I see a Big Problem with FS10(FS2006).......

[Dillon 2,197]

Zevious Zoquis I'll repost this for you...No one knows the official sales numbers but I know we have an influence on sales and development in this community. The percentage of so called

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

And I'll say this again - absolutely the dev team visits the forums and has an interest in what we have to say. But they are the dev team, not the marketing dept. It's not up to them whether or not a new version gets made or when that happens. They don't control the purse strings. The dev team are mostly just like us - flightsim enthusiasts - and as such they want to make the sim bigger and better just like we want them to, but they operate under certain limitations imposed by people who simply don't pay any attention to us at all.

[Guest]

You are confusing the development team (who ARE hardcore aviation buffs and DO visit here and DO care about our opinions) with the people making the decision about what goes into the product and what goes not: the marketing people.The marketing people look at the numbers and see a few people (out of a few thousand hardcore simmers who are in no way representative of the entire customer base) suggesting a complete overhaul of the flight dynamics engine.They then see a hugely popular game like Doom 3 with all kinds of new visual niceties sell in massive numbers with screenshots adorning every gaming magazine and website.Those screenshots (of FS too) is what sells 99% or more of all copies, therefore they'd better look as good as you can get them.As a result the development team gets told to concentrate on visual niceties.Only when those are done do they get to work on things under the hood like flight dynamics.The developers do not make the decisions, they do not set the priorities about what does and does not go into the new product.They may have a choice about in which order to implement some low priority stuff but that's about it.

[Guest Kingair315]

>Sure, but theres also lots of registered forum members who>actually aren't really "die-hards". The forum numbers give a>reasonable indication of the numbers. I'd imagine the number>of people who actually own an add-on for the sim and>aren't members of one or more of the FS forums is tiny>indeed...> Hey, I know at least nine just in my family, and they not a member of any forum. Three of my children, and six grandchildren... (Gonna get my Great Grandson in on this, as soon as he can sit at a computer.) Also have three friends who use it, two in CA, and one in OR, who are not. They all say when I try to get them in here, "I'd rather spend the time flying, than talking about it." Bob

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

I on the other hand don't even know another person who owns FS9, let alone any payware add-ons for it.

[Guest]

I know none either. I DO know 2 people who have FS2002 and one who has FS2000 (and he owns that only because I gave him my copy when I got FS2004).

[Guest Dakota]

I have 5 friends who own it and 2 of them have a pilot's liscense. All of them use it only once in awhile and are happy flying the default planes. Adding more planes is a pain the butt (they think) and they get more fun out of RTS or shooter games. They have no desire to take it further. The only ones I know that really enjoy simming are on this forum.

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

I've never actually encountered another person in my day to day life who shares my interest in flight and racing simulations to the degree I do. I have met a few folks over the years who are into gaming but most often they only play the latest FPS, Madden or other console games. I've met a couple of guys who owned Papy's Nascar2003 and were completely floored when I showed them the various mods available for it and informed them of the massive online racing community that exists. They had no idea...

[oqvist 11]

Know none either. Though some has been thinking of getting it because I advertise the TrackIR with vector expansion and the Realair Spitfire for some IL 2 buff :D

[Leen3131cs 107]

Hi guys,I totally agree with that.It`s just the marketing wich makes the choices.Personally I use two flightsim programs.I use FLYII! by Terminal Reality and I use FS9.FlyII! is`nt supported anymore and a new release cannot be expected.When FLYII! (after FLY! and FLY2K)was released is was and in many perspects still is, superior to all other simulators.Nevertheless this sim did not make it.It was not as perfect as it could have been, it was complicated to install and upgrade.The panels and other aircraft issues were and still are the best.Its greates disadvantage was the lack of world simulation.It is a FLIGHT SIMULATOR and not a worldsimulator.Only real flightsim enthousiast were buying the stuff , that was not enough.A pure Flightsimulator is something for the minority.Probably 90% or more of the flightsimmers flying FS9 are PLAYERS anduse their sim as just a game.To keep the interst of those players they made FS9 not only a flightsimulator but also a WORLDSIMULATOR.In a real flightsimulator ( in the real world , for real pilot-training purposes ) we see no boats , churches , palmtrees sailing boats etc.Nevertheless that are the best simulators.(only we can`t have this luxury)My conclusion is :MSFS flightsim will always be sold as a GAME and therefore never a real simulator for die hards.We can make nice simulations with it , but Microsoft is mainly thinking about the kids and players and not the HOME-pilots.RegardsLeen de Jager

