No, I don't think MS is going to revive MSFS.  However, PC gaming remains and DirectX is still a very popular technology upon which games are based.

 

I almost forgot about this, didn't Ballmer discontinue development of DX? I'm sure Bill will bring this back but just the same another example of Ballmer's agenda...

I almost forgot about this, didn't Ballmer discontinue development of DX? I'm sure Bill will bring this back but just the same another example of Ballmer's agenda...

 

It would be a great example of Ballmer's agenda if it were actually true. DirectX 7 through 11 were released on his watch, most recently DX11.1.

 

Luke

I doubt that the new CEO will have any influence on flight simulation software by Microsoft. They're neither able, nor willing to invest into a new MS FS project, which we already could see in case of MS Flight and by closure of the ACES studio.

 

These days the quality of games is declining in general, in my point of view. Everything has to be easy, for the casual gamer. A certain amount of intelligence and skill is no requirement anymore for publishers (they want easy money - products for the masses). And flight simulation seems just "too elaborate" for publishers like MS, i.e. not worthy development. They even failed to realize that MS Flight will become an epic fail even before it was released.

It would be a great example of Ballmer's agenda if it were actually true. DirectX 7 through 11 were released on his watch, most recently DX11.1.

 

Luke

 

Articles like this got people talking:

 

http://www.gengame.net/2013/02/microsoft-kills-off-xna-and-directx-developer-tools-could-spell-trouble-for-indies/

 

I can't confirm/deny any of this I just read a similar article on the subject.

It used to be I bought a new Desktop every year but for the first time ever my desktop is now 3 years old because no reason to upgrade from Windows 7 or FSX as nothing to go to. So obviously that desktop budget is going into other things. 

 

Same here, I don't know when I'll bother updating this PC or whether I'll just go Mac.  The kicker is how invested I am in FSX add-ons (particularly scenery).

The buck stopped with Ballmer, he was the one in charge. He put his team in place and approved everything that went on during his tenure either directly or indirectly. He stood on stage and sold Windows 8 so he knew what was going on. I've seen Bill Gate on stage with a preview of Flight Simulator (FSX to be more specific). To sit here and try to alleviate Ballmer of overall responsibility is crazy. Even in the military when something happens in the lower ranks the senior officer is held accountable whether he was directly involved or not. You've been a big supporter of Flight and Windows 8 in the past and to be fare both have their good points but Ballmer is totally responsible for the failures at Microsoft during his time as CEO, period... He had a failing agenda that was put in place by him and the people at the top with him. No he wasn't involved in every mundane task but the overall culture and products resulting from his team and that culture is his to own. Crap runs down hill as they say. The head of the company sets the tone for the whole organization...

 

As I've said in the past, me liking Windows 8 and me enjoying Flight has nothing to do with the CEO of Microsoft. Me stating that I enjoy a few Microsoft products does not automatically mean that I like the CEO of that company and make my opinion of that CEO different than what I said in my last post. The whole point of my previous post was to throw out some things for you to consider.

 

I almost forgot about this, didn't Ballmer discontinue development of DX? I'm sure Bill will bring this back but just the same another example of Ballmer's agenda...

 

I can't find any proof that Ballmer decided to discontinue development of DirectX. The original source of this info was supposedly a leaked email, anyway. Like I said before, I'm not saying he's a great CEO.

 

http://www.polygon.com/2013/1/31/3939230/microsoft-has-no-plans-for-future-versions-of-xna-software

I get really tired of seeing MS Flight constantly being kicked around. If you want to pretend to "drive" a big aluminum beer can from point A to point B, be my guest. If the community had been more supportive and it had been allowed to develop, we might have had something. I happened to like Flight, still use it, and I am not alone. I also use use FSX and AeroflyFS.  Those who "say" they tried it probably never really got into it far enough to be allowed to criticize. I have been at this flight sim thing since the SubLogic days and have had every rendition that Microsoft released. Just don't happen to be a tube liner guy. Stick and rudder, low and slow and that is what FLIGHT offered this old X rw pilot. The rest would have come.

 

Sorry for the rant, and hope I didn't offend anyone. Not my intention.

 

Steve

I can't find any proof that Ballmer decided to discontinue development of DirectX. The original source of this info was supposedly a leaked email, anyway. Like I said before, I'm not saying he's a great CEO.

 

http://www.polygon.com/2013/1/31/3939230/microsoft-has-no-plans-for-future-versions-of-xna-software

XNA is dead (Monogame may live on).  DirectX was folded straight into the Windows SDK.

 

The earlier observations that following Microsoft around as a developer are mighty true - they are so schizophrenic, why bother?  Having said that Visual Studio is still a good tool and C# is a good language.

XNA is dead (Monogame may live on).  DirectX was folded straight into the Windows SDK.

 

The earlier observations that following Microsoft around as a developer are mighty true - they are so schizophrenic, why bother?  Having said that Visual Studio is still a good tool and C# is a good language.

