Should Microsoft bother with Aircraft? serious :-)

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

Really and I mean this in the nicest way using your word i have never read such a load of Cr*p ;-)Do you really think that people will turn away in their thousands because they have a RealAir Spitfire or Scout instead of the default Cub? Or maybe the Dreamfleet Bonanza? or a LDS 767 Instead of a default heavy?Maybe a more proactive virtual co-pilot for the dunderheads? they still have to have a pretty in depth level of understanding to fly the default heavies. But which is easier a twitchy puppet on a string default or a more stable realistic LDS767?Yes aircraft have to rely on the defaults to work because thats the way its designed but that doesnt have to be the case.Subcontracting out is a well used business stratedgy and far from calling The makers of LDS767 or PMDG a bunch of amateurs???Peter

[oktorn777 0]

It's time for me to drop in my 2 cents too. :)I think we all can agree that the MSFS has to come with some default airplanes. In my opinion they shouldn't have too complex systems simulations (in the heavies that is, so the general fs user can also handle a b747 after a short time. What I dislike though, are the poor flight models, especially for the heavies and the turboprops aswell. For me as a pilot, it's harder to fly a unrealistic flightmodel, not reacting as one would percept it should than a realistic one.Of course the 2d-panels of the fs2000 age could need a little overhaul in visual quality, guage clearness & smoothness.Now for use hardcore simmers demanding every switch in a airliner to work (no dummy switches), I would love to see MS making the FS architecture open enough, so that there weren't ANY LIMITATIONS being build in the engine itself already. And providing an interface for thirdparty developers which is easy and fast to use.Than no limitations in the flight models either!MS should concentrate on much less stock aircraft than in the current version (with all the oldtimers) and spend more time in proving a stable and excellent main engine in every respect, so third-party developers won't be hold back by the engine itself.cheers,Claudio

[Guest Stratobat]

Hi Michael,>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.Microsoft posted a position for a Panel Creator for Flight Sim, so it's probable that they know that panels are a weakness at the moment, but in all honesty, panel's are not hard to make. If you are prepared to spend some time on it you can turn out some really good stuff.Regards,Stratobat

[Guest Stratobat]

>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.I would rather have stock gauges in a third party model as apposed to having nothing at all... But that's just me!>Just another example of how the community is destroying itself>by hostility towards developers...I've seen it on countless forums, unfortunately people like shooting themselves in the foot :-hangRegards,Stratobat

[Guest]

yes, they would turn away in their tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands.Many people give up flying those addons even after purchasing them separate because they're too complex for their tastes, and those who do purchase them are already in the top 10% at least of MSFS users where it comes to dedication and proficiency.If a punter steps into the RealAir Spit if Microsoft were to provide that and crashes 10 times on takeoff because he can't keep it straight he's going to cry foul against Microsoft and claim they make poor flight models.If that same punter can't comprehend the LDS 767 in 10 minutes and get it in the air in 15 he'll complain that it's too difficult and Microsoft should provide something easier.Your attitude is indicative of the class of people who don't understand what the real market for this game is. It's not us, the hardcore simmers, at all. It's the general computer game audience who purchase it for a diversion from the latest first person shooter or role playing game.Those people don't want dozens of hours practicing a single aircraft before they can fly it successfully, nor do they want to have to wade through hundreds of pages of systems manuals for each of those aircraft.There's already people who say the default aircraft are too hard to fly and turning away. Make it even harder and you indeed loose the mass market which is the only thing keeping this product affordable.

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

To fly a Vor or an HS1 takes a level of knowledge far beyond Joe Bloggs in the street yet the default have those instruments.I take your point that there are many who want to pretend that they were infact the Captain of the holiday jet that flew them off to some far off place.I can remember being at a party where one guy was bragging to an audience that he had bought MSFS and reckoned he could get it down if both pilots dropped dead.On finding out that i was a real world jet pilot albeit the biz jet variety he pleaded with me with his eyes not to shatter his illusion.Microsoft advertised "as real as it gets" and that version was far from real.Yet it was the "As real as it gets" slogan which drove this guys illusions.I like many other pilots here can only push to make the sim as true to life as possible.To accept the sim as being for Joe Bloggs public who wouldnt care about reality or quality would be accepting MSFS as being a "game" Microsoft themselves have tied up with Jepp as well as flight schools so they themselves want the sim to hit that Slogan mean it.You have to cover both camps those who want to fly like a real Captain from start to shutdown and those who just want an illusion.You can do this having the jet all started and running and building in an ever more complex auto co-pilot.Dont just look at flight sims but also look at driving sims. The big ones Colin Mcrae rally and Grandprix 3 were based on selling themselves under the reality banner.Infact any racing sim release all try to be more realistic than the others. How do they deal with the poor simmers? they have driver aids and levels for novices good expert etc.All these sims sell an illusion to those who will never race a real car or fly a real plane.But sell the sim as a game pure and simple which is miles from reality and then you will loose Joe Public in his thousands.Peter

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

It seems to me that theres a pretty salient point being missed in this discussion - the fact that these superb add-ons individually take a year or two to develop. If MS contracts out to third party devs so that we can have something like the RealAir SF260 or Spitfire as a defualt plane, RealAir would then have to operate within MS's development timeline. They wouldn't likely be able to spend a year developing one or two planes. Theres a reason payware add-ons cost half to 2/3s (or more) the cost of the sim itself - they are so much more complex and detailed than the defualts and take so much longer to build. If MS were to contract the planes out to outside developers, and those developers actually did produce planes of RealAir quality, It's a sure thing the cost of the sim would have to increase significantly - and that's what would cuase a lot of the "non-hardcore" group of users (aka the majority) to take a pass...

