Expanding on the "guys who pay him" comment, I would think Microsoft could always branch MSFS off to a new combat flight sim title, unrelated to Jorg/Asobo.   But I think this is all a tangent...as to the real discussion about Playstation.

1 hour ago, bofhlusr said:

The people who pay him his monthly salary might think otherwise.

I doubt that Sataya would go for the added militaristic touch.

dd 

14 hours ago, Sky_Pilot071 said:

that flight simulation is no longer some backwater endeavor enjoyed only by the few

it still is, compared to other games, doesn't matter if they are GTA, TombRaider, Cyberpunk and what not. for a publisher/developer it doesn't matter how much more advanced, super hardcore realistic-tested by real pilots etc. our IFR-EFB-GPS etc. might be.  nobody questioned that there might exist certain differences between MSFS and GTA V. 

compared to 200 million copies sold for the major top sellers, MSFS has been, is, and always will be, a niche market. which is fine as long as they keep developing it. 😀

8 minutes ago, turbomax said:

it still is, compared to other games, doesn't matter if they are GTA, TombRaider, Cyberpunk and what not. for a publisher/developer it doesn't matter how much more advanced, super hardcore realistic-tested by real pilots etc. our IFR-EFB-GPS etc. might be.  nobody questioned that there might exist certain differences between MSFS and GTA V. 

compared to 200 million copies sold for the major top sellers, MSFS has been, is, and always will be, a niche market. which is fine as long as they keep developing it. 😀

For fun I did an AI search and the car to aircraft ratio is 100,000 to 1. 

Now do auto drivers to pilots.  lol

 

dd

13 minutes ago, Sky_Pilot071 said:

For fun I did an AI search and the car to aircraft ratio is 100,000 to 1. 

Now do auto drivers to pilots.  lol

Even so, I've been surprised by some of the Twitch streamers who have messed around in MSFS, even if it's just once to fly over their city. Game Pass makes the sim accessible to people who otherwise wouldn't have touched it. Unfortunately, the sim itself is still pretty inaccessible to people who know nothing about aviation. I think that is one reason we don't have bigger numbers in this hobby.

I'm sure it would be an unpopular opinion around here, but I think the next version of MSFS really needs to improve accessibility for first-time pilots with better training lessons and better AI copilot options. I don't mess with any of the assist options (outside of the helicopter assists), but I am pretty sure you can't just hop into the 787, jam the throttle forward and fly without getting bombarded by alarms for doing everything wrong. If you had an (optional) AI copilot with levels from "realistic" to "instructor", any kid that can play Minecraft could fly in MSFS in their aircraft of choice and brag to their parents as they fly over their house. And this option shouldn't dissuade the purists either... a "realistic" second officer that you can actually talk to is much more realistic than flying a heavy solo!

1 hour ago, Sky_Pilot071 said:

For fun I did an AI search and the car to aircraft ratio is 100,000 to 1. 

so?

everyone who plays GTA V has a car?

everyone who plays Flightsim is a pilot, let alone owns an airplane?

not everyone who plays Cyberpunk is a punk, except myself sometimes. 😀

this all doesn't matter when it comes to the business side of things: there are games for niche markets vs. mass markets.

The big advantage MSFS 2024 (all flight sims) have is they can be as simple/easy as one likes to as complex as one likes … I can’t think of any other entertainment software that matches this much open structure that lures new and old.

As for combat, DCS has that covered fairly well with a dedicated following as does P3D.  

 

7 hours ago, Sky_Pilot071 said:

I doubt that Sataya would go for the added militaristic touch.

dd 

I agree. Probably not, but everyone has a boss (including the Pope) and sooner or later one has to take orders directly or indirectly from a boss. In this case, I meant Microsoft’s shareholders as the boss, the stakeholders whose influence motivated and encouraged management to expand the game to Xbox and PlayStation platforms. They're expanding MSFS, not just to create more pilots or the hobby, but also to sell more games, the digital twin earth, and more profits.

