Hey all,I was reading through the "No Microsoft at Oshkosh!" thread and picked up on that bit of seemingly irrational fear in there concerning the continuation of the FS line. I decided to look up some stats to hopefully help dissuade anyone of *that* fear.I can assure you, Microsoft will in no way abandon its massive blockbuster hit they've had on their hands this season (as with most FS editions). The current 2004 edition has consistently been one of the best selling PC games since the first day of its release. Its been literally ~flying~ off the shelves :-rotor.Even after all this time since its debut, you'll never guess where it ranked in top PC sales just *last week*... Yup - still in the top 10:I went back a few months just to see where its been since last I looked now that it has become an "old" game (relatively speaking of course). Here are a few more examples of the status FS2004 has had in blockbuster sales just this year (all stats curtesy of [link:www.avault.com|The Adrenaline Vault]'s tracking for top 10 best-selling PC games as tabulated by the [link:www.npd.com/|NPD Group]):[link:www.avault.com/news/displaynews.asp?story=162004-91233|#5 - January 6, 2004][link:www.avault.com/news/displaynews.asp?story=1122004-9117|#8 - January 12, 2004][link:www.avault.com/news/displaynews.asp?story=3262004-6829|#1 - March 26, 2004][link:www.avault.com/news/displaynews.asp?story=3312004-85935|#9 - March 31, 2004][link:www.avault.com/news/displaynews.asp?story=712004-93939]#7 - July 1, 2004][/bJust some examples. I also had a thread at the end of last year that chronicled the blockbuster run FS2004 had during its release and the month or two after: consistently #1 to #5 in sales every single week.Flight Simulator is more popular this "season" than I've ever seen the franchise as far as sales are concerned. It has made MS Game Studios a fortune - again. No way will they abandon such a proven blockbuster earner, specially after this outing.Its just too bad they don't support the game anything like a blockbuster usually gets supported from other companies... But I digress on that fretful subject.Take care,Elrond

Nice post. Although those numbers might have spiked recently due to many plances offering fs2004 at a very reasonable price (I think it was around $20, but I didn't pay much attention). Still, the numbers don't lie. Good to see the market for PC flightsims is still great.

Price is probably a bit of that. I recently saw FS2004 on sale at a Staples for $29.99.Right next to it was a copy of FS2002 Pro. For $29.95. :)Lewis "Moose" GregoryColumbia, South CarolinaDVA 1427/Solent 644

I'm sure price is indeed a part of the strategy that MS has been using to keep FS at the top of the charts. The Sims (the best selling franchise in gaming history) has led down that path and you can't get more successful than that wunderkind.It really is just amazing to me that there are no "real" competitors out there to Flight Sim for the GA market considering FS's proven track record at the high end of sales - including this latest edition's blockbuster status. Where is the old Fly! code and company when it could actually be successful? Or any other good competitor? Bizarre.Take care,Elrond

>>Where>is the old Fly! code and company when it could actually be>successful? Or any other good competitor? Bizarre.Elrond,I think that they (TRI) realized (rather late) that they underfounded the project. You can't do flying simulation on the cheap. You just can't have a 15-persons developing team when Microsoft has 45. On the other hand had they known about it in advance they might have been unable to compete since their publisher most likely would decline such sizable investment. Anyway, this is my $0.02.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

Oh absolutely. You and I both lived through that fiasco with Take2 et al... I couldn't agree more.What amazes me however is that TRI hasn't sold the franchise (or evidently even been approached) by someone with deep pockets and a commitment to long term franchises: such as EA. Electronic Arts would be the ideal home for such a competitor to FS - their commitment to long term success is clear with such titles as the Madden series or their Nascar series, to name a few.I just think its a huge opportunity lost for some company willing to start from scratch or take over an existing code base with a long term vision and compete for those clearly available GA dollars (even more than the highly successful LOMAC or period area type air fighters - not even close to the sales success of FS2004).Take care,Elrond

