better flight model .. FS XI ??? or never ?

[Guest kurtj]

One thing I would like to see in flight modeling actually is when you take off on an airliner and you forget to put your slats and flaps in the proper configuation you would stall and altimatly crash like NWA255 or DAL1141. I had a very old 747 simulator I forget the program's name or company, but It was very complex to fly. The graphics were just wireframe at that time but it did seem to have proper flight dynamics to the 747 and if you did forget to put your slats and flaps down you wouldn't make it into the air. I think this would add even more realism to flying an airliner.Also when you do deploy you slats during your cruise descent it would be nice to have more buffeting because the air is very turbulent when those slats come down during your cruise decent.

[JSkorna 137]

Hi,You make MS's point exactly. Can you imagine the average Joe/Sue loading up FS, loading a jet, attempting a take off, and crashing everytime? After about the 3rd time they would be calling the software @#$% and never purchase again.So what does MS do? Program/design for the average Joe/Sue and then allow 3rd party developers to fill in the missing pieces.Hope this helps,Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development Team Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/FSEconomy Member:http://dot.kelder.net:8080/fseconomy/

[Guest]

> You make MS's point exactly. Can you imagine the average Joe/Sue loading up FS, loading a jet, > attempting a take off, and crashing everytime? After about the 3rd time they would be calling > the software @#$% and never purchase again.Jimbo, if the default panel state is engines running, then there is no reason why the other controls should not be configured correctly for takeoff! In fact it would make sense the flaps are set to 5 degrees or whatever. The "average joe" excuse is becomming pretty annoying.

[lmponte 0]

While I understand it might be "annoying" for anyone who wants realism (like myself!), I can certainly understand MS, and would probably take the same route if I was in charge.You can't forget FS is a GAME, and it is marketed as such. Do you think if it was as realistic as we all hope ,it would be #1 on the sales list? It wouldn't. I am often surprised about the number of people that come to me and say they have tried Flight Simulator, many of them say they like it, and still don't know anything about what a VOR is. Actually, most of those people tell me that the sim is "VERY" complex.So, yes, although I'd like to see improved realism, I can understand that it probably won't be happening. The hardcore simmers just aren't a solid enough customer base to justify a hardcore product like that.

[JSkorna 137]

Hi,The Average Joe situation is not an excuse. It is a marketing stratagy that MS has decided to follow. You are not going to change it, I am not going to change it, and this whole community is not going to change it.Hope this helps,Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development Team Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/FSEconomy Member:http://dot.kelder.net:8080/fseconomy/

[Guest Agrajag]

Jim, I think I agree with your summation but I'm not sure I understand the lead-in. What do you mean about the "Average Joe Situation is not an excuse"?I know what you mean by the term "Average Joe" but the excuse part loses me.In my view it's not an excuse, it's a fact and a solid reason for creating the product AND the marketing approach they follow.Most of us know that if you took Flight Simulator to a typical mall and set it up. 95% of people would say, "Good GOD that's a complicated program."I've been messing with Flight Simulator since 1.0. Every single version. I fly on VATSIM. I own a pretty good library of add-ons (but not huge) and I own rudder pedals and a yoke. To the 95%, I'm a Flight Simulator FANATIC. However, I also am not so sure I could fly VOR to VOR properly. I think I have it down but to fly a specific radial of a VOR? I'd have to really think about how to do it. I also couldn't tell you the true full landing procedure. If I had to make a missed approach and didn't have controllers telling me what to do I'd be guessing entirely. The concept 'downwind' is a loss to me.This is a complex product and it's unlike 99.9% of other games people encounter. OBVIOUSLY Microsoft is going to cater to the largest possible audience and that they keep buying it only reinforces that, so how is that then an "excuse" that isn't acceptable??? That's the part I don't get.

[Guest]

>The "average joe">excuse is becomming pretty annoying.Thank you. right next to:1. the price excuse 2. the time excuse3. the demand excuse4. the hardware excuse did i miss any? i think i did.... but you fill in the rest.it is humorous to see people make excuses with no foundation and speculate them being the factor that prevents development of a particular area. nobody actually knows of why MS does and doesn't do this and that...

