Gibbage

Just wanted to pop in and say YES, stonelance and I ARE working on porting FSX aircraft into Flight. There WILL be limitations due to a large amount of technology changing between FSX and Flight, but simple aircraft should be possible. Stone is doing the vast amount of work on this project, with moral and art support from me. Right now, we are running up against a flight modeling wall and would like to talk to someone who knows FSX's flight model well to help us out on the project. Here are the screenshots. Its still early, but it shows that stone has made some great progress! Here is the BIG news. I will be giving away the Seabee for FREE! I spent a lot of time working on Flight, and sad that it didn't really reach its full potential, and this is my gift to those who still fly. Hopefully we can get more 3rd party work into Flight. Hopefully we can work our way around the current roadblocks, but this is in no way an easy project.

Its nice and refreshing to see so much desire for ACES/FS to come back. If only reality would match our dreams... I would be all for the re-forming of ACES, just as long as its NOT under the Microsoft banner.

Sadly, this is rather old news. When ACES closed, LM purchased ESP and turned it into P3D. When that happened, they took on a few of the ACES crew. So in reality, its been this way for the last 5 years. I don't know if LM has hired more of the ACES crew (haven't heard anything) or if this is a new step, but I would take this information with a grain of salt, and nothing that says ACES is reforming or anything. From what I have seen, the crew at LM are very small with a limited budget. Maybe they just got the go for a bigger budget? It would be nice. I played around in P3D a bit, but I didn't see anything greatly improved over FSX other then the addition of under-water, and a slicker UI.

Simply put, WHY? Why would MS spend money doing updates for games that are so old? It wont sell any extra copy's, and patches only effect people who ALREADY OWN THE GAME! FSX works. Nothing left to patch. I dont see it this way. What does MS "owe" you? FSX works. Sure DX10 is still a "preview" but it works. I dont get this mentality that MS "owes" you something. You paid for a game, you got a game, and you enjoyed it. Do you think your entitled to a lifetime of free updates? Thats not how it works.

I think if a totally new sims is to start, it must start off SMALL, with visible growth SUPPORTED BY THE COMMUNITY. Flight started small, but growth was invisble, and not supported by the community. Those last two area's is one of the big things that failed with Flight. Flight's engine has some amazing potential, and it was built to expand easy. If someone picks it up, they will be years ahead of the curv in terms of technology. The question is if MS would be willing to let it go, or if someone has the money to buy it. Another potential source is Aerofly FS. Im extreamly impressed with what they have! What they need to do is get an SDK out and grow on the technology in place, like clickable cockpits and more area's to fly in.

I have seen the first question asked over and over and over. I think the 2nd question should be asked first. Please let me explain. I was working at ACES with MS closed the studio. They let go 90% of the close to 250 staff, and kept a core group of guys to start what would be known as Flight. I can say this since its been said publicly by people way over my head. The flight sim "group" was never 100% disbanded. When we were working on Flight, it was known in the office that this was THE LAST CHANCE in MS's eyes for flight simming. We knew that, so we put 110% into everything we did, so simming would have a future with MS. The problem is, the big leaders of simming like Bill Gates, Bruce Artwick and Paul Allen are no longer at MS, so nobody high up the chain was fighting for simming. It was a loosing battle against corporate pencil pushers, and leadership that only did things "by the numbers". Flight under that type of atmosphere has no chance. Now that Flight failed, MS has re-assigned or dismissed ALL of the simmers. From what little I can tell, there is no more "core" to build the next product. They all have been fired, or assigned to non-simming jobs within MS. Simply put, simming is dead within MS. It just wont make the numbers that will even interest MS, and there are no leaders willing to fight for it. RIP. That brings me to the 2nd question. SHOULD THERE BE ANOTHER MSFS? After what happened to Flight, I say no. Microsoft, while a great company, is no longer a fit for producing a flight sim. Like I said, you NEED leaders high up the chain that will FIGHT for simming. You also need a company willing to gamble and take a risk. I said it over and over, but I truly dont think a flight sim under Microsoft's flag will work. Is there no hope for simming? I wont say that. There is a void, and as we all know, all voids are filled. There IS a market, someone just needs to be willing to fill that market. Who will? Maybe Lockheed Martin? X-Planes? (doubt that) How about Aerofly FS? Maybe someone new? I dont know, and it may take years to fill this void, but it wont be from MS. P.S. Why do I say X-Planes wont fill the void? They seem to be more interested in the "professional" simmers, and not entry level. Without entry level, there wont be a lot of "professional" simmers who are not already pilots. There MUST be an easy entry to simming, or simming will die from attrition. Im not saying Flight easy, but easier then XP!!!! Kevin "Gibbage" Miller

I really dont understand your post. Are you saying that you have information that the next DLC area would be New York? I dont even know what the next DLC area was! Would of been great to fly around New York in Flight. It seems the engine was able to handle city scapes a LOT better then FSX was. Seattle is a slide show for me in FSX!!!!

