DX10 Release Announcement - Not Impressed

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

>Thanks. Felt good to get it out though.>>Ian.I am in total and complete agreement with your "rant". I find some of the comments in this thread to be remarkable in their "fuddy-duddy-ism." The history of flight is at leat 50% military - at the very least. I truly hope that MS doesn't let the comments of a few dour sour-pusses stop them from adding features and options of all sorts to the sim. Frankly, I see no reason why FS and CFS couldn't be combined into one all-encompassing FS product allowing the best of both worlds. My interest in and enjoyment of combat flight sims (with all their ugly "blood and gore") - as well as WWII strategy games - is what first inspired me to explore WWII history in greater depth and through that exploration I developed a greater understanding of the remarkable courage and sacrifice made by the men and women who fought and died in that terrible period. But even without the actual combat functionality, the appeal of the machines is still phenomenal. I absolutely love flying RealAirs Spitfire in FS even though I can't shoot anyting with it. It's a marvelous FLYING experience. All I can say to MS and other devs is BRING IT ON - get whatever you can into the sim to make it a better, more complete representation of the WHOLE WORLD of flight...

[slashed2 53]

I agree, but Not A Senator responded much better than I did, nice, short and to the point. I came across a bit offensive, not my type of thing usually, just very passionate about my view as is Len.I will say this thread shows how important flight simming is to the people on this forum no matter what your view is. Very good discussion either way and some good point of views from all perspectives.Ian.

[Guest Len]

>I agree, but Not A Senator responded much better than I did,>nice, short and to the point. I came across a bit offensive,>not my type of thing usually, just very passionate about my>view as is Len.>>I will say this thread shows how important flight simming is>to the people on this forum no matter what your view is. Very>good discussion either way and some good point of views from>all perspectives.>>Ian.Yes I agree. I understand your passion which is why this series continues to keep on ticking. Don't get me wrong - As Not A Senator stated it may be moving to multi-platform or multi-purpose flight simulation which then is an invitation to develop the full scope of a military mission in the context of the FS series. IF that's the way it's going then so be it.And to Zevious, this comment is unecessary, "I truly hope that MS doesn't let the comments of a few dour sour-pusses stop..." We have been trying to stop this kind of name-calling and rhtetoric on this site. I hope the mods use this as an opportunity to reassert what was so stringently applied the last few months.

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

:-roll aside from pointing out that I didn't actually call any specific person a name - the comment was more a description of the tone of some posts in this thread - I imagine the mods at Avsim would absolutely love it if "dour sour-puss" was the worst thing anyone got called here...:)

[slashed2 53]

No worries, and I'm not necessarily for going full blown military simulation, just the ability to fly anything that flies in the real world. But if it does go the way of full blown military simulation I'm not against it as long as it doesn't interfere with how I use FS.No matter what happens, it should be interesting to see where the FS franchise goes over the next decade. We're a long way from Sublogic and the 5 1/4 disk that's for sure.Ian.

[AWACS 12]

I'm not even going to read what I wrote, I have a bad habit of getting way too drunk and trying to preach. But like I said you're alright.

[JSkorna 137]

Pat,All this is out there, plus more, called 3rd party software!Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

[Ramasurinen 0]

Len and Pat, I just don't get this animosity towards anything that doesn't carry 300 whining virtual passengers. It's called "Flight Simulator" guys, not "Airliner Simulator".When I join multiplayer ATC sessions I always bring a fighter jet or a helo, not a 737. I have a real pilots license and I enjoy flying by the rules when the session calls for it. I follow the same procedures the airliners use in bravo airspace. I enjoy flying point to point IFR, in fighter jets, how is this any less "serious" simming than what you like? I'm sure the average red bull series pilot would take exception to being called anything less than serious as well. They obviously take their work very seriously indeed. If they didn't they certainly wouldn't be around long. Do you consider Formula 1 drivers to be silly while bus drivers are serious?Perhaps it's the freedom to go from 5000-35000 feet in oh..say...now! that I love so much, whether I choose to use it or not. :) I often fly helicopters too, they're a wonderful flying challenge. Why is it so wrong for ACES to give a little something to FS users like myself and NotASenator for once? Fine, you don't have a TON of airliner addons for FSX right this second. Historically however more than the lion's share of development in addons has been for the heavy iron market segment, and ultimately FSX will be no different. We don't have a lot of choices in complex fighters either by the way, for the same reason, lack of FPS. Wanna talk about blurries? Airliner drivers complain about them, for us fighter guys it's a permanent state of affairs, but we love it anyway. :)I don't begrudge you your airliners and FMSes even though I have absolutely no interest in them whatsoever. You enjoy them and I'm happy that you do, so why can't I enjoy my fighters, and helos, and warbirds in the realistic dynamic atmosphere that FSX provides, and which combat sims don't? You may not see the point in it, but the dozens of people who join my multiplayer sessions every night, just to fly in formation or do some nap of the earth flight certainly do. Several of them are real world pilots too. Are they 'non-serious' as well?Shooting things down with airplanes is fun yes, but for me it's the thrill and challenge of simply flying them that I enjoy most. Combat sims don't let me fly from Vancouver to Reykjavik and back in a blackbird at mach 3, with real world weather. FSX does.