 

Ah, I haven't kept up with this kind of stuff. Good to know.

 

Visual Studio 2013 is an amazing piece of software. I've been learning C# recently (coded with Visual Basic on and off for a few years, but never did much with it). The auto-complete feature when you are typing code is quite useful.

 

 

 

I get really tired of seeing MS Flight constantly being kicked around. If you want to pretend to "drive" a big aluminum beer can from point A to point B, be my guest. If the community had been more supportive and it had been allowed to develop, we might have had something. I happened to like Flight, still use it, and I am not alone. I also use use FSX and AeroflyFS.  Those who "say" they tried it probably never really got into it far enough to be allowed to criticize. I have been at this flight sim thing since the SubLogic days and have had every rendition that Microsoft released. Just don't happen to be a tube liner guy. Stick and rudder, low and slow and that is what FLIGHT offered this old X rw pilot. The rest would have come.

 

Indeed. I think Flight has more of a future in the hands of third party developers than people give it credit for, even if core updates and support are a thing of the past. Stonelance has already made some awesome things possible. I can't wait to see what he can achieve in the future.

I get really tired of seeing MS Flight constantly being kicked around. If you want to pretend to "drive" a big aluminum beer can from point A to point B, be my guest. If the community had been more supportive and it had been allowed to develop, we might have had something. I happened to like Flight, still use it, and I am not alone. I also use use FSX and AeroflyFS.  Those who "say" they tried it probably never really got into it far enough to be allowed to criticize. I have been at this flight sim thing since the SubLogic days and have had every rendition that Microsoft released. Just don't happen to be a tube liner guy. Stick and rudder, low and slow and that is what FLIGHT offered this old X rw pilot. The rest would have come.

 

Sorry for the rant, and hope I didn't offend anyone. Not my intention.

 

Steve

 

A potential problem with your argument might be:

 

Flight only had "Low and Slow" in the 49th and 50th states and no airliners, so it was hated.

FSX had airliners, so that's what you used it for - "beercan autopilot."

 

However, FSX was a flexible option affording both "stick and rudder" as well as "beercan aerodynamics."  FSX provided an open world with an SDK, a vibrant 3rd Party Market that still thrives 7-8 years later, and FSX appears to drive most of the traffic even here at AVSIM (at least the results here http://forum.avsim.net/topic/430855-results-of-the-2013-avsim-community-demographics-survey/ suggest this).

 

It doesn't seem that Flight was built to last, support or not.  Some of the last DLC aircraft did not have a cockpit, which was not a good sign in comparison and contrast to what is still available for FSX (even with its warts).

 

Anyhow, this is very much a "one man's trash is another's treasure" situation, so it is not worth further pursuit.  But it is safe to say that Flight disappointed many, for what ever reasons; the Flight party didn't last long enough to tell what we can learn from it.  

A potential problem with your argument might be:

 

Flight only had "Low and Slow" in the 49th and 50th states and no airliners, so it was hated.

FSX had airliners, so that's what you used it for - "beercan autopilot."

 

However, FSX was a flexible option affording both "stick and rudder" as well as "beercan aerodynamics." FSX provided an open world with an SDK, a vibrant 3rd Party Market that still thrives 7-8 years later, and FSX appears to drive most of the traffic even here at AVSIM (at least the results here http://forum.avsim.net/topic/430855-results-of-the-2013-avsim-community-demographics-survey/ suggest this).

 

It doesn't seem that Flight was built to last, support or not. Some of the last DLC aircraft did not have a cockpit, which was not a good sign in comparison and contrast to what is still available for FSX (even with its warts).

 

Anyhow, this is very much a "one man's trash is another's treasure" situation, so it is not worth further pursuit. But it is safe to say that Flight disappointed many, for what ever reasons; the Flight party didn't last long enough to tell what we can learn from it.

 

 

People need to understand now the upgrade to FSX is P3D v2. Many Aces members have went over to LM so let's not leave this at FSX as the end all. I had to say this as we shouldn't at this point talk in the context as nothing past FSX is available. In the case of Microsoft this may be the case but in reality 85% of FSX add-ons work in P3D v2 without issue. In a few months there's no reason to still be using FSX much less talking about it as the standard. For those with money and time put in I understand sticking with FSX like I stuck with FS9 but the new standard moving forward will be P3D and XP if nothing else than the fact these two options are under active development.

I think now bashing mircosoft flight was mistake now because I am rudder and stick simmer perfer low and slow. It lack of transparency and openness on Microsoft part that shot flight down the tubes.

In a few months there will still be no PMDG T7 for P3Dv2 - just saying ...

In a few months there will still be no PMDG T7 for P3Dv2 - just saying ...

PMDG has already announced P3D v2 compatibility. So unless you know something the rest of us don't this can happen at any time. Most developers seem to be waiting on the 2.1 update. Even if they weren't offering compatibility like Flight1, one developer doesn't stop the whole show, 'just sayen'...

While PMDG has announced it, I believe he is saying it wont have arrived by then.