I believe that FS2004, AKA FS9, AKA FSACOF was the first in the line of Microsoft Flight Simulators that used a "theme" called ACOF (A Century of Flight)as a marketing aid. Now that the Simulator has been out for some time, I am wondering whether the theme was successful and whether furure MS Sims will also have a theme. Note, that I am not questioning the success or otherwise of the Sim itself - just the theme. Obviously , the degree of success of the Sim should be partly, maybe even largely, determined by the marketing theme as well as the technical brilliance and usability of the programme. I would personally hate to come up with a marketing theme that fell flat -- even if the programme did reasonably well on it's own merit. My guess would be that it has had mixed results -- but I would also hazard a guess that the theme was not an overriding success causing millions to fall over themselves beating a path to the Sellers doors. I know that we have all enjoyed FS9 to varying degrees - some have enjoyed the introduction in more detail of "vintage" a/c. But, somehow, I think that they leave most a little cold. I for one have never tried to fly any of the historical routes -- flying non-stop for days across the various vast wastes of the world in a slow old a/c has never really appealed to me -- I simply don't have the time involved anyway. So - if MS were to have a theme for the next version of FS, what should it be? Should it appeal primarily to enthusiast simmers, casual gamers or maybe to the yet unitiated -- or all three. If so, what theme could appeal to all groups. Maybe the enthusiast simmers don't need any marketing energy expended on them as they will buy the next version anyway. I will start the bidding anyway -- my proposal is for a "training" theme. To all you unitiated people out there who would like to fly but know you never will, come with us while we use the magic of our Simulator to teach you to fly. A wide range of lessons and exercises which are almost identical to what you would receive in a real life training school and graduated to take you from a Student Pilot to a 4 Ring Captain are included with this Simulator. Etc, etc! Please note that I am somewhat dissappointed with the currect so-called lessons and believe that the potential of this simulator as a "training programme" has never even been scratched. But please bear in mind that I am not advocating that it be used for real-life training -- just simulated real-life training. :)OK -- so - has ACOF been a success? Or does the marketing department of MS need to go back to Marketing 101?Regards Barry

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!Well, it was certainly not a draw for me. At the time I bought it, I was simply looking for a dif sim than the one I had. Ironically, DirectX 9a whioh was included improved the performance of my other sim so much I went back to it and disinstalled FS9 when I got a 3 gig addon DVD for the other one. Finally redid my not so well thought out partitions to make room for both. Zevious set me straight, I thought shifting eyepoint down etc only worked in 2D panels, now I don't think 3D is so bad.I agree totally about the current lessons etc, I tried the PPL check ride in the 172 and got flunked for starting a leveloff 100 feet below altitude when climbing at about 700 FPM. Yes, I was over the ten percent rule, but sheesh!!! I was still climbing in excess of 500 FPM when he said "we'll have to do this again... started leveloff too soon." After the Baron engine failure scenario that fails both cuz "single engine failure is outside the realm of this..." I gave up on the native fight school. Fortunately I had had excellent written docs and practice before so I personally didn't need it from FS9, but... Lots of people don't. FS10 with a training theme? I think they're kinda sensitive about potential lawsuits if they openly advertise their product as a training aid, and what about being a potential training aid for terrorists? Think they might still be leery 'bout that. The Learning Center- rather have one doc that can be printed even if it's 300 pages long.The Wright Flyer, Baron, comet, DC-3, Ryan NYP, Vickers, Jenny, J3 Cub, Ford Trimotor and maybe a few I can't think of are in a special fleet in Flightsim Manager 2.8 called Unwanted Default, perpetually disabled. The Baron and the DC-3 have been replaced by the DC-3 IFR panel 3 tank ship and the Beechcraft Baron 58 TC. The cub, replaced by a new one called free_cub4U.zip in the library, the default is way too groundloopable. The rest, I just plane ain't interested. (pardon the pun:-lol )Admittedly, I haven't even tried flying a lot of the planes I disabled. Can speak from experience on the default Cub. Real Air's docs for the 172 enhancements said the quality of the 172 had slipped from last version. Was there a producer pushing MS to get done by a certain date? At least when Terminal Reality was thru patching its last version all the planes could be started from cold and dark. I would have much rather dropped the "theme" and most of the new planes if the ones left were as good as the 172 after I applied Real Air's enhancements to it. (Yes, of course, you can start the default 172 from cold & dark too, but try the Lear 45. And Real Air's 172 flies and sounds much better. If I read right they restored it to the point it had been previously.) Quality trumps quantity when it comes to planes in a sim, whether default or addon.Best Regards, Donny:-wave

I don't think that ACOF was a failure as a theme, but I do think that it was a special occaision, and therefore probably a one off. I'd be a bit surprised to see another theme like it.

