2 hours ago, Mengy said:

 I still don’t like how Microsoft hasn’t even talked to any third party devs about the new sim yet, to me that honestly doesn’t bode very well.  I will admit that a sim developed by PMDG sounds like something I’d be very interested in.

They've almost certainly talked to 3rd party developers given they are about to announce road map features dealing with that. 

But they've likely not talked to PMDG specifically because bad blood exists there. That's just the reality of the situation. 

If PMDG is your only reason to sim, I honestly have no idea with FS2020 holds. But that shouldn't be used to assume it applies to all 3rd party developers. 

Edited August 7, 20196 yr by bonchie

Is there not a bit of overegging the importance of small, cottage industry development teams (which even the biggest flight sim develops are I would imagine) to one of the biggest and most powerful companies of all of human existence? 

8 minutes ago, Superdelphinus said:

Is there not a bit of overegging the importance of small, cottage industry development teams (which even the biggest flight sim develops are I would imagine) to one of the biggest and most powerful companies of all of human existence? 

Well, the last time the big and powerful company « underegged » the cottage industry, it was not an overall success, was it 😉 ? 

1 hour ago, snglecoil said:

I just saw a video in which states that reps from Microsoft were “surprise” attendees at Oshkosh and were engaging with other sim vendors and third parties there. 

I would like to see this video.  I was at AirVenture and there were no sim vendors present this year that I saw, unless you count Redbird Flight Simulations, a training sim company that utilizes Prepar3D.  I would be interested in seeing who Microsoft was talking to.

1 hour ago, WarpD said:

I would like to see this video.  I was at AirVenture and there were no sim vendors present this year that I saw, unless you count Redbird Flight Simulations, a training sim company that utilizes Prepar3D.  I would be interested in seeing who Microsoft was talking to.

https://youtu.be/lo14qm9yROE

Around the 2:50 mark.

Ha, I just caught that Mindstar got a mention toward the end of the video 👍

Edited August 7, 20196 yr by snglecoil

2 hours ago, bonchie said:

If PMDG is your only reason to sim, I honestly have no idea with FS2020 holds. But that shouldn't be used to assume it applies to all 3rd party developers. 

I honestly don't own a single PMDG product.  I fly GA planes only so tubeliners don't interest me at all, but I can respect the excellent work PMDG has done all the same and I do think their opinion matters in the market because a great many sim pilots do love PMDG planes.

I would think if MS has talked to third party devs then they would have talked to someone as large as PMDG too?  Maybe I'm just being naive, lol.

Edited August 7, 20196 yr by Mengy

I think think it would be helpful to remember that the observations and concerns voiced by PMDG could also apply to other high quality developers, such as A2A in the GA field. If you look at the history of the original Microsoft FS series and now the P3D series, neither company seems to have put much priority into developing high quality addons - scenery or aircraft. Do you really know of anyone who wishes to fly their default aircraft or use their default scenery?  That's why we have companies like PMDG, A2A and Orbx. So I am wondering why we think MS would want to do high quality addons now when they haven't in the past? PMDG and A2A charge more than other developers because the quality of their products is higher than other developers, and many customers are happy to pay their higher prices. I understood that PMDG's concern was that Microsoft wanted to require addon developers to allow MS to monetize their products, not MS developed products, through MS's "subscription" pricing model (presumably giving the developer a share). This may or may not be a good way to achieve not only an updated, improved simulation engine, but also improved addons.

41 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

https://youtu.be/lo14qm9yROE

Around the 2:50 mark.

Thank you for sharing that video link. Russ did a terrific job of highlighting the simulator systems on display.

3 hours ago, Superdelphinus said:

Is there not a bit of overegging the importance of small, cottage industry development teams (which even the biggest flight sim develops are I would imagine) to one of the biggest and most powerful companies of all of human existence? 

The big and powerful will still outsource or "insource" to small studios when it makes sense. That's been the history of the MS game division from ACES Studio to the ASOBO Studio in France, which is apparently involved in at least the aircraft modeling side of the new flight sim, if not more.

Edited August 7, 20196 yr by Paraffin

On 8/6/2019 at 8:47 AM, AviatorMan said:

I have discovered the news of MSFS 2020 only a few days ago, so I assume most have seen these observations from PMDG:

https://forum.pmdg.com/forum/main-forum/general-discussion-news-and-announcements/14257-12jun19-pmdg-and-the-microsoft-flight-simulator-2020-question

 

That post from PMDG is from June 12 when they basically knew as much as we did. MS has since released more information clearing things up a bit so it’s a little premature to say or allude to PMDG not getting involved with the new sim in the future once more details become public. PMDG has not commented since the latest round of updates from MS.

12 hours ago, AviatorMan said:

I think what is really interesting are the observations concerning Microsoft's emphasis on gaming (rather than flight simulation) and their assumed desire to "capture" an income stream from 3rd party addon developers. Like everyone else has said, we will see what Microsoft really brings out, but I personally do not see this as the end and/or replacement of serious flight simulation platforms like P3Dv4 (especially when coupled with Orbx sceneries and PMDG and A2A aircraft.)

What I suspect will happen is that Microsoft Flight Simulator will still have a CTRL+E command...even if it is a serious full-featured simulation.    I mean that sort of figuratively, in the sense that, assuming it is a serious sim, will still have default aircraft and scenarios that cater to the casual/gamer-esque crowd. 

I think that is a good thing, that the casual user can jump in that Pitts Special, firewall the throttle, and zoom around pylons, and/or race his/her friends.  That alone will attract many casual users, I would think.  Some of those casual users may get the itch...and become something more than casual users.

If there isn't some level of simplicity, then you can more than likely write off any of the shoot 'em up and instant gratification crowd which would help with the necessary income to keep the franchise afloat.

I doubt there are enough serious flight simmers such as we have here to provide the income needed to provide new content and updates/fixes.

However, to keep those loyal, serious flight simmers MS will also have to provide in depth systems and very complex aircraft either through their studios or through 3rd parties. This will be an absolute necessity in my opinion.

 

I agree completely.  And it is a difficult tightrope for Microsoft (or any platform developer) to walk...they must appeal to both crowds, while not putting off either group.

I've been a Casual simmer for 20 years and I have no intention of ever doing C&D starts or programming an FMS. I have FSXSE set up with stunning graphics and running beautifully. If MSFS is full systems only, I'm out!

 

Bruce

33 minutes ago, Mace said:

I agree completely.  And it is a difficult tightrope for Microsoft (or any platform developer) to walk...they must appeal to both crowds, while not putting off either group.

It's possible to walk that tightrope. Air combat sims and car racing sims have done it for years. You make a deep-level sim at the core, and present the more basic level as the default, with a plethora of option settings that let more advanced/realistic users drill down and enjoy the deep simulation.