Thanks for that Wobbie, gonna read it now

 

This was an interesting statement:

We will not be addressing the 64-bit memory limit in FSX: Steam Edition, but you can be sure that we'll be looking at that as part of the next step forward in flight simulation.

 

The rest is pretty much a standard interview that gives away nothing i guess

How about making the aircraft wheels not looking like they are sinking into the ground.

Yup pretty much standard stuff. They have never said anything before about 64bit stuff, so, no surprises there.

 

As far as sinking wheels go..that should not be a problem when using VC or cockpit views.

There are a few tidbits in there, but people are still free essentially to read into it what they will.

 

The biggest ongoing challenge is how we allow a wider range of fans to engage more deeply with our sims. We have loads of ideas (and are always coming up with new ones) to bring a new generation of players into the hobby. We want to stick to realistic simulation - this is what we do - while balancing authenticity and accessibility.

 

 

Many years of sneering at FSX-SE?? Many months, maybe.

Breaking news for you, FSX-MS and FSX-SE are both FSX still. YEARS stand.

Thanks for that Wobbie, gonna read it now

 

This was an interesting statement:

 

We will not be addressing the 64-bit memory limit in FSX: Steam Edition, but you can be sure that we'll be looking at that as part of the next step forward in flight simulation.

 

The rest is pretty much a standard interview that gives away nothing i guess

 

 

Finally!!! 

Breaking news for you, FSX-MS and FSX-SE are both FSX still. YEARS stand.

& years apart. Anyhow, semantics.

Its simple. Start simple.

 

You basically just described FLIGHT, which I know you loved, but was a total failure commercially. 

 

What is clear with a civilian flight simulator is that being able to connect with it on a personal level is key. Releasing Hawaii or some other small region will not draw people in. It's not like a military simulator because you don't have a war to focus your attention on. 

 

FSX has survived this long because of the magic of being able to fly when and where you want in what you want. The complexity of planes is secondary. Plenty of people aren't worried about PMDG airliners but still enjoy FSX. The scale and vibrancy of the world around the plane is the priority that draws people in. But if you limit the scope of the world too much, people will just not bother.

Edited June 26, 201510 yr by n4gix
Removed rediculously excessive quote! Again!

We will not be addressing the 64-bit memory limit in FSX: Steam Edition, but you can be sure that we'll be looking at that as part of the next step forward in flight simulation.

 

Basically a totally meaningless comment. He is hardly likely to say 64 bit is not on the agenda when simmers are crying out for it, is he?

 

Given their need to get a new sim out sooner rather than later (to satisfy the accountants and shareholders) I would be totally amazed if this was not a 32 bit re-hash of Flight but with a complete (basic) world, perhaps some form of career mode and a whole plethora of badges and achievement awards to keep the Steam-junkies happy. And, of course, Steam-only add ons.

You basically just described FLIGHT, which I know you loved, but was a total failure commercially. 

 

+1 Well said. MSFS is many different things for many different people. It sure covers the greater majority, large or small from the very simple to the very complex. It is a World Template Platform (almost like a sub OS) to follow and not just to abandon for uncertainties. To make it BETTER, to evolve it further cause it is already in the proven right pass.

 

Cheers,

You basically just described FLIGHT, which I know you loved, but was a total failure commercially.

 

Honestly that doesn't seem to be the case. Tom, in another thread revealed some numbers that hinted that Flight was doing about as well as FSX did in the same amount of time. Despite that, I suspect for various reasons,the meme about Flights financial failure relative to FSX continues to propagate. The more probable truth is that, just like FSX, FLIGHT failed to bring in the type of numbers to interest a company like Microsoft.

 

In fact no civilian simulator at all in the Microsoft template has shown any impressive success that I know of beyond bare survival. Certainly not enough for robust development to continue. (it's been nice for 3rd parties, though)

 

If that was not the case, and there was a profit to be had, then where are all the modern FSX clones attempting to elbow in to share the bounty? Even Aerosoft apparently backed away from the stark numbers when its contemplation of creating a sim was put on hold.

 

FSX has survived this long because of the magic of being able to fly when and where you want in what you want. The complexity of planes is secondary. Plenty of people aren't worried about PMDG airliners but still enjoy FSX. The scale and vibrancy of the world around the plane is the priority that draws people in. But if you limit the scope of the world too much, people will just not bother.

 

I would say that I suspect its more that many in this community, having become accustomed to the whole world as offered by Microsoft, would be uninterested, but I'm not totally convinced that the majority of people, fully accustomed to more constrained environments, would have the same difficulties. In point of fact, I would welcome the whole world if Dovetail offers it, and there are excellent reasons for doing so.

 

That being said, I won't shed many tears if for several other good reasons they try something different.

 

It remains a truth that whatever they try, FSX, X-Plane, and P3D are still there.

I would like DTG to hire some of these excellent freeware AFCAD designers we have here for their new sim. Ray Smith anyone?

Honestly that doesn't seem to be the case. Tom, in another thread revealed some numbers that hinted that Flight was doing about as well as FSX did in the same amount of time. Despite that, I suspect for various reasons,the meme about Flights financial failure relative to FSX continues to propagate. The more probable truth is that, just like FSX, FLIGHT failed to bring in the type of numbers to interest a company like Microsoft.

 

In fact no civilian simulator at all in the Microsoft template has shown any impressive success that I know of beyond bare survival. Certainly not enough for robust development to continue. (it's been nice for 3rd parties, though)

FSX made a lot of money. It was a top 10 selling PC game in 2006/2007.