Interesting post, Elrond.Following what's happening in the gaming market, I could give this hypothetical answer:It seems to be common agreement in the gaming industry that the simulation market (in general) performs very weakly (and does so increasingly) compared to other genres. One of the theories is that simulation titles don't enhance game play as such. E.g., you get nice graphics and more fine tuning, but there are no new challenges.Personally, I think this is partly true, but not quite. It really depends whom your targeting and I think this is a problem that all simulators are facing, and something what Microsoft will face increasingly in the future also.A good example is the story of Papyrus, who made high quality racing simulation titles in the past. They have recently been shut down on the basis that simulation titles don't make enough money. One of the founders has refused to dumb down their simulations to please the arcade crowd. He's founded a new company now, trying to develop a highly realistic simulator, targeting the 'right' people.Coming back to flight simulation, Fly was supposedly shut down in the after shake of 9/11. Personally, I think the real reason is that publishers don't see simulators as strong selling titles, which meant the axe for the Fly franchise. Again, I think this is due to rubbish marketing on the publishers side. Fly II could and should have been a success, and I'm convinced that Fly III could have the potential of knocking a huge dent into MSFS sales. However, we do have X-Plane as a competitor still. If Austin would get the graphics up to scratch with latest technology, and do some more marketing, I think that he could overtake the MSFS franchise also, due to his target group: producing a more real flightsim, not just a game.Ok, this is just me rambling on. I'd like to see some real numbers of how much X-plane makes, how much FS2004 makes, and how many people are still using FS2002, and even FS98. I think that the biggest competitor of FS2006 could very well be FS2004 if MS doesn't watch out (e.g., address some real KEY issues, not just patch the latest version with some more eye candy).Cheers, Christian

> If Austin would get the>graphics up to scratch with latest technology, and do some>more marketing, I think that he could overtake the MSFS>franchise also, due to his target group: producing a more real>flightsim, not just a game.I know who Austin's target group is, as do many others. And I share the following view, as I know others do. While MSFS may be marketed in the "game" catagory, it's well known that this "simulation/game" appeals to a wide non pilot/simmer as well as pilot/simmer base. And that's the reason MS uses real databases for navigation, topography, airports, etc. And at the present, I find X-Plane to usually be "less real" than FS2004. And that includes everything from navigation data-bases & function, to even the flight models, not to mention topography. Sometimes, and more than not...............MSFS's look up tables just seem to do a better job than X-Planes blade/element flight model.As so many changes take place almost weekly with new beta versions of X-Plane, aircraft compatibility from one version to the next has been nearly impossible. I see "few" third party developers jumping on the X-Plane bandwagon when all these problems exist. At least MSFS is a more stable platform from year to year for add-ons. X-Plane doesn't seem to make it a month or two!X-Plane is what it is, but I don't ever see it passing the MSFS franchise, because it's just not as real as it's hyped to be. Too many of us, who use, or have used the product, just know better!Side note: FLYIII could have been in the running in my book, since it was such an interesting & different simulation with it's own "nitch". It's just an unfortuante situation that everything didn't work........from financing, to the loss of it's creative "genius".L.Adamson

You have some fair points and I don't disagree with you. I agree that Austin has to resolve quite a few issues if he ever wants to really take on the MSFS franchise.However, one also has to give credit to X-Plane to touch issues that MS doesn't even attempt to do. Two examples are vertical wind modelling and full ground friction modelling. Vertical winds don't exist in MSFS (I don't think the poor attempt to model uprafts with scenery is worth a mention), and planes only interact with the ground by simple friction, not taking into account the different wheels. Compare that to actual rain water collecting on runways and consequential wheel to wheel friction calculations (including aquaplaning).Christian

Interesting point on the friction modelling. I believe FS4 did actually have ground friction of a kind. Since then yaw inertia in flying mode has been the same on the ground, which is why many FS aircraft inevitably wallow this way and that on the ground, and is also the reason why on take off crosswinds and p-factor result in a slide rather than tendency to steer away from the centre line.Cheers,Rob Young - RealAir Simulations

Hi Elrond, as far as I remember, Rich said at one point that TRIuses parts of the Fly(II) code also for other titels, and thateven he could not do what he wanted. I think that's the reasonwhy they cannot sell the code. Respectively no other companywill be able to buy it, even if they would love to. But I may be wrong of course. Just my 0,002 cent.

