FlyBaby

Rotorcraft is a must (in a way) but not a deal-breaker. I can certainly understand that everything won't be available day 1 or 2. But with all of that awesome scenery, low and slow would be a dream...

You are contradicting yourself here... First you say that there is no "gap" if the feature exists in the base product, then you say that "filling the gap" would be detailed airports. Well, airports (no matter how bland) exist in the base product. I don't think that there is a right or wrong conclusion as to what one would consider "filling the gap" vs. "adding flavors"; and your contradiction shows just how subjective that definition is for the "individual" user. X-plane has clouds in the base product, but they were so ugly to look at (initial 11 version), with a limited draw distance (a circle around your plane), and had such a performance hit, that I would simply fly without them. So to me...this was a "gap" that X-Enviro "attempted" to address, not a flavor. So, my point was that the current base sims are "so far behind the times" in many "visual" aspects that many of addons (to me) were filling in what "I" considered to be a "gap" in my flight sim experience (much like you and airports). With that said, MSFS has really pushed boundaries with what they are offering in the base sim, so I don't think there there will be "as much of a demand" for 3rd party addon like clouds etc. given that the base sim offers a "good enough" visual representation of clouds, water, environment etc. In other words, I would not pay "additional $$$" for another "flavor" of MSFS great looking clouds.

Everyone's taste / tolerance will vary. To me, the current 3rd party addon demand is about filling in gaps as opposed to offering additional flavors. I am not looking for perfection (like the sunset) in a sim, I am just looking for something that represents what I would expect to see in real life. From what I have seen thus far with MSFS, I will not have a need for any cloud. sky, ground texture addons. Sure, these products may exists in the future for MSFS, but I am not willing to spend more $$$ for additional flavors when the core product offers a "good enough" representation of the sky, clouds, sunset etc. I just don't see where there would be "as much of a need / demand" with MSFS for the current suite of 3rd party addons that exist for XP and P3D. You definitely would not see me paying $50+ dollars for a more detailed state, or night lighting enhancements, clouds, almost anything Orbx, etc. I would only pay for something that did not come with the core sim, like additional aircraft, a special view utility etc.

That video was epic...

I did not notice that in the vid at first. Floating lights would suck for low level Heli fying. Like you said, not a deal breaker, but I hope that they can get poles implemented before the final release.

KMTH to KFXE, early morning setting. Looking at the AC line up so far, it will most likely be in the Icon A5.

Wasn't "profitable" enough, or had just run its course???? DTG picked up FSX and continued to run with it....with over $5k in DLC that "depend" on it. P3D picked up the base code, and ran with it...with 3P vendors that "depend" it. That does not sound like a failure to me... So they failed at "Flight", that's 1-1, check your counting... Failures are not "just failures" it if you can learn from the mistakes, come back, and take the crown. Any champion knows this... And with just a 2-minute video, MSFS upstaged everything that went on at a 3 day flight sim convention that MS didn't even "need" to attend; and MSFS is what everyone has been taking about since then. Sounds like the champ is coming back to me...to reclaim that title... Your credentials sound impressive (vendor, partner, and support), so it sounds like you "depend" on MS for a few things as well. So...as I said, MS "knows" how to survive in this business better than anyone criticizing them on these forums. Just Saying...

Really, I would just rather see you contribute something of value to conversation. Your "rants" in response were over the top, and not worth engaging given that MS knows how to survive in this arena much better than you, and has been fairly candid with their direction (at this early stage) and desire to interact with the community.

Exactly... This is how google does it (70% / 30%) for the their android DEVS to sell apps through the playstore, but app DEVS still have to implement additional security measures as hackers have become more savvy to ghost sales from google for in-app purchases. I think that MS is looking at how FSX sells for $25 with now over $5k in addons on steam. As the MSFS base grows, a 70 / 30 split could be a huge payoff for both sides.

Oftentimes, a person is already heading up that function during the planning and early execution phases, along with other responsibilities, so there comes a time when official positions are created to divide the workload more efficiently as the project kicks more into gear. Even so, that is progress... Would you rather have a small team that can't produce enough, or a large team that can? The larger the team, the more need for structure / coordination etc. We flight simmers have been waiting over 10 years for the next generation sim...and now MSFS is on the horizon. Yes, we will see if that view changes over the next 2 or 3 months. I suspect that it will.

That's a very good point. I think that MS may have ads for things MSFS related. DTG does this in train simulator, where an ad will pop up (during the loading of a session) for new train routes etc. sold on steam. I have not heard negative responses for these types of related ads; and, personally, i would not mind MSFS alerting me of a new plane or airport "while" the sim is loading. But pop up ads are, in general, annoying especially for something not related to game / sim in use. In fact, many mobile apps use "annoying" ads just to generate "purchase" revenue by charging $1 to get rid of the ads.

