But what gets me about Aerofly is the total lack of any kind of real-world environment or Ai planes and traffic etc. Its just you, the plane, and the clouds. All else is eerie silence in that sterile world.......

 

Thought you were describing MS Flight for a moment there.

I remember them selling the train simulator with good amount of default content for less than 2 euros or so in Steam, probably that has something to do with it.

 

A lot of people bought it just because it was half free, obviously some of those people then actually found it interesting and started buying normally priced DLC.

 

Apparently quite a lot if they are now up to three locations, more than 50 staff and are branching out into other simulation genres after just four years.......

 

That from a low of six employees.

 

Lets look at the growth rate of of one of our current shining lights, Laminar, in the same period......  :unsure:

 

Thought you were describing MS Flight for a moment there.

 

Actually Flight had much in common with the ideas behind Railsim. Low price in the beginning, controlled/centralized marketplace, early Steam roll-out, automatic updates.....

 

Not anyone but Microsoft's fault that they were more impatient than a 4 year old on Christmas eve, and never gave their own creation a fair chance.....

 

I was a beta tester (wasn't everyone!) and I always thought they suddenly pulled the plug and launched way too soon. The released product was unfinished I felt, and needed time to grow into its true potential, just like Aerofly. The difference is that we were/are willing to give Aerofly a chance to evolve, while Flight was climbing a mountain of hostility even before release.

 

We have a locked forum to attest to that.

The difference is that we were/are willing to give Aerofly a chance to evolve, while Flight was climbing a mountain of hostility even before release.

 

This is because Microsoft called it the follow-up to the Flight Simulator franchise, while we all expected it to be FS11. Some hostility was bound to happen.

 

I'm sure things would have been better if Microsoft Flight was a little more deep from the start. But the cockpitless planes only made everything worse.

This is because Microsoft called it the follow-up to the Flight Simulator franchise, while we all expected it to be FS11. Some hostility was bound to happen.

 

I'm sure things would have been better if Microsoft Flight was a little more deep from the start. But the cockpitless planes only made everything worse.

 

 

I agree. They should have probably thrown an airliner in there.

 

I do think though that it was relatively what they meant it to be. I read the press releases and carefully followed everything I could on it, and it was pretty obvious eventually that it was going to be very limited at least at first. (Don't know what was going on behind the scenes) Its just that we have this tendency to hype things up to sometimes ridiculous proportions, and despite what was being said, people kept seeming to hear what they wanted, and proceeded to get almost frighteningly emotional about it. It was pretty eye opening!

 

I noticed a similar buildup about Prepare3Dv2

 

And another (milder) one in progress about the legendary X-Plane update 10.30  :unsure:

 

I have no idea why we keep doing it to ourselves.

I think it was very very clear what they meant it to be. I read the press releases and carefully followed everything I could on it, and it was pretty obvious eventually that it was going to be very limited at least at first. (Don't know what was going on behind the scenes) Its just that we have this tendency to hype things up to sometimes ridiculous proportions, and despite what was being said, people kept seeming to hear what they wanted. It was pretty eye opening.

 

I don't think it was made clear enough to be honest. While I don't think the press releases exist anymore, I clearly remember reading that along with the missions/career stuff there would be an "ad-hoc free flight mode". Of course they didn't say anything about AI, ATC and global coverage, but except for some very ambiguous teases (like the webisode that said "fly free"), nothing hinted that Flight would be that different from FSX. They kept saying that Flight would appeal to both old and new players, and I personally didn't expect anything much different from FSX (which had the free flight mode and the missions), except for some more accessibility like an easier UI, a bigger emphasis on tutorials and prettier graphics. And then the big bomb about the game being F2P and locking out add-on developers dropped, along with a cartoony webisode that had silly music, which made the game feel more arcadey than what it really was in my opinion.

 

If they had made their direction more clear from the start, and if the game had some more things to appeal to the old players, I'm sure that Microsoft Flight would still be alive now. I was surprised at the lack of content when it was released because they had been developing it since 2009, on the foundations of FS11 which were being created from 2007 until Aces were fired.

I don't think it was made clear enough to be honest. While I don't think the press releases exist anymore, I clearly remember reading that along with the missions/career stuff there would be an "ad-hoc free flight mode". Of course they didn't say anything about AI, ATC and global coverage, but except for some very ambiguous teases (like the webisode that said "fly free"), nothing hinted that Flight would be that different from FSX. They kept saying that Flight would appeal to both old and new players, and I personally didn't expect anything much different from FSX (which had the free flight mode and the missions), except for some more accessibility like an easier UI, a bigger emphasis on tutorials and prettier graphics. And then the big bomb about the game being F2P and locking out add-on developers dropped, along with a cartoony webisode that had silly music, which made the game feel more arcadey than what it really was in my opinion.

 

If they had made their direction more clear from the start, and if the game had some more things to appeal to the old players, I'm sure that Microsoft Flight would still be alive now. I was surprised at the lack of content when it was released because they had been developing it since 2009, on the foundations of FS11 which were being created from 2007 until Aces were fired.