16 hours ago, JonathanC said:

You doubt that MSFS will reach the numbers of the highest ever selling game on Playstation, and the 2nd or 3rd highest selling game (depends on who you ask, apparently) of ALL TIME on ALL platforms EVER?

Yes, I think I can safely agree with you on that. MSFS will never be the highest selling game of all time on any platform. It simply is not that type of game. 

This kind of comparison is just pointless. Might as well compare your average 2nd div player in any sport to the GOAT of that sport..

I should have used a smiley of some sort. Of course I am aware MSFS will never outsell a game like GTA, lol. The use of the word 'doubt' was a sarcastic understatement 🙃

21 hours ago, Noel said:

Me too.  Quite frankly the true cost of 'defense' and we'll call it 'offense' spending, worldwide is ginormous, in the trillions of USD.  And all of that steals from the rest of civilization, absolutely and massively.  It's what the patriarchy brings which is out of step with where technology has moved.  We're very clever, but not very wise.  I'd rather keep MSFS a civilian flight sim.

No politics please. 🙏 
 

flight sim is contentious enough as it is. 🤙

22 hours ago, Tuskin38 said:

Jorg is also personally against it.

I'm surprised they even lifted the restrictions for static weapons on marketplace aircaft.

I can understand not wanting to add combat to the sim (not because “war bad”, but because it’d be a LOT of work to do it well)  

But that restriction on visual depictions was always silly. People take their kids to air shows all over the planet, any Combat aircraft depiction in any media always has weps. And I’m “pretty sure” nobody’s ever been traumatized be seeing a Sidewinder. 🤪

18 hours ago, Funky D said:

Unfortunately, the sim itself is still pretty inaccessible to people who know nothing about aviation. I think that is one reason we don't have bigger numbers in this hobby.

I'm sure it would be an unpopular opinion around here, but I think the next version of MSFS really needs to improve accessibility for first-time pilots with better training lessons and better AI copilot options. I don't mess with any of the assist options (outside of the helicopter assists), but I am pretty sure you can't just hop into the 787, jam the throttle forward and fly without getting bombarded by alarms for doing everything wrong. If you had an (optional) AI copilot with levels from "realistic" to "instructor", any kid that can play Minecraft could fly in MSFS in their aircraft of choice and brag to their parents as they fly over their house. And this option shouldn't dissuade the purists either... a "realistic" second officer that you can actually talk to is much more realistic than flying a heavy solo!

I disagree. You CAN just jump into many of the aircraft and go flying.

I mean, how did any of us ever learn to skateboard…? 😁

Theres zero expectation that net new players would come from enhanced instructional or AI avatars for airliners, of all things. 

No, flight sim is more accessible than it’s ever been, and that’s largely been due to the wide adoption of consumer gaming hardware. 

I.e., those that want it, find it. 

10 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

No politics please. 🙏 
 

flight sim is contentious enough as it is. 🤙

"not because "war bad"  🙃  YOU just stated your position on why you don't see adding combat, and that is what I did.  No politics please 🤣

3 minutes ago, Noel said:

"not because "war bad"  🙃  YOU just stated your position on why you don't see adding combat, and that is what I did.  No politics please 🤣

Incorrect- my statement centered directly around the mechanics of the sim itself, and didn’t spin off into unrelated IRL political generalizations that are irrelevant to the topic of flight sim. 🙂🤙

The topic here had to do with implementing modeling of combat elements.  Since you took the effort to state, 'not because "war bad", YOU made a political statement of sorts even if it was in the negative, in effect stating having the sim associate w/ combat is irrelevant to you.  It's very relevant to me and I believe developers should know how their audience sees all aspects of their product.  Here's an analogy:  if this were a thread about Grand Theft Auto and the question came, "How about if they use AI to create incredibly realistic rape scenes...."  I'd object as strongly to that was well.  And if you're really focused on staying on topic--drop it now you're the only party making an issue out of my comment.

Edited April 16Apr 16 by Noel