[Guest Debosonic]

Yes because that is what is expected from them.Obviously we'll see some mildly improved version of the default aircraft, because as was correctly stated earlier they are aiming to sell the sim to a wide spectrum of people who wouldn't want to spend a penny for an add-on or even download a freeware item.We are a niche market, we expect the best, that is why we spend lots of dollars and euros upgrading our FS experience. Still, we are the minority. FS is merely the beginning, a stepping stone if you like. When one starts accumulating add-ons and is genuinely interested in FSim more than any other daily activity, then it becomes an obsession.And what a nice onsession this is....So no, MS will continue to delelop their own default aircraft, without involving third party developers. IT would just bring the cost up, and so the average Joe would go and buy Half Life 2 instead...(by the way I do own DOOM 3 and actually play it twice a month...)

[Guest slydon]

RIGHT ON!!!!!!!!! I would like to see much better v/c and in my opinion could just as well do away with 2d cockpit (or, maybe include it in the download for those who want ot install it) Basicaly concentrate on the v/c. Also, failing that, I would like to know if there is a way (in the cfig file) to change the view progression so I could eliminate the 2d cockpit view. That would be just as good for me.Don

[Guest Dakota]

But that is why sells so well. It can be flown by the joe public and enjoyed by millions who enjoy taking it for a joy ride now and then, but would much rather spend their time playing Doom, or even miltary flight sims where there is much more action going on. Compared to those games, you have to admit MSFS is pretty boring unless you are into the mental challenge of learning to fly, learning the aircaft systems or just enjoy tweaking it to death and want to commit the time to do those things. There is a very small fraction of a percentage that want to do that. I am sure that if you looked at the numbers of the best selling add-on for MSFS, (I have no idea what that would be) it would be in the 1000's. Where MSFS sells in the millions, a tiny grain of sand when compared to the beach. Lucky for us MSFS can cater to a wide variety of people and be as simple or complex anyone could want and that is why it sells so well.

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

ZeviousThe cost would be negligable in the scale of things. Remeber sim companies who build addon aircraft look at selling a few thousand units.Hence their prices almost equalling the purchase price of MSFS .MSFS sales are in millions of units so to get an equal return you would be talking about a small fraction of one dollar and a very small fraction at that something like $.020 of a dollar.Peter

[Guest bobsk8]

>>>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>Well, I have yet to fly any FS default aircraft that convinces me that I am flying a real aircraft,especially the Cessna, and I have more than a little experience in flying . Just this morning, I took off in my Real Air Scout, practiced some spins and spin recoveries and the flew some turns about a point at about 500 feet AGL with a 15 knot wind. Try that in any Default FS aircraft and see if you can do it. By the way, turns about a point is something that any prospective pilot has to demonstrate on his check ride to get his license.

[Tierborn 188]

If MS were to up the ante on the default aircraft and have external developers provide the aircraft .. the licensing fees and the marketing ploy of value capture .. would drive MS to increase the price on the simulator ..... perhaps they could make a standard version for 50$ and the professional for 200$. $200 buck too much .. not really when you think about the cost of the average add-on ..Vernon

[Tierborn 188]

>To 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.>>>>PeterPeter .. this statement is not true ... the commercial decisions are made in consideration of the what the competition is doing and what is the target market willing to pay for .... If business' targeted a small subsegment to tailor its products ... they run the potential on consuming large amounts of capital and resources without any pay back ....Vernon

[Guest GOP]

I think it was in Flying magazine this month had in the training column: "Deju Vu; pilots can learn the perils of mountain flying without leaving home". The program that allowed this stay at home training was FS9. The author used the default aircraft, but did purchase add on scenery to make the mountains more realistic. Default aircraft fly good enough to act like close to the real plane. Coudl'nt say that about earlier additions of flight sim. Older additions the Lear was almost un-flyable. Today I sometimes still use the Lear, actuelly this is the only version of MSflightsim that I've still fly default aircraft. A friend of mine I just discovered has used flight sim since FS98 and did not realize places like Avsim existed. He was bored with simming and flying the same planes, today he is an addict again! The next sim Microsoft might consider doing another pro and reg version. The pro should make the "pilot" depend on himself for all the systems functions and the non be like it is today the sim does most of the hard stuff including engine start! Like the real world no matter how real or good the default aircraft, scenery get we the users will want better.