There was in MS FLIGHT some feature I couldn't yet find in any other sim, including DCS World and IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad - control feedback from airstream, wind gusts and turbulence.

 

Just a technical clarification: the choice of making flight controls react to airstream, is not per-se a more realistic approach, but it's just a possible choice/compromise made necessary by the limitation of pc flight controls (namely, the lack of capable force feedback).

 

Making them react to airstream, does simulate the so called "stick-free" condition. The final effect is to have an aircraft that is less stable, but more "compliant" during turbulence.

 

The other possible choice is the one adopted by most other flight simulators, in which the so called "stick-fixed" condition is simulated instead. In this case, the airstream does not affect flight control positions, except for the possible reduction in control travel at high dynamic pressures.

Just a technical clarification: the choice of making flight controls react to airstream, is not per-se a more realistic approach, but it's just a possible choice/compromise made necessary by the limitation of pc flight controls (namely, the lack of capable force feedback).

 

Making them react to airstream, does simulate the so called "stick-free" condition. The final effect is to have an aircraft that is less stable, but more "compliant" during turbulence.

 

The other possible choice is the one adopted by most other flight simulators, in which the so called "stick-fixed" condition is simulated instead. In this case, the airstream does not affect flight control positions, except for the possible reduction in control travel at high dynamic pressures.

 

True, although the stick-free state is modeled in MS FLIGHT, when controllers are disabled and mouse is used as yoke - that was an option confirmed to me by one the team members :-)

 

It was particularly noticeable in the Maule, under one of the weather themes which had severe turbulence and gusts...

 

It could easily be modeled in any sim, for selected aircraft where it made sense to be modeled, by setting a simple button toswitch between stick-free and stick-fixed mode. Whenever we wanted to simulate being very light or even letting go of the controls, we would switch into "stick-free" mode. even if our controllers didn't move, their virtual counterparts would, and that might look interesting....

 

The first time I noticed it in X-plane 10 I was very enthusiastic, and was just about to post when I decided to check how my control settings regarding Art Stab were :-(

Right, and I think the buy-in from 3rd party developers was critical here. One of the issues with Flight was the limited number of planes (with full cockpits anyway), and Microsoft's insistence on being a closed shop for further plane development. That crippled the sim from the start.

 

I was gonna say that. It's easy to bag on the community for not accepting FLIGHT, but had MS opened it up to 3rd parties immediately, released the SDK, and said "we are going to build a base simulator, focusing on the flight modeling and envorninmental effects and want other developers to create regions of high quality content (aka what Orbx does) instead of simply handing you a drab world," I have no doubt it would of succeeded in the long run. 

 

MS would of had to charge for that base product, but most everyone would of been ok with that if they knew what was coming. But you couldn't even get the developers to commit to adding basic features down the road. And when they started pumping out surface level stuff right away (planes with no cockpits for example) instead of focusing on engine features, you couldn't blame people for quickly losing confidence. 

Why did VHS win over Betamax?

 

I think DTG picked FSX over Flight (assuming they had this choice to make), because FSX was a proven winner in the marketplace, and Flight was a proven loser. You can talk all you want about technical merits but ultimately someone has to make a business case and convince investors to fund the project. Which would you pick if it was your money on the line?

 

 

Which would you pick if it was your money on the line?

 

MS FLIGHT, for sure!  The only one that did not see the future in it was MS....

MS would of had to charge for that base product, but most everyone would of been ok with that if they knew what was coming. But you couldn't even get the developers to commit to adding basic features down the road. And when they started pumping out surface level stuff right away (planes with no cockpits for example) instead of focusing on engine features, you couldn't blame people for quickly losing confidence. 

 

 

And that's why I specifically gave the nod to the job Dovetail, via DTG Martin, did in communicating with the community, whereas seemingly as a matter of corporate culture, Microsoft has the communication skills of a brick. (and a rather secretive brick, at that!)

 

They never gave the program full support, and it seems very likely now as I look back that the failure of MS FLIGHT was much more a political failure than it ever was a technical one. After all, the Aces team had decades of experience in flight simulation and also knew the code inside and out.

 

Who better to move it forward?

 

Dovetail will take quite some time to gather a similar level of experience. Years, probably, if ever.

 

I don't think Flight School is a bad program per se; It just seems such a shame that such a nice opportunity was lost years ago, and things that got Flight yelled at are being MUCH more calmly received now.

 

Paths not taken.

 

 

I was gonna say that. It's easy to bag on the community for not accepting FLIGHT, but had MS opened it up to 3rd parties immediately, released the SDK, and said "we are going to build a base simulator, focusing on the flight modeling and envorninmental effects and want other developers to create regions of high quality content (aka what Orbx does) instead of simply handing you a drab world," I have no doubt it would of succeeded in the long run. 

 

I agree completely. I also think if you presented this strategy to a VP at Microsoft and asked for funding they would have said 'no'.

I agree completely. I also think if you presented this strategy to a VP at Microsoft and asked for funding they would have said 'no'.

 

I don't think anyone would oppose the argument that Microsoft is no longer the company to produce a Flight Sim. On the other hand, they did green-light Flight (A startling and kind of inexplicable decision in its own right) and then spent millions developing it, only to drop the whole thing after 6 months.

 

Few other companies (except ones with bottomless pockets like Microsoft) could have sanely walked away from such a financial commitment.

 

One of the reasons I do have some faith in DTG in the end is that I don't believe they have any such capability. Once having started down the path, they are in this for the long run.

 

 

MS FLIGHT, for sure!  The only one that did not see the future in it was MS

 

Probably because by then they had purged from the company most people who were clueful about flight sim.