So many errors. Sadly, the person in the video is the type of customer MS was marketing Flight for!!! As a new user, his experience is im sure what a lot of people thought about Flight. Dazed and confused!!!!

Not going to happen. Live is deeply integrated into Flight and its locked down tight.

If I recall, the windmills on Hawaii also face the wind. Flight is all about the little things. From the creaking of the control cables in the Stearman, to stuff like this.

I loved B-17 Flying Fortress.

I worked on a project many many years ago that was going to create a US Navy based combat flight sim. We asked Grumman how much they wanted to license there WWII aircraft (F4F, F6F and so on) and they wanted $60,000-$100,000 per aircraft type. Grumman also sued IL2/Pacific Fighters for using the aircraft without permission and Grumman's name and got around $250,000. Ubi paid it off without a fight. It was cheaper to pay the bill then fight with layers. Years ago even Cessna started attacking 3rd party dev's. Its a legal nightmare, and thin ice we all tread carefully on. I think Flight did make money, just not enough money for a big company like MS to really care. In an interview, Joshua said he though he could get 20-30 MILLION people flying. If he promised those numbers to the big wigs at MS, and only got say 1 million (a HUGE number), it would be deemed a failure, since it didnt match his estimate. Simming is sadly a small group, and MS simply isent interested in making small change.

Well, it didnt have this no-cockpit BS thats for sure! What Flight is today, and what I worked on are two different products it seems. One had a plan for advancement, and it seems the other didnt, or the advancement was in the wrong direction. Since im under NDA, thats all im going to say. The Flight team really did want to make a great product, and you can tell that by how well it does what they were allowed to do. From visuals, performance, flight modeling, and the checklist, everything was an advancement from FSX. The biggest problem I think with Flight was the CONTENT, or lack of.

Just to make things clear, the C-46 is not my work. I didnt model ANYTHING that didnt have a cockpit. This no-cockpit BS wasent even known to me when I worked on Flight and happened after I left. Its a good thing it happened after, as I would not of put up with it. I would of made sure everything had at LEAST a very basic cockpit with a 6 pack MINIMUM. Then again it would not of been my choice and im sure I would of been fired soon. ;)

Looks like a great external model and texture! Its a shame it didnt get a great cockpit to go along with it.

You simply dont understand the scope of what it would take to "spark Flight's revival". There is no simple band-aid that would turn this product around. Its not that simple!!! MS and Flight have simply ###### WAY too many of there fan base. The only way Flight could survive is outside of MS in someone's hands who knows what a sim should be. Not some corp pencil pusher that only worries about statistics and "research data". Flight development is gone. Just face it. Dont hold your breath. Flight was MS's last play to make simming "marketable". They wont try again. Trust me on this. Everyone who ever cared about simming in MS has moved on, and after Flight, nobody has the will to fight for its survival. Again, flight simming is best left outside of MS.

Why would they? Its obvious that this thing was made with all the cockpitless warbirds. Why put in a lot of extra work to make a cockpit for a dead product?

I know the guy who did all the land class in Flight, and he really did care about the small things. Its the small things that total up to be great. Im sure your kind words means a LOT to him right now. It means a lot for people to notice your work, especially under trying circumstances.

I personally dont understand why they could of left a great deal of aircraft with finished artwork on the cutting room floor, and release a bunch of cockpitless warbirds. Like I said in my port mortem, the focus of the game changed when the leadership changed to Joshua Howard. He had his own goals for MS Flight, and none of them included cockpits it seems. Im guessing he figured he could attract more customers by having cheaper products. Also please remember that the artwork is only HALF the job in getting an aircraft flying in ANY game. The flight modeling and programming behind it is also substantial. The aircraft im talking about my also require extra programming or an update to support some of its features. Maybe one day it will show up on my portfolio, but no time soon. Wont be worth doing since its already been done for FSX. =) Not as good as this one, but its hard to sell something someone already has, even if it is better.

Never. MS paid for that work, they have full rights to it.

Sad. Its good that they were able to release this content, but its sad they didnt finish any other content, like ones with a cockpit...

There are video's on Icon's web page that showed them doing extreme maneuvers in water with the Icon. Even dipping the wing tips in water! The tips are designed specifically not to "catch" water and create drag that would spin most aircraft, but to skip along the surface. Lots went into the design of this very cool aircraft!

Ya. The aircraft was developing rapidly when we were making it for Flight. The wings changed twice along with many other details. At some point, we just had to say "this is the Flight Icon" and finish things. Later on, Icon even added flaps to the design that wont be in Flight.

I dont know if its possible in the game engine to simulate it or not. I never got into that part of the engine itself, but it would not surprise me. Its amazing the technology at the core of Flight that will never be used. They truly did build Flight for the long run, and it only saw a fraction of its potential realized.

BTW, the Maul's engine is canted. I think it points something like 4 degrees left or something like that. Its modeled visually, just very hard to see. It helps reduce the effects your talking about, but does not eliminate it. If you want to see an extreme example of this engine canting, look at a real life Cessna 208. Those engines are so crooked! I thought there was something wrong with the blueprints when I studied them!!!