[Dillon 2,197]

Leen I don't agree with what your saying here... :-hmmm FlyII may have had it's strong points but to discredit FS9 because it faithfully simulates the whole world is crazy.... FS9 is still a serious simulation and can be used for instrument training and familiarization for prospective pilots. The VC concept alone is far ahead of anything else that

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

ftmp I would tend to agree with that. I mean fundamentally, MSFS is a piece of entertainment software (I hesitate to call it a "game" becuase it doesn't really have the kinds of goals and rewards usually associated with games), but it can be molded into a pretty deep and realistic simulation tool as well. There is always a group of enthusiasts who seem willing to forego all the features and visuals that FS9 has on offer in favour of what they feel is "better flight modeling." They'll commonly say something like "MSFS is eye candy for bitmap junkies" or some such silliness. Personally, afaic that eye-candy contributes at least as much to overall realism as a 5% better flightmodel. It's sort of like someone cramming a 400hp engine into a Volkswagon and then claiming its a better car than a Ferrari with a 380hp engine. Sure, the engine may be slightly more powerful, but I'd still take the Ferrari anyday... :)

[Leen3131cs 107]

Hi Dillon,I think you misunderstood my statement , or and most likel;y I was not clear enough.I did NOT state FLYII! is the best ,NOR my favorite.Time did it`s work and FS9 filled the gap`s.The only thing I ment to say is, FLYII! neglected to much the GAME-effects and was not usefull for the average simmer.Therefore it became not populair enough and had to die , while it had the potential of a superbe sim.The moment MSFS is going to be not a game and a serious game the same time, but only a serious SIM it is going to die too.In other words when it suits all wishes of the die-hards it won`t sell anymore.These days I use FS9 far more than FLYII! there is nothing wrong with FS9.FlyII! only had the potential to be better than FS9 and that killed her for the reasons I gave before.Leen de Jager

[Guest IanP]

I'm inclined to agree with Leen, actually. FS is primarily eye-candy.However, if I was looking for accurate flight dynamics, I wouldn't go to the Fly series, I would go to X-Plane in all probability. The fact that X-Plane aircraft function in conjunction with and not despite the visual model is what keeps that sim alive. It is only now starting to look more than very basic (I still don't like the panels), but if you make a change to the visual model, it changes how it flies. That's what happens in the real world. Yeah, okay, it's fun flying a bicycle that flies like a C172 occasionally, but it does show that the sim is in pieces, not working together as a whole.The Fly series were systems simulations. The panels and systems behaved as they would in the real aircraft. This is something that FS developers try to achieve on a regular basis and, often, they achieve something that to the user looks like the real thing. Unfortunately behind that is still a pretty naff autopilot and a limited set of systems to affect. I *really* wish the MS team would pay attention to speed control on the autopilot because that drives me nuts.Flight Unlimited started out as a flight simulation when it was an aerobatic program but, by the time it had got to FU3, in my opinion, it was more of a world simulation. It gave you other things to interract with like the missions, ATC and other traffic. In that respect it was way ahead of its time.I know a lot of people with FS, and very few of them use anything more than the default set. Those that do tend to buy box sets from shops rather than download freeware, despite me regularly telling them to look at what is available from sites like this.So which do I prefer? FS2004. It does a reasonable systems job, a reasonable flight model and a reasonable world simulation. I do hope that MS give us a longer cycle than two years, because I think that's too short, but it's the all round nature of FS that has kept it alive where others have failed. It can be a game, it can be a serious training aid. It's a reasonable, although by no means brilliant, simulation of flight.And with that, I shall withdraw my oar from the discussion. :-)Ian P.

[Leen3131cs 107]

Thanks Ian,Your english is far better than mine, but we are talking about the same thing.Leen