 

If FLIGHT came even close, I'll crap a brick. I don't think the rumors of it's low sales are off base. I think it suspends much more disbelief to think it was actually selling well. I can't find anything that would substantiate that, either from my experience at the time or today.

If that was not the case, and there was a profit to be had, then where are all the modern FSX clones attempting to elbow in to share the bounty? Even Aerosoft apparently backed away from the stark numbers when its contemplation of creating a sim was put on hold.

Microsoft was in a unique situation because they had the legacy code to build upon. Aces shut down because of management issues and delays. Once that happened, there's no practical way for other developers to start from scratch. That's why someone like Aerosoft can't do it. They don't have the resources, nor the head start to make it profitable. That's also why Dovetail is building off of code already established.

 

 

I would say that I suspect its more that many in this community, having become accustomed to the whole world as offered by Microsoft, would be uninterested, but I'm not totally convinced that the majority of people, fully accustomed to more constrained environments, would have the same difficulties. In point of fact, I would welcome the whole world if Dovetail offers it, and there are excellent reasons for doing so.

 

That being said, I won't shed many tears if for several other good reasons they try something different.

 

It remains a truth that whatever they try, FSX, X-Plane, and P3D are still there.

If different is simply putting lipstick on FLIGHT, it will fail just the same.

 

If different is further developing a living, engaging world, I'd welcome that.

 

Part of making money is understanding who your market is and knowing how to capitalize on it. There aren't hoards of people waiting out there to fly simple planes through hoops. With the swatch of gameplay options in today's world, a person with that mindset will just go fly planes in GTAV (not that there's anything wrong with that).

 

What I could see is a flight simulator with more fleshed out role playing within the world you are flying. Being able to exit the plane and a more personal multiplayer experience with face to face interactions in the game (like Star Citizen will have).

 

But I don't think simple achievement games like Flight had are what will draw people.

 

We will not be addressing the 64-bit memory limit in FSX: Steam Edition, but you can be sure that we'll be looking at that as part of the next step forward in flight simulation.

 

Basically a totally meaningless comment. He is hardly likely to say 64 bit is not on the agenda when simmers are crying out for it, is he?

Whoever he is, He is right. No point in a 64bits when CPU's are still stuck at 3.5GH no OC.

 

He can do an update of the new NAV aids, correct magnetic axel present position, add and correct airports to the present, fix some old sceneries defects, a weather and clouds uplift maybe even icing, fuel consumption usage outwardly not inwardly and some other little ones but massive I can't remember now. Make all this available to the FSX Box too (it is just more money). Just a huge Data Base Revision for now at 32bits would be okay by me. Just a massive payware update. Make an Installer that save the old and replace the new update, otherwise it will be a huge mistake. It will have to be significant and good. Then it will sell like hotcakes on sale, if the price is right of course.

 

Cheers,

 

If FLIGHT came even close, I'll crap a brick.

+1 Love it.

 

Cheers,

Of of course, that's the thing, isn't it? The community can choose its facts, but when somebody likely to have some actual numbers comes along and does the math, reality rears its head. Considering the extremely low cost of Flight DLC, what it was making is even more interesting. This is not really a thread about Flight, and I don't want to be the one to take it there, but sometimes a convenient myth or two should be nudged a bit.

FSX made a lot of money. It was a top 10 selling PC game in 2006/2007. 

If FLIGHT came even close, I'll crap a brick. I don't think the rumors of it's low sales are off base. I think it suspends much more disbelief to think it was actually selling well. I can't find anything that would substantiate that, either from my experience at the time or today.

 

The Electronic Games Association (ESA) publishes Essential Facts about the Computer and Video Games Industry annually. It reports on sales of video games and computer games separately. It obviously only reports on USA sales.

 

It gives the total sales in dollars together with units sold. It also breaksdown the sales of computer games by genre as a percentage of the total. From 2006 it includes the genre Flight, covering flight-based games from all sources. I assume this genre is dominated by FSX and Flight.

 

 

I've tabulated the figures from 2006 to 2012 (the last year available)

 

Year    PC    Flight Game Sales

       Game

      Sales   %     Total

2006 39.7M   2.5%   993k

2007 36.4M   2.2%   801k

2008 29.2M   1.8%   526k

2009 23.5M   1.8%   423k

2010 24.6M   1.5%   369k

2011 16.5M   0.6%    99k

2012 13.2M  0.7%     92k

 

 

These make rather sad reading.

 

Over the period the number of PC games has fallen to 33% but the number of Flight PC games have fallen to 9% of their 2006 sales - three times greater decline. Also, Flight sales as a percentage of PC games have fallen to about 28% showing a larger  decline than other genres

 

If anyone wants to disagree with this it would be helpful to offer some alternative evidence, not just opinion.

 

Posted 27 October 2013 - 12:26 PM

'Tom Allensworth', on 26 Oct 2013 - 7:16 PM, said:

FACT 1: From late 2006 until the closure of ACES in early 2009, FSX brought in over $100 million dollars in revenue to MS.

 

FACT 2: From the launch of FLIGHT until its closure some 3 or 4 months later in 2012, it brought in less than $10 million in revenue to MS.

 

 

Based on those facts, FSX earned an average of $46M a year over that period. Flight was earning the equivalent of between $30M - $40M a year. That’s less than FSX’s average. But, given that revenue declines over time, there may not have been much difference in annual terms between FSX’s final revenue and Flight’s initial revenue. It's certainly not an order different.