Again, you try to look at the app world in way that fits your argument, and distracts from my main point. There are paid apps (not just free apps that rely on in-app purchases / ads) that target a small niche market. Some ad platforms will only pay if the user not only clicks the ad, but then both download and then open the advertised app, and then there is a minimum ad $$$ threshold that the host app must meet (on a monthly basis) before that ad platform even pays out. SO NO....scale does not work for apps that have a "smaller" target market when the "ad" payout is only $3 per 1,000 downloads / opens / views. So............. My original point was that MSFS should charge 3P Devs who "sell" addons that depend on the base sim....much like Google and Apple charge app developers (I believe a 30% cut) who "sell" on their platform. Apps with smaller target markets survive today. "Higher costs" (or the one choosing to "complain" about it) and "some DEvs not being able to survive" is the reality, not a deterrent for this type of business model. Time will tell if MSFS decides to go this route. However, MSFS has to see that FSX sells for $25 on the Steam with more than $5K worth of DLC. "I" would want a cut of that... Your compassion for the possible hard times is comical because chances are..."you will buy it" and pay the higher costs no matter who gets left out in the cold. Stop with the charades and distractions, and keeping hitting that "refresh" button today.

Actually you are wrong... There are many apps (not like Angry birds) that cater to a smaller niche market and survive just fine although Google / Apple take a good chunk of their gross sales.

No...in the "real" world... The front running base sims, and some of the addon 3P Devs attended a flight sim convention that MS did not attend. During the same time, MS released the MSFS trailer that everyone has been talking about, speculating about, debating about, drooling over, and eager to get more info about since then. Said another way, a 2 minute video became more relevant than anything that went on during that 3 day "flight" sim convention. I think MSFS's potential is much bigger than anything the flight sim arena has yet to offer. So, "those successful norms" may no longer be "as relevant" now. I would surely buy it stock given the vids and smooth performance, and MSFS is smart enough to grasp this age of DLC to keep cranking out new stuff form their own shop or however "they see fit" with 3P DEVS. Will you be hitting the refresh button tomorrow???

How many people buy apps and and virtual goods in apps for their mobile phones? You do realize that Google & Apple take a "good chunk" of the DEV's gross sales and the mobile app business hasn't failed, and I don't hear people complaining about the cost of apps. Is the mobile app business viable? I don't mind spending more if it is worth it to me.

I disagree with your reasoning here...and this is only my opinion. The third party success has been prevalent in the flight sim arena because the base sims (FSX, P3D, XP) lack so much in their stock form (clouds, weather, terrain, airports for XP). So, yes, the 3rd party DEVs and freeware contributions have enhanced these "bland" base sims to enhance the experience. However, when a DEV can charge $100+ dollars for a addon that negatively impacts the performance of the base sim, sit back...collect the $$$ and have the attitude that the base sim needs their presence to survive, then you basically have 3rd party Devs who are just taking advantage of a market that doesn't have a better base sim option. With that said, I certainly don't want the distribution model that exists now... Now comes MSFS... I hope that MSFS eliminates much of the current fragmented implementation for addons, and get a good chunk of the 3rd party revenue charged to consumers. If I build a solid base sim that a 3P DEV "needs" to exist, then I will be sure to get a cut representing the platform that I am providing for that DEV to sell their product. If the base sim is good enough, then it won't need to depend "so much" on 3P DEVs to fill in the gaps.

I am not sure where you are going here... However, you missed my point by clipping off my quote and losing the overall context. My point is that I would make any upgrade necessary for performance sake (to reach the visual levels of the trailer)....given that performance is my only deal breaker.

I get that outlook, I also bought FSW (although I really did not fly it waiting for more updates) because I wanted to fund further development. But at the end of the day, when Flight and FSW went under, MS and DTG were still making money on other products....so, they really didn't need my funds. Going forward, i would only have a "support the cause" attitude towards a smaller new Dev team. With all of that said, if MSFS stated that they could guarantee max settings & smooth performance with the latest CPU, and 2 GTX 2080 TIs running SLI, I would be willing to upgrade to experience it. I just don't see a reason to buy another sim showing pretty pictures / videos if the reality is that no one, absolutely no one will ever experience it personally because no hardware exists that can run it.

