Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
cat

Should Microsoft bother with Aircraft? serious :-)

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well my point was that MSFS did not bother to find a "middle" optimized solution between performance and quality. If they did they would give us much more quality for practically the same performance (a good comparison is between FS9's Cessna Skyhawk and the same airplane from Flight1). They gave us performance only because they did not have time, money or talent to give us deserved quality as well... ;-)Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post Pete. I'd like to see the inclusion of a limited numberof top-notch aircraft.They'd still have to include simplified defaults because this is theonly way many simmers graduate to the complex ones.Great suggestion!Peter Sydney Australia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stratobat

Hi Michael,>Well my point was that MSFS did not bother to find a "middle">optimized solution between performance and quality.A friend of mine used to run FS9 on a Pentium III 733 with an ATI 9600 Pro card, your running it on an AMD 3500+ with an ATI X800 Pro.Surely this is an example of a "middle" optimized solution between performance and quality?>If they did they would give us much more quality for practically the>same performance.There's no such thing as better quality with no performance loss. If you have a fast system, you may not feel the loss in performance, but someone with a middle of the range system will. Don't forget that some of the default aircraft double-over as AI Aircraft in Flight Sim, so it's not worthwhile to create High poly models of them (Unless you create models specifically for AI and Users to fly in).Regards,Stratobat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Let's see. The percentage of users of MSFS that download or otherwise obtain any addons is estimated at being 10-20% at most of the total number of users (hard to give exact numbers of course as there's a lot of people using multiple download sites and a lot of people with accounts at sites they never use).If Microsoft were to quit putting in aircraft they'd therefore loose at least 80% of their userbase. As 90% of the purchase price of MSFS is not directly related to the production and distribution of the diskset, this would make the product say 9-10 times as expensive (maybe 7 times as expensive if they decide to be happy with the same amount of dollars per copy in profit instead of the same percentage).A good percentage of those downloads are nothing more than repaints of default aircraft, and of the rest a lot use at least the default FDE and panels.Loosing all those customers would mean loosing maybe 50-75% of the userbase remaining after the first culling, leaving 5-10% of the current userbase.As a result you'll end up with a copy of MSFS costing between $1000 and $1500 dollars or Euros.You're under the mistaken perception that1) every user of the product is a hardcore simmer who uses tons of addons.2) every addon is a completely original product that isn't in any way using anything taken from or provided by the default aircraft.3) the defaults are complete crap. They aren't.Your very argument has been used in the past to claim Microsoft should not provide any scenery because addon scenery is so much better...Addon weather is a lot better too, maybe Microsoft should drop that.Know what? Maybe Microsoft should drop the entire product because if you put all those addons together you have a superior product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stratobat

Hehe... Nicely put ;)Of course the problem that would stem then, would be finding enough Aircraft, Panel, Scenery and Sound Designers to "fill" the sim once MS dropped those portions from the Sim ;)Nah, I think everybody needs to stop complaining and pick an area of the Sim and decide to design some stuff for it. If you take the total amount of registered people at most Flight Sim sites, the Designers don't even occupy 5% of the total user database!Regards,Stratobat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ridge_Runner_5

IMO, the biggest issue is that while we have people creating absolutely spectacular external models (Posky, iFDG, SGA to name a couple of the big guys) they are not making VCs! The 3d 'pits are one of the biggest advancements in the FS series, along with ATC and weather engine.I dont know, I guess it's just hard for them, in their opinion, to model the interiors. Too hard to get resources? I think not!I have been working on the 3d cockpit of a Saab 340. I was short on resources, working only off of photos on airliners.net, so what did I do? I called Saab and asked if they could ship me a package with information on gauges, their purpose and where they sat on the panel. 2 weeks later I had a copy of the AOM on my front porch!I guess they would rather spend more times on seemingly useless features ("maintenance mode," as many opening doors as possible) instead of investing the time and effort into a truly 1st rate 3d cockpit...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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 agree here with you Mark. Personally , I find myself returning to the VC of the trusty C172 time and time again. It seems to have that the viewpoint and feeling of the C172 convinces me I am flying a small a/c. Frankly, most of the a/c in Fsim including the addons are just too easy to fly. If somebody could simply start up a C310 or a B737NG and fly away in real life, we have something to worry about.It takes many years to fly complex a/c in real life -- we are all having ourselves on!!Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I have been working on the 3d cockpit of a Saab 340. I was>short on resources, working only off of photos on>airliners.net, so what did I do? I called Saab and asked if>they could ship me a package with information on gauges, their>purpose and where they sat on the panel. 2 weeks later I had a>copy of the AOM on my front porch!>Cool! What did you tell them? How much did you pay? I guess it ain't so easy to get a B747 or A330 AOM in comparison :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.. and only 5 months ago I was running FS9 on PIII 500 Mhz. ;-)The truth is that you can get a lot of extra quality for very minor performance drop and I am not talking about external models (which I care less about) but the cockpit alone. Frankly most of default airplanes have instrument panels so poorly done that I refused to use them even on my PIII 500 even if I get 5 fps extra. But as your example (and some other in this thread) shows Microsoft knows the market well and they understand that majority of users will be better served with incomplete, poorly graphed, dumbed-down panels. Please do not take as an afront - it is not meant to be. I just realize that hard core simmers are relatively few.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...