 

We could probably debate it and have some good back and forth like the old days CB, but I suspect the thread might get abruptly locked like the last one that went this way!   :lol:

I think there was mainly 2 reasons for Flight's early demise. One was lack of DLC, For such a limited product initially, the release of new items, was far too far apart. This was mainly caused by MS decision to shut out 3rd party content, and they just couldn't keep up. The other was the decision to concentrate what DLC they did release to cockpitless aircraft models. This wasn't enough to keep even gamers interested, and definitely not simmers. This I believe was an attempt to compensate for lack of DLC, it was just too little too late.

I don't think that's the whole story by any means, but I'll agree as far as it goes.

All I will say, 64 bit and XP 10 are light years ahead in so much. I think if XP were given the chance a lot of MSFS users would see what I and many are saying. I loaded XP 10 a month ago and yes there are some things I miss from FS9 but what 64 bit does is not even close. I won't try to list all the great things I have seen and noticed, I will leave it up to those who should give it a try. I never gave XP a look in the past, but when I saw the pics shown in this forum I said, this may have something, I am glad I loaded it.

Hehe another 64 bit post. Let me say first that I loved GTA 4 on the PC but I saw the future when Red Dead Redemption was rumored for the PC for months and months and then nothing. Rumors of a 64 bit DX11 PC version of GTA 5 have been circulating since September and you know what? I don't care anymore since I have a console.

 

Rockstar has even denied that there will be a next generation console version, so we will just have to wait a little longer to see what happens.

 

And I agree with Noel. It's one thing to model a few regions of the globe but it's another to model the whole earth.

And I agree with Noel. It's one thing to model a few regions of the globe but it's another to model the whole earth.

 

I provisionally agree that its very resource intensive if you do it the way its always been done.

 

I've been watching various technologies evolve over the last few years, and think that the old ways of doing such things have nearly played themselves out. Its just too expensive in a number of ways.

 

But.

 

First, think of X-Planes "plausible" world. The company remains too small to ever hand recreate the type of detail that Microsoft built into FSX, but they had a technological out: Data sources were just complete enough that they could be used with some tweaking to essentially allow the worlds cities and the accompanying road and water networks to create themselves. (generically)

 

This gave them an approximate parity with FSX in that regard, and a huge leg up in that as the data becomes more complete and refined, so can the the "world" of X-plane. A major innovation for flight  sims, Kudos to Laminar.

 

The downside is that they remain too small (apparently) to capitalize on their coupe, and still lack the art assets and maybe even the drive to complete what they've started. The world of X-plane remains raw and unfinished, and texture-wise still relies on the old tried and true method of painstaking hand creation.

 

Now a second part of a possible revolution has a chance to kick in!

 

Outerra creates its world procedurally, a major departure from the past. Like X-planes cities, The world is programable. Roads can automatically remain level, and the countryside will deform to allow it. the entire worlds geometry can be compressed to a tiny fraction of X-planes current 9 DVD size, and the environmental results are more convincing than anything we have ever seen.

 

Fractal refinement allows you terrain detail of the type we can only dream of right now.

 

I'm convinced that somebody, somewhere will marry these two technologies eventually, and when that happens, creating a world might become (nearly) as simple as plugging in the correct parameters and walking away for a while.

 

Years ago, a system called Viewterra was created that actually was a lot more "complete" than Outerra. it had dynamically variable depth snow and seasons, very convincing fog, rain and windstorms..... it was before its time, the hardware simply wasn't there, and it seems to have died. It did, however show what an Outerra-like engine might be able to do one day.

 

Outerra itself might not be the thing we are looking for, only time will tell; but the concept wont just go away, there's too much potential.

 

So I would say "Is it hard to create a world now?" Yes. But I think a marriage is overdue between at least two types of technology.

 

Maybe someday........... http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/209538/Outerra_A_seamless_planet_rendering_engine.php

 

Outerra Alpha Volumetric Clouds

 

 

Rockstar has even denied that there will be a next generation console version, so we will just have to wait a little longer to see what happens.

 

Yes, its a waiting game allright.  But one thing's for sure. The GTA series is set to run & run and is developing exponentially. Its real-world intercative scenery is light years beyond anything currently available and points the way for future games/sims progress. Granted virtual flight needs improving. But GTA-5 on PC is almost certain, and GTA-6 is already confirmed.

 

Rockstar's president Leslie Benzies  said recently that the studio has “about 45 years worth of ideas” up its sleeve for future GTA development. So the sky, and perhaps space, is the limit.

 

Speaking of trains..

 

.

Basejump to train

 

 

All aboard..

 

All I will say, 64 bit and XP 10 are light years ahead in so much

 

I was into XPlane-v7  years ago and enjoyed it. The XP series always has some nice novel touches. I haven't tried V10 yet, mainly because I was put off by a friend's experience of taking nearly 7 hours to install via the 8 DVDs - a mamoth 80GB install, and then XP10 wanted to update on top of that.

 

Looks good from the air though..

 

.

GTA flight sim add-on, why not if the planes are made nice, VFR flying from Los Ventueras to Liberty City, add in new cities, airports, new settlements in GTA be awesome. VFR sectionals included with gta 6. Think GTA will replicate USA type region with time. Long as the flight phyiscs can be scaled it will be awesome. See, XPlane with more long term potiential than P3d as Loockheed not making the simulator for comsumer market. I use fs2004, FSX, xp-10 and if nothing else came out would not concern me as these do fine flying VFR anyways.