It didn't draw me because of the theme as I was already planning on buying it.. of course :) However it is possible that people who would not have usually bought flight sims would be interested in the theme.. generating more sales :) Just my view anyway..

>.......I do think that it was a special occaision, and therefore probably>a one off. I'd be a bit surprised to see another theme like>it. The same we'd say about Windows Millenium OS.http://web.mit.edu/invent/www/ima/images/i...dy/ma_intro.jpg

I would have bought it without a name, with any name, or with any combination of names. And I'm quite prepared to announce that I will defenitely buy the next MSFS version regardless of what they might call it. What's in a name? That which we call a Babe by any other name would lay as sweet (grin)!Be well!Jaap Verduijn.

>>The same we'd say about Windows Millenium OS.>That made me shudder a little, I struggled with that OS for 2 years.. ;)

A good question. Was the theme only a "one-of", not to be repeated, or does it herald a trend? Does Flight Simulator need marketing gimmicks in order to sell more copies (but, then, every product needs marketing gimmicks!) And, how have sales been over the years? is there an upward or a downward trend? have they stagnated or maintained healthy growth rates?All questions to which we shall never have answers, unfortunately.As for me, I have flown most of the default "Century of Flight" aircraft. What can I say, I like airplanes from before I was born! Generally, they suffer from the same problem as all FS aircraft - unstable flight models. You know, like when you constantly have to pull on the stick. No matter what Larry says, this is not realistic.The Cub, though, flies pretty well and does a good job of maintaining a rate of turn. Tom Goodrick's air file makes it a little better, and putting it through Jerry Beckwith's Air Wrench ( http://www.mudpond.us/ ) makes the flight model just about perfect! As far as I am concerned, it is the only flight model that is like a real airplane (but then, I do not fly commercial jetliners and do not know how those FS models compare.) And if you add Russel Dirk's FS Force ( http://www.dirks-software.ca/fs-force ), you get realistic trim forces. Finally, it is fun to fly in FS.Overall, I would say that the "Century of Flight" aircraft were a definite plus for the game, and gave something to those few of us who are not fanatics of Boeings.Best regards.Luis

I would venture to say that this question is directed to the wrong group of people. As flightsim enthusiasts, we're going to buy the sim anyway, despite the marketing spin. Most of us here are at least aware of the history and physics of flying and are just looking for a sim and see the extras as fluff.MS, however, wants this sim to be recognizable to the general populace who buy things like The Sims, educational software for their kids, etc.. FPS it is not, so you have to appeal to something else to expand sales. Education is the next best thing.Until the FAA (CAB, etc.) approves it for training, FS is a game. What the COF theme does is expand the appeal of the game by offering an educational aspect, the history/general understanding of aviation. This is, of course, to appeal to parents so they'll purchase it for their kids, hoping they'll actually learn something/expand their understanding of the world. I think it was actually a stroke of genius. Well maybe not that good, but I think it was a great idea. It really is amazing how aviation has changed the world. Personally, I think the theme will stick around and in fact expand. I could imagine links to Encarta, stuff like that.As to whether or not it was a failure, how do you measure that? Volume of sales?Or rather did you have a different question in mind. Did you mean that their implementation of COF could have been better? That's a good question, too. If it is being sold as an educational tool, I could definately imagine improvements to the interface to make the tools more accessible. I find myself going straight to simming, though I have tried to read through the other aspects at various times. I'd like to see the history, etc. more usable. But maybe that's just me.Well, I think I've made my point. I don't think it was a failure. Could it be done better, yes. But I think overall they made some good choices, i.e. no concentration on Mustangs and Camels and instead they gave it a broad base in the real innovations and shakers and movers of aviation. I could actually see an expansion of the theme.Thanks,Thomas

Hi,Technicalities, technicalities...Maybe the most important question to be answered here, before concluding the theme being an failure or success, is how many copies of FSCOF are actually being sold...and to what target groups.....Marketing is about sales and successful marketing is being measured by big sales...:)Rob "Holland&Holland" de Vries http://www.emotipad.com/emoticons/Flying.gif"To go up, pull the stick back. To go down, pull the stick back harder"

