Should Microsoft bother with Aircraft? serious :-)

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

With some spectacular recent releases and without going into specifics I am starting to wonder whether Micrsoft should really consider going outside to populate the next version of MSFS with aircraft.This would have a number of benefits Firstly they would have generic aircraft which are top notch How many of you still use the generic aircraft? How many of you just have these aircraft taking up drive space?Going to the top third party aircraft developers to create the aircraft for the next MSFS would not only insure the quality but would also release Micrsoft to concentrate more on other aspects of the sim.With the quality level of products now being produced stock aircraft are looking more and more pointless.What do you think?Peter

[Guest Dakota]

Of course they will do default aircraft. The majority of the users of MSFS only use the default aircraft and could care less about add-ons. That is how the sell millions of copies to the regular Joe that live across the street. I know plenty of people that own MSFS and not one has ever downloaded one add on for it.

[ubersu 78]

I suspect that the stock aircraft are only pointless to those of us who know the difference. The vast majority of sales go to those who don't know and don't particularly care, but who simply want to try the illusion of flight. DJ

[michal 44]

Peter,I agree with you. But they can't remove those default aircraft since as has been stated majority of the buyers depend on them. But what they should do - they should stop wasting more time on development of new aircraft.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

[Guest secks]

What he's saying is that MS shouldn't even bother making default a/c. Just contract that out to third party developers. Makes sense to me. MS should focus on the engine, something which third party developers cannot modify.

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

MichaelWhile I take your point that we are the hardcore simmers and dont represent the majority of users I KNOW that Microsoft are for making the sim as "real as it gets".They do want to improve the product infact the more real weather was directly due to pressure on the team.Quality always pays and supplying Joe public with "very real" aircraft would not be detrimental.In any form of manufacturing today it is common practice to palm out specialised work to third parties.I see no negatives in adopting this practice with MSFSTo give the excuse of "why bother" because Joe public wouldnt know or wouldnt care whatever the quality is a dangerous route to take in any business.Peter

[byork 2,259]

It would be very nice if Microsoft would invest more money in improving the default aircraft.However, let us be thankful that at least Microsoft allows addon developers (like myself) to be able to modify and improve the FS series.Let's face it, addons (freeware, payware, etc.) is what keeps FS alive for many people.Cheers,Bryan

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

SecksThat is exactly my point that Microsoft should concentrate on other areas of the sim and use third party developers to enhance the product in areas where they do a better job.Peter

[Chris Willis 8]

Hi, One things is sure, ms are looking for a Panels Developer for Msfs links below and folks posting from the msfs "patch convention" there was talking about change in aircraft will be made from member of fs team. The time will tell what's will be the result.http://jobs.volt.com/jobcart/job_details.cfm?JobID=109358http://excell.data.pickajob.com/Main_JobDe...ation+KnowledgeThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

[Guest Stratobat]

>Firstly they would have generic aircraft which are top notchI think you guys are missing the point here...Most really good third-party aircraft, being great quality, tend to chew up more FPS than the default aircraft. I think what Microsoft is trying to do is find the middle of the road so that most users can run the game with an acceptable amount of FPS on an average setup. >It would be very nice if Microsoft would invest more money in improving the default aircraft.Why would they need to invest more money?They already have the software and the expertise in the form of Developers.Regards,Stratobat

[Speedbird 11 2]

I disagree.I use the aircraft that come with MSFS increasingly frequently - and in preference to the commercial and other add-ons. I like their simplicity/functionality ratio, and the fact that they are both a challenge and also an integral part of the game program as a whole. Too many cooks invariably spoil the broth. And, anyway, I would not want the 'spectacular recent releases' instead of the standard aircraft.Regards.Michael

[michal 44]

>tend to chew up more FPS than the default aircraft. I think>what Microsoft is trying to do is find the middle of the road>so that most users can run the game with an acceptable amount>of FPS on an average setup. >Oh, I would have hard time agreeing with this. There are many high quality add-on aircraft that perform close to the default aircraft. Also look at the typical default 2D panel bitmap - it is simply of substandard quality. Making the bitmap sharper, more true to life would not hurt fps. I think the primary reason deafult cockpits are so unispiring is that the MSFS team doesn't have enough resources to truly improve on their aircraft. Another possibility is that they simply decided an average buyer of MSFS would not appreciate the effort anyway.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

[Guest bobsk8]

I have about 600+ hours in small single engine aircraft, and so far with MSFS, I have never really said to myself, this Aircraft flies exactly like the real thing. I changed my mind this week when I purchased the Real Air Simulations Scout. I just finished about a 3+ hour VFR flight around Misty Fjords, and I am amazed at how realistic that flight model and the entire aircraft is. It handles just like a real light aircraft. What's a pity, is that many people that have never flown a real aircraft, probably wouldn't appreciate it as much as pilots would. Anyway, that shows that the basic engine that MS has now is capable of being very realistic. Some dedicated aircraft designers will probably come up with more and more aircraft, that have a realistic feel when flown. They will have to go a long way to catch up to this Scout I flew tonight.

[Guest Stratobat]

>Oh, I would have hard time agreeing with this. There are many>high quality add-on aircraft that perform close to the default>aircraft.Hi Michael,In my previous post I said MOST.... not ALL ;)Regards,Stratobat

[Dark Moment 0]

I think this is a rather silly thread, surely. MS produce a flightsim. Why on earth would they produce one without aircraft? As others have noted, 99% of the buying public probably never make one addition to the sim. The readers of this forum, and those who make a real hobby of it, are a very small minority within their market; although an important one.I get a bit bored with people trashing the default aircraft, too. Heavens, there have been over 180 repaints of the DC-3 alone for FS9. It has a lovely panel. The Trimotor and Piper Cub are equally well done. I concede that MS could do more with the old trusties ... the 737 and Cessnas, for example; but they do add something new each time.I think it's just marvellous that we have a new sim, full of new goodies, every two years. Makes the shelf life of many payware add-ons rather short, too.Mark "Dark Moment" Beaumonthttp://www.swiremariners.com/newlogo.jpg