Disturbing article

[188AHC 2,138]

You have a right to your opinion just as everyone else and it's ok to express them in a cordial, respectful manner. 

Everything said in this forum with the exception of what's in the trailer is speculation and members opinions. 

It has been this way with every release of a new sim and most products. I don't expect it to change. 

 

[ca_metal 2,024]

I think everyone is giving too much attention to his opinions. He doesn't believe on the new sim/nor Microsoft, that's fine, he won't change anyone's mind and vice versa.

About the article, it's just surfing on the instant attention the sim got. No info that would add anything to our discussions.

Edited July 5, 2019 by ca_metal

[vortex681 806]

2 hours ago, Skywatcher said:

When they just tell you the focus is on this game being a "simulator," that's hardly a positive nor does it suggest it will be anything like what people here are assuming.

Why are people optimistic about Microsoft's specific emphasis of the word simulator? Definitions from the Cambridge English Dictionary:

"Simulator" - A piece of equipment that is designed to represent real conditions, for example in an aircraft or spacecraft

"Game" - An entertaining activity or sport (which also applies but see the above)

2 hours ago, Skywatcher said:

I haven't played all the other plane games out there, Flight, FSW etc but I imagine they could all be called simulators as well. They are hardly a replacement for FSX.

Sticking strictly to your use of a rational evaluation process, if you've never even tried Flight or FSW, how can you say that they are hardly a replacement for FSX? Both of them showed a lot of potential and both could ultimately have been replacements for FSX.

[Skywatcher 133]

8 hours ago, vortex681 said:

Why are people optimistic about Microsoft's specific emphasis of the word simulator? Definitions from the Cambridge English Dictionary:

"Simulator" - A piece of equipment that is designed to represent real conditions, for example in an aircraft or spacecraft

"Game" - An entertaining activity or sport (which also applies but see the above)

Sticking strictly to your use of a rational evaluation process, if you've never even tried Flight or FSW, how can you say that they are hardly a replacement for FSX? Both of them showed a lot of potential and both could ultimately have been replacements for FSX.

I've been on gaming forums since they have been popular, a good couple of decades or so and what I am seeing here is the most ridiculous forum activity of all time. lol

I'll make this my last post on this topic. "Simulator" is a very loose term in 2019. I have tried to explain this. It's simple marketing. The word "simulator" in 2019 marketing does not represent how the word "simulator" was represented back in 2000-2005 marketing.

It has become apparent how totally pointless trying to discuss anything here is. In regards to your "simulator," maybe you should all look at these as well. They are all "simulators." You may find another sim to sit along your MSFS "simulator"  when you feel like a change of pace but still wish to simulate.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/855740/Bum_Simulator/

https://store.steampowered.com/app/265930/Goat_Simulator/

https://store.steampowered.com/app/950620/Priest_Simulator/

As for Flight and FSW, hands up for all those who dumped their FSX's, P3D's and X-Plane's to use it?

MSFS is going to be a game. It's clearly pointing in this direction for anyone who can understand the material MS have released so far. One more public release by MS and we should likely have full confirmation.

Insane stuff! lol

Edited July 5, 2019 by Skywatcher

[Holdit 551]

On 7/2/2019 at 10:42 PM, Mace said:

Whew, that is some bad writing.  Someone slept through j-school.

Through English school too...

[Holdit 551]

9 hours ago, Skywatcher said:

https://store.steampowered.com/app/855740/Bum_Simulator/

 

Oh, that kind of bum...

[Skywatcher 133]

47 minutes ago, Holdit said:

Oh, that kind of bum...

Christ, a sense of humor! lol

 

1 hour ago, Flamingpie said:

Why? Because you can't convince anyone? Is a discussion only useful when you can convince someone to agree with your point of view? The point of a discussion is to "talk about something and tell each other their ideas or opinions", not to convince each other, as if a discussion has to end with a winner and a loser.

I fully understand what you are saying about the devaluation of the word 'simulator' and you have a point (😎) there. But that doesn't mean every (announced) 'simulator' will have the quality of a 'bum sim'. No one knows that yet. You think MFS will be a bummer (😎), I don't and that's okay. The little problem here is that you keep on trying to convince people you are right with your presumptions and that's starting to annoy some. If you would just state your point of view without trying to push it and without scoffing others ('ridiculous', 'insane', 'pointless') all would be perfectly fine. I don't have a problem at all with your posts: you have some valid points which indeed create some balance. There is no need (for you or anyone else) to get annoyed as long as we keep it civil and understand the definition of the word 'discussion'.