 

The Aces team knew that most people into flight simming like to fly where they live, so Flight ships with ... Hawaii? Followed by Alaska.  :blink:. Not knocking either place, but that's not where most flight simmers live. Seems like the people making the product decisions did not understand the market at that point.

 

 

I don't think anyone would oppose the argument that Microsoft is no longer the company to produce a Flight Sim. On the other hand, they did green-light Flight (A startling and kind of inexplicable decision in its own right) and then spent millions developing it, only to drop the whole thing after 6 months.

 

That sort of thing is not unusual at all, and millions is peanuts to MS and many other companies too, look at all the crap Google develops and then throws away. Flight was dropped because the dev team couldn't make the business case to keep the project funded.

 

I agree DTG probably doesn't have such deep pockets so they have to be a lot more frugal and conservative, and also is less likely to throw away their investment. I'm actually pretty impressed with the velocity at which they are improving FSX, they seem like a pretty nimble team to me.

 

 

Flight was dropped because the dev team couldn't make the business case to keep the project funded.

 

And I believe that it would have been a bit easier to make that case if this community had brought into it with the very forgiving attitude now being shown to Flight School. Once again hats off to DTG marketing.

One of the reasons I do have some faith in DTG in the end is that I don't believe they have any such capability. Once having started down the path, they are in this for the long run.

 

I agree DTG probably doesn't have such deep pockets so they have to be a lot more frugal and conservative, and also is less likely to throw away their investment. I'm actually pretty impressed with the velocity at which they are improving FSX, they seem like a pretty nimble team to me.

Somewhere within the 'Ask DTG' thread I believe there's a post where Martin makes it quite clear that whilst they have lots of enhancements in mind for the flight simulator not all of them will be in place at the initial release. I seem to recall mention of two to three years following the initial release as well as mentions of "in it for the long haul". I really hope that Martin keeps pushing this point to people in the coming months.

I watched a video by Froogle, when he was flying the Super Cub and on the approach he was doing 2,000 FPM descent, which is absurd in that aircraft. I see something like that, and I wouldn't waste 5 minutes installing that program on my hard drive.

That was "Froogle's" fault, not the sim's fault! Froogle doesn't approach anything seriously, and is more full of um... "it" than a cow pasture.

That was "Froogle's" fault, not the sim's fault! Froogle doesn't approach anything seriously, and is more full of um... "it" than a cow pasture.

 

Sorry, but if you think you can descend in a cub, as I have already stated, at 2,000 FPM, there is nothing any pilot could do to make that happen, unless the pilot  had already caused the wings to fail. If you  disagree with that, you most likely  have never flown a cub. 

Sorry, but if you think you can descend in a cub, as I have already stated, at 2,000 FPM, there is nothing any pilot could do to make that happen, unless the pilot  had already caused the wings to fail. If you  disagree with that, you most likely  have never flown a cub.

Oh for heaven's sake, we're not discussing a "real Cub" but a cheap gaming simulator. And yes, if you deliberately disable the crash effects in the sim you can descend at 8,000 FPM...

Somewhere within the 'Ask DTG' thread I believe there's a post where Martin makes it quite clear that whilst they have lots of enhancements in mind for the flight simulator not all of them will be in place at the initial release. I seem to recall mention of two to three years following the initial release as well as mentions of "in it for the long haul". I really hope that Martin keeps pushing this point to people in the coming months.

 

You're absolutely right. Martin has previously patiently pointed out the realities of developing. And Martin has previously told us:

 

"We all look at the FSX as it is now and it is hard to think back to what it was at the time of launch. How far things have come and developed. That didn't just all happen over night. It took years and a humbling amount of hard work from developers and simmers alike. 

 

The same is going to be true of DFS. We are the first to put our hands up and say not all the pieces of the puzzle are going to fall exactly in place day one. The sim will not be all things to all people to start with and in many cases there may be no immediate advantage to you to give it a try. That is okay. All we ask is don't write it off, continue enjoying what you are currently doing and keep an eye on it.

 

Flight removed many of the elements we believe necessary for the flying experience we wish to convey.. ATC and AI traffic being great examples. It made more sense for us to focus some of our efforts on necessary graphical improvements and build on top of the complex systems already inherent within FSX. Rather than try to build them all over again or find a way to integrate them back into Flight.

 

As part of our partnership with Microsoft we have access to all their flight sim technology. Having reviewed it and look at our options, we felt that FSX offered the best foundations for us to build something new on.

 

We are not updating the core FSX engine. We are using it as a starting point to build upon.

 

Our biggest limitation is time. There are lots of things we would like to do but we also want to get the new sim out some time before 2050. This is why have been very open about how not everything we plan to do will be there day one.

 

It is easy to look at the world of FSX, see all the add-ons, developers, a huge choice of content and everything else that makes that sim so fantastic. What is often overlooked is it has taken ten years to get to this point thanks to a lot of hard work from developers and the community alike. The truth is if you are expecting all of that to be in place day one then you will most like be disappointed.

 

I need to make this very clear, our focus for Flight Sim first and foremost is building the game engine that runs the sim. Contents, gameplay and specific features are all important of course but if the actually game engine is not solid then you are just building on bad foundations.

 

I have said time and time again that we going to be supporting and developing DTG Flight Simulator for years to come. We don't view it as a static game. We are not making Call of Duty 4 and then moving on to COD 5. We are building a platform which can be continually expanded. We view it almost like an OS.

 

The key word here is "platform". We have said this many times before, DTG Flight Sim is not going to be all things to all people at day one of launch.

 

Our focus is on getting the underlying game engine to where we want to be first. 

 

Flight simulation would be nothing without all the hard work of third party developers, be them big companies or bedroom coders. 

 

For us, releasing DTG Flight Simulator is just the beginning. All of the really hard works comes afterwards once you and developers get your hands on it."

 

What is unclear?