>Donny AKA Shalomar>Fly 2 ROCKS!!!>>Admittedly, I haven't even tried flying a lot of the planes I>disabled. Can speak from experience on the default Cub. Real>Air's docs for the 172 enhancements said the quality of the>172 had slipped from last version. Was there a producer>pushing MS to get done by a certain date? At least when>Terminal Reality was thru patching its last version all the>planes could be started from cold and dark. I would have much>rather dropped the "theme" and most of the new planes if the>ones left were as good as the 172 after I applied Real Air's>enhancements to it. In the history of Terminal Reality's "FLY", the original flight dynamics were not it's good points. The panels/systems were the highlights, but flying them wasn't to re-warding.Then, Rob Young, now RealAir Simulations, produced a complete overhall of the original FLY aircraft, available as free downloads for FLY, which was also incorporated into FLY2. Then comes along FLY II (different product than FLY2), which was also pushed too fast into production, and like FS2004, had numerous coding changes from the orignal. As with the coding differences between FS2002/FS2004, FLY/FLY II changed the flight dynamics enough to require a complete re-work again! Rob never had the chance to get these dynamics completed and tested before the product went gold & was shipped. The result is, most of the FLYII airplanes as "shipped", are not near as good as the dynamics available for the original.And BTW--- when it comes to the default Cub, it has some "weird" un-explanable coding. It works part of the time, and will only ground-loop the other half. Depends on it's mood, I guess.L.AdamsonP.S.--- notice that with FS2004, Rob (RealAir Simulations) has once again come through with the best "stick and rudder" planes available for "any" simulation! The Marchetti SF260, Spitfire, Scout, and Decathalon are proof of what's possible!

You're right, their producer said product must be released on X date, period. You forgot to mention no manual when released, planes that on some systems flew perpetually to the right, and the start switch on the Malibu alternators on Navaho didn't work among other things. They also didn't have time for real icing, turbulence or realistic effects of wind. Wanted to spend more time on the somewhat abysmal default ATC. By the time I got FS9 I went right to 9.1, but still there are some major things I wish more time had been spent on. Hence the question, was there a third party rushing release. Don't think so. gNot to get off topic, but I think the wave of the future is freeware shells. I am speaking in general, not referring to any freeware sim currently available. A very large percentage of what makes most comercial sims good is third party addons, many freeware. Some or all freeware shells at the current time may well and truly stink, but due to the coopoerative nature of freeware someone else may improve them with due original credit. Plus, the combined efforts of individuals over a period of time not hobbled as much by working within source code restaraints can in my opinion work wonders. Freeware meshes, scenery, flight models, aircraft, panels, aircraft are available already. Why not shells?If there is a freeware sim half as good or maybe popular as a comercial one, it stands to reason that the developer of the comercial one will likely rev up their development efforts. Everyone would benefit from that, not just the users of the freeware sim.P.S. Is Real Air's decethlon/explorer for FLY still being sold? loved it.Best Regards, Donny:-wave

>As for me, I have flown most of the default "Century of>Flight" aircraft. What can I say, I like airplanes from before>I was born! Generally, they suffer from the same problem as>all FS aircraft - unstable flight models. You know, like when>you constantly have to pull on the stick. No matter what Larry>says, this is not realistic.>Which Larry? Me? :D As I remember, when I actually "flew" the defaults....The Cessna 172 is just fine in regards to stability.The Mooney, or was it the Baron, became a bit too much sensitive in pitch, from the last version.The Lear, is much less pitch sensitive than a prior version, where it wanted to react wildly to pitch controls.The default "Cub" can be very tame, or un-controllable..........depending on "who knows"! It will even change flight characteristics from good to bad, or visa versa, between my desktop & laptop. I've seen no logical explanation as to why.As to constantly having to pull on the stick, I'm not sure what you mean. I have a hat switch on the joystick, and always trim as required. Climb, descent, power changes, some turns, etc.L.Adamsonedit--- with the Wright Flyer & Jenny, you DO have to keep pulling on the stick. :) The Wright Flyer needs to remain in ground effect, and the MSFS version of the Jenny seems to be more "gutless" than I thought they actually were!

With 1,344,672 copies sold (as of last Tuesday) how can it be a failure?Doug

>I don't think that ACOF was a failure as a theme, but I do>think that it was a special occaision, and therefore probably>a one off. I'd be a bit surprised to see another theme like>it. Yeah. The fact that it was released in 2003 was the main reason for name. December 17th, 2003 marked the 100th year of powered flight so Microsoft decided to do something to celebrate. I've flown a few of the flights with some of the default aircraft and some of them are pretty fun, such as the mail run through the #### Stretch in Pennsylvania with the Jenny. Try running it with no GPS, no modern maps, just the instruments and the headings and landmarks they give you. You'll have a better idea of what it was to fly back then.----------------------------------------------------------------John MorganReal World: KGEG, UND Aerospace Spokane Satillite, Private ASEL 141.2 hrs, 314 landings, 46 inst. apprs.Virtual: MSFS 2004"There is a feeling about an airport that no other piece of ground can have. No matter what the name of the country on whose land it lies, an airport is a place you can see and touch that leads to a reality that can only be thought and felt." - The Bridge Across Forever: A Love Story by Richard Bach