Don't want to leave without clearing up your post which no doubt will get a few reactions as it will be seen as the great voice of reason representing the community.

I have stated my opinions. My posts end. Then retaliation begins. You only need to look above my previous post in this thread for an example. I have made my point clear on the word simulator on at least one occasion, maybe more. I am then quoted with definitions from the Cambridge English Dictionary, statements are made such as, "Sticking strictly to your use of a rational evaluation process" 

Confrontational and challenging posting that may lead to conflict can be created in many ways. Don't pretend to walk around with halos on your heads and sook when you get an appropriate response. I find indirect to be more annoying than direct. Always takes two. 

I hope this is clear? If you want to call me stup*d, I prefer you do just that. Handing me a definition of a particular word(s) is the same as calling me stup*d. Yes, I do know what they mean and no, I am not stup*d. Don't sook when I respond. lol

Edited July 6, 2019 by Skywatcher

[Pastaiolo 1,688]

Out of curiosity, @Skywatcher out of all products out there, what do you think can be called a flight simulator?

[Skywatcher 133]

1 minute ago, france89 said:

Out of curiosity, @Skywatcher out of all products out there, what do you think can be called a flight simulator?

You would have to put specific products into specific time periods to answer that. It also depends what your definition of a flight simulator is.

What I consider a fully fledged flight sim in 2019 would be FS2002, FS9, FSX, P3D, X-Plane. Don't think I missed anything. Some are better than others and some have more features than others but all are hardcore flight sims imo.

Is this a satisfactory response? lol

[Superdelphinus 718]

Apropos to nothing, but there is an ignore function in this forum guys. It allows you to see a world where everyone has the ability to engage in human interaction (whatever their view) without irritating everyone else, and in that sense, is magic. 

[rocketlaunch 614]

10 hours ago, Skywatcher said:

MSFS is going to be a game. It's clearly pointing in this direction for anyone who can understand the material MS have released so far.

I will laugh at you in my new "simulator" next year.

[rocketlaunch 614]

How can anyone at this point know anything for sure? Again, everything we say at this point is pure speculation. However Skywatcher's point of view is interesting and as valid as anyone elses. I just dont agree with it.

[Pastaiolo 1,688]

58 minutes ago, Skywatcher said:

You would have to put specific products into specific time periods to answer that. It also depends what your definition of a flight simulator is.

What I consider a fully fledged flight sim in 2019 would be FS2002, FS9, FSX, P3D, X-Plane. Don't think I missed anything. Some are better than others and some have more features than others but all are hardcore flight sims imo.

Is this a satisfactory response? lol

I don't know, you tell me.
We are considering games/simulators without addons. So i think the comparison should be done with what they all offered once released. And how they were marketed too.

Prime example being FSX with this video

 

Which makes your statement about this new Microsoft Flight Simulator not being a simulator based on what they said and showed funny, considering how FSX was showed in the above mentioned video and how today you consider it a fully fledged simulator.

[Skywatcher 133]

7 minutes ago, rocketlaunch said:

I will laugh at you in my new "simulator" next year.

That's fair. lol

2 minutes ago, rocketlaunch said:

How can anyone at this point know anything for sure? Again, everything we say at this point is pure speculation. However Skywatcher's point of view is interesting and as valid as anyone elses. I just dont agree with it.

They can't. This is my point, there are posts here not only discussing what the sim will likely be in huge detail but even posts on the internal workings of Microsoft's business, their economic structure etc. haha

I base my opinion on the marketing we have available. You can take virtually nothing from the video except see some carefully chosen footage. The text tells you the most. You evaluate what was said and how it was said, what was mentioned, what was not. It gives the most information.

[Skywatcher 133]

3 minutes ago, france89 said:

I don't know, you tell me.
We are considering games/simulators without addons. So i think the comparison should be done with what they all offered once released. And how they were marketed too.

Prime example being FSX with this video

 

Which makes your statement about this new Microsoft Flight Simulator not being a simulator based on what they said and showed funny, considering how FSX was showed in the above mentioned video and how today you consider it a fully fledged simulator.

You see, this is example number 3! You set it up and I was waiting for it. I do recognize "bait." lol

My post above will explain AGAIN how I come to my conclusions. Without calling anyone names or suggesting how silly your post is, you must look at all the FSX promotional material that was released at the time and in the sequence it was released. Pulling one comical video really doesn't mean a thing. I was simming when FSX was released and I can assure you there was no doubt FSX was going to build upon FS2004. It certainly has not been made clear MSFS will build upon FSX. Apples/oranges, all that stuff! lol