This really depends on the person. I don't want to run 2 or 3 sims...ideally (due to time etc.), I want just 1 civil flight sim and 1 military flight sim (DCS). For me, it is the same dynamic with car racing sims....at one point, i had several of them (F1 series, AC, Pcars, GSC RaceRoom, etc.) on my PC, Managing car setups. hardware profiles etc became too time consuming. Eventually, I settled on PCARs as the best "overall" fit for my needs, and I haven't looked back although other sims may do 1 or 2 things better. All of the top civil flight sims have performance issues. I am hoping that MSFS becomes that 1 civil flight sim, but not if I cant run max settings (even with the best hardware) to have the visual experience that we see in the trailers. Therefore, even if MSFS doesn't have "everything" on day 1, smooth performance is a must for me...as it will be something that no one else has been able to do thus far.

This is the main issue for me, but only if the bad performance extends to the latest and greatest hardware (GTX 1080/2080 cards etc.). I don't mind shelling out extra $$$ to upgrade to the "best" system, but I realize that everyone will not have the ability to do so. Therefore, we may ultimately see a compromise...sliders etc. to trade visuals with performance. But at the end of the day, if I can't run "max" settings with top end hardware to get a smooth performance, then that would be my only deal breaker on day 1. I don't want to be wooed with great screenshots and vids if I can't ultimately experience it (even with the best hardware) due to bad performance. I get enough of that deceptive marketing now with the base sims and addons like Orbx.

Why would any developer bother with a community that takes it upon themselves to “dictate” the course and direction of a product? Yes, a Dev will certainly want to create a product that the community wants (supply the demand) and realize an acceptable profit. However, when “what we want” becomes “what you better do you or else” from folks who really don’t understand “what it takes” and don't have the know how / resources to do it themselves, then the community needs a reality check. Yes, both Flight and FSW failed to win over the community, but DTG and MS are “still” going strong as they have many other successful products to keep the lights on. Even when FSW failed, DTG had success with the FSX steam license with over 5k in available dlc, and other simulator products. And well, I just renewed my Office 365 subscription, so I am sure that MS will be around for some time regardless of what happens with MSFS. So, “who has been losing” in the past 5 - 10 years with poor performing, inefficient sims that can’t really harness the latest CPU / GPU technology? So, “who has to spend” extra $$$ for weather, clouds texture, ground enhancements (Orbx high price piece meal pricing strategy) etc. So, “who has to wait” for small incremental updates and then have to reinstall everything, wait even longer for the addons to catch up….or pay for so called enhancements/fixes…because I am sure that P3Ds avatar really bridged that realism gap to warrant an additional charge. So yeah, keep up with the demands about what must exist on day one….you don’t have it yet, and you then you try to threaten the very Devs who has any chance of delivering it in the future. If the folks at PMDG etc. were all that, then they would have “created” their own sim platform by now to fly their “awesome” planes in. So why aren’t you demanding that they “build” a sim (not piggyback off of Microsoft).

I took the two mini updates as further evidence that MS is looking to re-establish a big footprint in the flight sim arena. Some of the biggest complaints of MS Flight was that the flying area was too small, and that MS was getting away from the "sim" aspect, even making planes that only had a 3rd person chase view. Now in 2019, MS announces a new "sim" and... releases a trailer that shows key spots from around the globe and cockpit views releases a detailed photo showing just how serious they are about that cockpit view confirms 3rd party access, SDK etc. reclaims the FSX title lays out further plans to release more info and kick-off the insider program I get the marketing strategy and hype angle (any company will do this); but there are some clear signs that MS is on the right track and listening to see where they can meet expectations.

Like you, I have already deleted P3D from my machine. I currently run XP but I expect to switch to MSFS on day 1. However, depending on what is available on day 1, I also think that others may take longer to switch as more features / updates / addons become available.This is where I hope that MS doesn't get discouraged "if" initial sales do not live up to expectations.. For example, I was a huge fan of FSW and its potential, however, I was so invested in addons for both P3D and XP at the time, that I did not immediately switch (I purchase it to support the Dev, but did not run it) because I was waiting for FSW to develop further along...iron out bugs etc...but my intention was to ultimately switch to FSW and drop both P3D and XP. So, I hope that MS considers the type of users who may switch a year or 2 later as the product develops. With all of that said, i believe that MS will get a ton of new and convince a good chunk of current users given the reactions that I have seen thus far.

A little off topic but... Can you play them all at the same time?...because I cant. I will do a month or 2 with flight sims (XP / DCS), then another month or 2 with train simulator, then another stretch with car sims (Pcars / AC), then switch to Xbox gaming.

First you came in here with a bunch of "we" this and "we" that... When someone challenged your comments, you then stated the following... Would you care to explain your contradiction here?? "I" do not agree with your conclusion here. "I" think that your postion / posts antagonize and then deflect...all the while masquerading as sincere input. MS really doesn't owe the community anything until the release date when they start seeking "money in exchange" for a product. Obviously, they are looking to gain excitement / buzz and receive community feedback beforehand. "I" think that the little that they have shown thus far has gone a long way to achieve that goal.