Hi Christian,Ah, Papyrus. Yes indeed, one of my favorite development houses of the past twenty years.I'm not sure that I agree they were shut down because simulation titles don't make enough money however. There was recently an excellent article on Papyrus at Gamespot titled The History/Story of Papyrus Racing Games. Its an engrossing read on this unique company and indeed the industry. In its prime, Papyrus was raking in the cash with a pretty realistic sim that others couldn't match. The article points out that, similar to the Fly! franchise, it was the publisher that repeatedly screwed with the work and ended up dooming the company. That conservative mindset that has dramatically overtaken most of the industry whereas anything even remotely out of the mainstream will be fought against seems to be the true culprit in a wide variety of games and gaming houses. In Papyrus' case, Sierra messed up badly with the franchise by not allowing Papyrus to use the ultra realistic Grand Prix Legends physics engine in the Nascar series - for years. That resulted in a stagnation of the Papyrus games and thus its sales (well, the problems included some serious stumbles during the transition to the true 3D model of game development).Point I guess I'm trying to make is this: it seems to me that its almost always the conservative publishers that lack foresight which ruin any games that run against the mainstream... Serious simulations are a prime example (and serious doesn't have to mean no fun of course!). Yet every once in a while a game breaks out of the mold and sells millions that a publisher would usually never have bankrolled to begin with: the Sims series is a prime example. If it hadn't been for the power of Will Wright, theres no way that game would have been made under any other development house. Yet look what that franchise has done. The same might have been for Flight Simulator if it was introduced in this day and age and look what this franchise has done in its 20s.I think the same lesson could be taken from the Fly! franchise. Yes, the dramatic loss of Rich and his passion would hurt any development house and/or project, but as you know the problems were clear long before that happened. The success of Flight Sim this edition proves that a well supported Fly! III or Fly! IV could be raking in the cash today if it wasn't for the foolish and ultimately damning nature of its publisher. Take2 is universally reviled for just such mistakes.Take care,Elrond

Hi Rodger,Ah yes, I remember that too now that you mention it. It really is such a tragic shame. What a unique experience the Fly! franchise is/was.I'm still just scratching my head why an EA or similar doesn't try to compete with the extremely successful FS franchise after such a proven outing.Good to see you Rodger and take care,Elrond

A general correction: I was wrong with Flight Simulator's sales last week... It actually had the third best sales of all PC games for the last period of report which was from 7/18/04 to 7/25/04.http://www.gamespot.com/news/pc.html (scroll to the bottom).Amazing.Take care,Elrond

Hi Elrond,I actually think we agree on our points, I just tried to explain why EA doesn't take on a simulation game.Indeed, it's the publisher faults due to bad markiting and design limitations that ruin todays simulations. The reason is money though. The stats show that simulation titles don't grow as strong as other genres (I read that in multiple places and it's also in the gamespot article you cited - great article, I agree).The gaming market is starting to being compared a lot to the film industry. Like blockbuster movies, blockbuster games cost a whole lot of money to produce. No publisher wants to risk failure, because it's just too much money at stake. That's why Hollywood producers only fund main stream movies, and that's why big publishers like EA or Atari won't go near simulation titles. They carry too much risk.I completely agree with you though that well done simulations should sell like hot cakes. Equally, I usually find that independent movies offer more depth in story and characters and often are much more enjoyable than big blockbusters (there are exceptions). Still, big blockbusters rake in the money. But independent movies can too, they just carry more risk, hence no one is going to give them a big budget.I hope you can understand now why no big publisher will touch the flightsim genre. Too risky in the publishers mind. I don't necessarily agree with that, but then I'm not giving anyone several million dollars to develop a game for me either...Cheers, Christian