[tgibson 11]

I do - money. They are here to make the maximum amount of money with FS, and this is the way they believe they can do that. I think that's fine, since it gives me a nice new sim every few years. If they included everything we wanted, it would take 6 years to finish, be twice the size it is now, run at 4 fps, and would cost $250. I don't think many would buy it...Take care,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

[Guest Agrajag]

As I said elsewhere, we really have to be thankful that Microsoft is still committed to Flight Simulator. The market has change DRAMATICALLY in 26 years. Flight Simulator snuggly fit into the early years when techie-types were the predominant buyer. As time went on, their numbers shrank comparatively.It's now FAR easier for a company to make just as much money as Flight Simulator generates by producing a (comparatively) cheap video game and selling it on a console system.Frankly I think there are only two reasons Flight Simulator still exists today.First, it generates a good profit. However, that's not exactly what it used to be. The product is incredibly expensive to produce and keep moving forward compared to other product lines especially when you consider that Microsoft knows, intimately, exactly how profitable video games can be based on their direct involvement with the Xbox.Second, and this helps offset the profit issue, Flight Simulator now represents a huge amount of prestige. If that's all it was then this product would be retired immediately. It's the only popular PC game out there that can trace its direct roots to the very beginning and that has some benefit.If it means that new versions of Flight Simulator need to appeal to the masses, so be it (and that IS the case). We need to just hope Microsoft means what they say this time and that they will open it up and make it a lot easier to expand (including from a stability standpoint) and let the community give us the extension some crave. I'm just glad that Microsoft isn't turning this into an EA game where reality goes right out the window and in return we all get to put cool graphics on our models without having to rely on painters.

[Manny 1,293]

nevermind

[maxter 0]

> I'm just glad that Microsoft>isn't turning this into an EA game where reality goes right>out the window and in return we all get to put cool graphics>on our models without having to rely on painters.I hope you are right, however given the first few seconds of the new video with the movement of the World Travel 737 would put that hope into some serious doubt. The aircraft movement from the external view, bobbing up and down like some sick goldfish, is appalling...Cheers,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

[Guest Agrajag]

It's clear, to me anyway, that these are very sensitive times for Flight Simulator.The market has changed in such a way as to really force Microsoft's hands on making a purely business decision on its future. Gates is leaving and I have to believe that Flight Simulator represented some sort of historical nostalgia within him that kept it going.The big question is, why the emphasis on missions? Was it just their time or is this some sort of effort to reach a bigger audience as a final directive to improve the profitability of the product? I'm hoping it was just their time.We're likely never really going to know what the motivations are with regard to the items outside the mighty dollar issues. I'd love to be a fly on the wall of the FS meetings within the company.Frankly I'd love to hear that FS represents a major R&D effort for Microsoft. Anything that adds to its value at this point is a good thing. If it's viewed entirely on its profitability and nothing more, Flight Simulator has a very difficult road ahead of it.We'll really get a much better feel for their thinking once we see the product in action. At this point in time I'm still betting that they're behind on the schedule and it'll be interesting to see how that resolves itself. Do they ship late? Do features get cut? Worst of all do they release a buggy product? Again, the hope is that all is just peachy and it goes amazingly well and we all rejoice at the terrific job everyone involved did.

[JSkorna 137]

Hi Rich,Wingnut used the word "excuse" as he thinks the comment is getting old, and I just repeated it. I don't view it as that, but the Average Joe is whom the FS series is marketed toward.Hope this helps,Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development Team Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/FSEconomy Member:http://dot.kelder.net:8080/fseconomy/

[Guest Kingphisher]

I think MSFS is a great product, but being totally honest if the excellent 3rd party add-ons from the likes of PMDG, Real Air, and Cloud9 didn

[Guest Agrajag]

There's is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of buyers of any version of Flight Simulator never buy a single add-on.The last time I saw any worthwhile numbers for the product those numbers put sales for the product at about 2 million copies. Now, start talking to the developers of the top add-ons in the community. Those I've spoken with mention sales measured in thousands. I suspect some can measure sales in tens of thousands. That gives a pretty good idea of the small end of the spectrum those of us here represent in the Flight Simulator overall community.It's an interesting situation. Why put a lot of emphasis into an area that just a small segment of your customer base puts to use? The main reason I can think of to do is that the community helps spread the word and maintain the interest in the product in ways that differ from many other products. It also creates a segment that is extremely "sticky". We're all highly likely to buy every version of the product Microsoft puts out.Anyway, it seems pretty obvious that Microsoft continues to work to find the sweet spot between these two opposing forces with each new version. The last time around they tried a myriad of planes. I'm not sure how that worked out in their estimation. For me, I haven't ever even loaded 95% of them, but that's just me. Now the attack appears to be missions and I have my doubts about how this will work out depending on exactly how they've designed this feature, but it's pretty obvious that this entire effort wasn't aimed at us. That says a lot about the market at large.