[Guest Hocking]

A few points I will throw in:Somebody said something about this sim becoming a multi-platform sim. Do you mean a sim that can be played not only on PC's but on consoles as well? This would never happen. This type of game would never be able to be ran on a console. You would be best to start completely over from scratch, and only build about 10% of this game in order to run it on a console.As far as military aircraft in the sim. I could care less. I would never bet interested in flying military aircraft in FSX. If I want military jets, I will go to "Lock-On" or "Falcon 4" (and I do own both). However, I will say this. Could you imagine the mess you would have flying online if they gave military jets the capabilities to fire missles or shoot guns within FSX. This would be great fun for many people to go around the multi-player world blowing defenseless innocent jet-liners out of the sky. This will never happen in FSX, and I hope nobody ever breaks a code where they could make this happen.Finally, I don't want to see ACES start messing around developing things like flight planners, ATC, and stuff like that. Just like JSkorna (Jim) wrote, all this stuff is already out there from third-party developers. These third-party developers will make this stuff much better than ACES can because they can specialize within these areas of the game where ACES cannot specialize in certain areas. You will always have a dumbed down flight planner from ACES when compared to what a third-party developer would be able to deliver. ACES can provide us the playground, let the third-party developers give us the high-quality equipment to play on. You can't have these third-party developer survive if ACES starts competing with them directly.

[Guest Len]

>A few points I will throw in:>>Somebody said something about this sim becoming a>multi-platform sim. Do you mean a sim that can be played not>only on PC's but on consoles as well? This would never>happen. This type of game would never be able to be ran on a>console. You would be best to start completely over from>scratch, and only build about 10% of this game in order to run>it on a console.>>As far as military aircraft in the sim. I could care less. I>would never bet interested in flying military aircraft in FSX.> If I want military jets, I will go to "Lock-On" or "Falcon 4">(and I do own both). However, I will say this. Could you>imagine the mess you would have flying online if they gave>military jets the capabilities to fire missles or shoot guns>within FSX. This would be great fun for many people to go>around the multi-player world blowing defenseless innocent>jet-liners out of the sky. This will never happen in FSX, and>I hope nobody ever breaks a code where they could make this>happen.>>Finally, I don't want to see ACES start messing around>developing things like flight planners, ATC, and stuff like>that. Just like JSkorna (Jim) wrote, all this stuff is>already out there from third-party developers. These>third-party developers will make this stuff much better than>ACES can because they can specialize within these areas of the>game where ACES cannot specialize in certain areas. You will>always have a dumbed down flight planner from ACES when>compared to what a third-party developer would be able to>deliver. ACES can provide us the playground, let the>third-party developers give us the high-quality equipment to>play on. You can't have these third-party developer survive>if ACES starts competing with them directly.On the latter point. If the ACES team did an fms specific to a particular craft, let's say to to an airbus, the cost to me the consumer goes way down. FMSs are not easy to make and they can add a significant amount to the addon cost. In addition, with a properly done fly-by-wire created by ACES then it would easier for the addon community payware or otherwise to just provide the liveries/stick with upgrading the textures of the internals and externals without necessarily having to come up with a ground up solution. I'm not one for simply agreeing that the addon community should be left with the bag on improving some of the features of FSX. Indeed, FSX itself has already taken upon itself in improving, textures, animation, airport complexity, mesh resolution, etc. that is, by providing to me a cost effective qualitative solution without inviting me to spend more money on addons.