Should Microsoft bother with Aircraft? serious :-)

[michal 44]

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

[cat 2]

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

[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

[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.

[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

[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...

[barryward12345 0]

>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

[Murmur 3,941]

>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 :(

[michal 44]

.. 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

[Guest MarkM]

Totally agree with you!

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

>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).I Never suggested Microsoft release a product with no aircraft! I suggested they used third party specialists to produce the aircraft for them. This is a common business practice.>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.Why would you loose customers by producing a better product?>As a result you'll end up with a copy of MSFS costing between>$1000 and $1500 dollars or Euros.Not relevant!>You're under the mistaken perception thatYou obviously havent a clue what my perception is so please dont state it!>1) every user of the product is a hardcore simmer who uses>tons of addons.I have never said or believed that!>2) every addon is a completely original product that isn't in>any way using anything taken from or provided by the default>aircraft.Never said that either>3) the defaults are complete crap. They aren't.I would never use the word crap to describe anything. Am I impressed by the default aircraft ? NO>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.Microsoft should concentrate on getting the structure right,building a new dynamic weather engine and using the skills of outside developers to improve the product overall. As stated this is a common practice in any business where companies go to specialists to create a portion of an overall product.

[Guest]

A VC needs gauges. The groups you mention have no gauge programmers and would take a lot of heat if they put in some default gauges.Some have tried creating a model only for the VC and not putting in any gauges, they were slagged for not making a clickable VC...Just another example of how the community is destroying itself by hostility towards developers...

[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).>>I Never suggested Microsoft release a product with no>aircraft! I suggested they used third party specialists to>produce the aircraft for them. This is a common business>practice.>It's not common practice in the computer games industry to get amateurs to work for free for your product...Maybe they could contract it out but the guidelines would have to be to make it appeal to the largest percentage of the userbase which means less complicated panels and less detailed models, which is exactly what the defaults are now so why do it?>>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.>>Why would you loose customers by producing a better product?>Read what I wrote. If they don't put in aircraft or put in aircraft that are impossible to use for the vast majority of users those users won't buy the product thus costing them those customers.>>As a result you'll end up with a copy of MSFS costing>between>>$1000 and $1500 dollars or Euros.>>Not relevant!>OK, so you ARE willing and able to pay upwards of a thousand dollars for FS?Good to know, maybe you can donate me a new computer instead then :)>>1) every user of the product is a hardcore simmer who uses>>tons of addons.>>I have never said or believed that!>You allude it when you state Microsoft shouldn't bother to include aircraft...>>2) every addon is a completely original product that isn't>in>>any way using anything taken from or provided by the default>>aircraft.>>Never said that either>Same thing. If Microsoft doesn't include aircraft (and thus panels and FDEs) those addons no longer work and therefore those addons can not exist.Thus the consequence of your idea is the disappearance of most addons.>>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.>>Microsoft should concentrate on getting the structure>right,building a new dynamic weather engine and using the>skills of outside developers to improve the product overall.>As stated this is a common practice in any business where>companies go to specialists to create a portion of an overall>product.Why do you think they don't completely redo everything from scratch for every release?And now that they do as you want you complain about that...Typical really. Whatever Microsoft do people complain...Few weeks ago someone complained that Microsoft antispyware changed the browser homepage to msn.com when detecting a trojan had changed it.When confronted with the alternative (keeping constant track of what the current homepage is and storing that) he admitted he'd complain about the product doing that as well.Strangely he doesn't complain about such behaviour in products from other companies... Seems you are similar.

[ahinterl 1]

One small, well developed aircraft (e.g. C-172) would be completely sufficient IMHO.The aircrafts that come with FS are simply bad (bad FSE, bad visuals) or ridiculous (i.e. MS shouldn't try to model a 737, let aside a 777 panel).For me, either adding a single, simple, well(!) designed plane, or bundling of one or more 3rd party aircraft would be a good way.I for one would be happy with an FS without any aircraft as well.Andreas

[MD83 1]

>Just another example of how the community is destroying itself>by hostility towards developers...That's right. I accept freeware addons "as is", unlike some :(