Eclipse FDE. I chose a SLC-PHX flight as my final "shakedown" cruise. I set the time just an hour before dusk. IMHO, in both FS2002 and FS2004, that ascent out of SLC, with the way the mountain shadows play on the landscape, has to be among the most breathtaking in the sim. I love the route, in the sim as I do in real life, as it takes one right over the Grand Canyon and tons of mountain scenery. I caught the Canyon right at sunset, and I was really amazed at how well the sim made it appear...I miss your screenshots of the area, but wanted to mention the flight to you since you inspired me in the beginning that I could get a great visual experience with a minimum of hardware... Regards,John

[Guest hoohah]

Personally, I would prefer a patch for FS9 at the expense of a delayed FS-X release. I've spent enough on FS9 addons that I think I'll be hanging on to it for a long while. And I don't think there will be much compatibility with the next version, due to what are hopefully drastic changes to the sim. And if there aren't drastic changes/improvements to something other than eye-candy, I don't think I'll purchase the next version anyway (at least that's what I like to tell myself ;)

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"I've spent enough on FS9 addons that I think I'll be hanging on to it for a long while." That's the one concern I have if no patch gets released. The value of my add-ons (about $200) is small compared to some here. If FS-X (I like that vs. FS2006) drops support for those add-ons, then I'd like to see FS2004 made as perfect as it can be made. I believe many would retain FS2004 and run it alongside FS-X, or in the absence of FS-X, if they knew their add-ons would be obsoleted by the next version...

[Guest Wichita]

Because back in 2002 the mere mention of a patch for FS2002 brought the ire of MS loyalist's. FS2002 was a good sim but there were several problems. One that gnawed on me were the disappearing/flashing etc...ramps at many airports.Patch that? NO!! said the MS loyal,We don't want a patch. Messing with those ramps would probably do harm to the rest of the code of FS2002. Baloney...a patch was made up by a couple of simmers who were tired of the same ramp problems and uploaded for all to use. All it required was modifying several .bgl files and that was it. In fact I think they went ahead and did other ramps.Bottom line is that MS could have fixed those just as easily as people who already paid for the product. Mark my word you'll most likely NEVER see another patch for FS.David

[Geofa 108]

Having just flown to Ogden one hour before sunset I agree- the reflection of the clouds over the salt lake while setting up for the ils to ogden was breathtaking (I also had a first when the tower closed down right when on the approach and became an uncontrolled airport!). I was also thinking how lucky Larry is to fly out there all the time-breathtaking area!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[LAdamson 240]

John & Geof,Two weeks ago, we took up a new Diamond Star DA40-180 for a flight up the canyon (Parleys) over some lakes & down Provo Canyon below the peaks of Mt. TimpanogusAnd yes, it's a beautiful sight. The backside of Timpanogus looks much like what you'd see in Alaska or Canada.L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

yes, but from a "loyalist's" point of view, :D This is just one item of thousands...................Where do you start & where does it end? I think the real answer is "simmers" who feel it's a must......................just like you mentioned.Since someone brought up X-Plane, this is exactly what happens with that simulation; because the whole world is much to overwhelming for one programmer, it won't ever get done without ouside "user" help. And MS has maybe 10 times the "one" programmer at best, which still makes it completely overwhelming.L.Adamson

[StoneC0ld 5]

>FS2006 is a patch for FS2004 :)>I was wondering how far down the thread this would come up! :( :-lol

[Guest cwright]

>So, Microsoft hasn't patched a sim since FS2000... What>gives? What gives is that you have code many times more>complex than FS2000 now. A patch, and even more so a service>release, would require a long beta, possibly delaying FS2006>(or whatever) until much later. With any program update you>risk breaking something. That means you test everything, top>to bottom. That would mean recruiting more beta testers, and>dedicating resources to management of the project. All this testing is certainly required for the initial release. That's because people will be buying it in the shops. But this doesn't apply to a patch. For a start it's optional. And if it does go horribly wrong the worst that can happen is that the patch has to be removed or FS re-installed. For that reason I don't think a patch should be tested to the same standards, and it certainly shouldn't delay the next release. Sometimes patches do create new problems, but it can be fixed by a second patch. Surely the answer would be to release a patch that addresses some of the well-known issues while making clear that it is a beta and users install it at their own risk. I would be more than happy to beta test a patch if it fixed some significant problems such as the autogen distance one. As I said, the worst that can happen is to have to do a re-install! Best regards, Chris

[JimmiG 244]

I have to say, FS2002 didn't need a patch IMO. It was a very stable sim with very few problems. There were a few small issues like flashing ramp/taxiway textures at some airports and clouds that sometimes turned paper-thin but nothing that truly needed a patch.The reason FS2004 needs a patch (and FS2000 needed oneI, is a simple one: The software contains a number of quite serious bugs.We're not taking about a major overhaul of the whole sim here - things like improved haze, overcast, better flight model etc. is beyond the scope of a patch. It's just a matter of fixing a few errors that the beta testers didn't notice/care to report.

[kand 205]

The product should not rely on 3rd party support, eg FSUIPC .the wind problem in my opinion is serious enough to warrant a patch,jet flying was virtually impossible with so called realistic weather !! I believe patch should only be a fix,new features are best left to new versions