How will MS market FSX without Vista ?

[STUART_H]

Given that FS9 (FS2004) has evolved with many fantastic environment add-ons (UT, GE, ASV6, FE etc.etc.), not to mention the many great aircraft and airports, both freeware and payware, I was wondering what FSX will bring the Flightsim community now that Vista has been delayed to Jan 2007?

If the Flightsim community is to be attracted to purchase FSX when/if it is released end 2006, then MS would need to provide sufficient new / improved enhancements (that would work with XP). If the new sim is too dependant on Vista, then takeup could no doubt be slow. So far we have only been exposed to screenshots showing great scenery with reflections etc., presumably courtesy of Vista and DirectX10?

Us 'Simmers' are usually only to quick to reach into our wallets as soon as a new version is released but I feel that, unless MS have some inovative improvements over the current FS2004 + add-ons package that most of us are running, there may be a reluctance to jump too soon.

I wonder if someone in the know, could assure us ardent simmers (not sinners!) that the new inovative improvements that we are all hoping for, will work out of the box with Windows XP, and that the subsequent use of Vista will be icing on the cake.

I guess, what I'm asking in summary is:
What will work with XP and what will will only work when Vista comes along ?

Any takers?

Regards,
Stuart

[n4gix]

If you read back through this forum (as well as similar forums on other flightsim websites), you would learn that every single screenshot posted so far was taken from FSX running under WinXP!

The screenshots were taken on a P4 machine under WinXP/SP2, using an "older" video card... ;)

In fact, the only example of FSX running under Vista is the video of the presentation made at CES, and even then it was using only DX9 video, since video cards that will support DX10 do not exist yet...

[andyjohnston]

My name is Bill and I like to type in BOLD!

Just kidding Bill
:)
:)
:)

[tgibson]

Hi,

Let me restate what Bill said - everything that will be released initially in FSX will be DX9/XP compatible - this was always the plan, and it hasn't changed. All features listed/pictured in the intial reports (except the Vista things like the Game Center) will be in there when using XP. There may be a DX10 update/version later, but this has not been described to us yet.

Hope this helps,

[andyjohnston]

I doubt ther will be a DX10 update, probably DX10 will allow it to do what it's already doing, just do it better.

[Lou_Betti]

How will MS market FSX without Vista?

Very easily!

I believe that FSX will work with XP just fine. No doubt better with DX10 added, but I doubt any update will be necessary.

I think that some think that FSX NEEDS Vista to run, and this is a terrible misunderstanding. This is why we have folks worrying because Vista might be delayed in release, and think that such would cause FSX to be delayed.

Now, if I am wrong, my apologies to the MS team, but I highly doubt I am wrong. ;-)

Let's move past this.

Now, watch. We'll have someone asking me:

"Do you have any proof or evidence to support what you have said, Lou".

Yes, I do. It is called experience and common sense, and I doubt the MS team will let me down when it comes to this, as they have even greater "experience and common sense" than I have!

Regards,
[link:www.dreamfleet2000.com|http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx2/forum_banners/LOU.gif]
[font size=1][font color=blue]Can you pilot a plane, instead of programming an FMC to do it for you?[/font color= blue][/font size=1]

[RatRace]

may I suggest everyone reads this ?

Why windows Vista won't suck
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1931918,00.asp

In a nutshell
Big difference: DirextX 1O
Dirext X10 = Vista only

Now I quote "Upon release, there will probably be some Windows XP games that will have enhanced DX10 modes when run under Vista (like Crysis and Flight Simulator X), and maybe even a few "gotta have it" Vista-only games that require DX10. Microsoft has already announced Halo 2, but others should follow (and hopefully, they won't be ports of two year old Xbox games)."

take note: FSX will basically still be an XP game (certainly not a Vista only game)

Extremetech's analysis seems very sensible to me: FSX delivery in the "2006 holiday timeframe" (as planned), already including a special DX10 mode that will only run under Vista - and as n4gix so poignantly reminded us of, only when using a DX10 capable video card.

One last suggestion to y'all: start saving for that video card - they won't come cheap

BTW you should read the rest of the article too - it's very informative

[STUART_H]

Thanks to everyone for some of the clarifications around the screenshots etc. being on XP/Direct9 platforms. I do recall reading that in one of the forums.

However, whilst the screenshots look good, I don't believe, as others have stated, that they are vastly improved over current FS9 + addons (UT/GE/FE etc) that alot of simmers would already have set up.
That is my point - if without Vista and DX10 to gain the performance improvements promised, is it just some improved eye-candy 'out of the box' that FSX will bring, and if so make the current suite of add-ons redundent(which people have spent hard cash on and may want to sweat for a while)?

I think hard core simmers will be looking for something extra before digging into their pockets and many will wait and see what difference Vista/DX10 makes to the overall sim.

All I am looking for from MS Developers, or those in the know, is for them to release more tangible evidence / advice as to what FSX will bring over FS9, other than improved base scenery, and broad marketing statements that, in the main, tend towards yet more eye-candy :

What about:
-Improved panels (smoother gauges/fuller systems) for default aircraft?
-Improved flight characteristics / dynamics?
-Improved performance over FS9 (even without DX10/Vista)?
-Runway conditions effecting aircraft performance?
-What ATC improvements will it bring?
-Any changes to the weather modeling?
.....the list could go on.

Here's wishing for that crystal ball,

Regards,
Stuart

[n4gix]

>All I am looking for from MS Developers, or those in the know,
>is for them to release more tangible evidence / advice as to
>what FSX will bring over FS9, other than improved base
>scenery, and broad marketing statements that, in the main,
>tend towards yet more eye-candy :

"Those in the know," cannot say anything whatever because of the NDA they have signed. In fact, the NDA is so restrictive, they cannot even admit to having signed one! :9

Anything made public will be done directly by tdragger and/or pixel_poke, and then only with the blessing of the Marketing Department... ;)

From "reading between the lines," though, it is clear that there are a lot of new and/or improved features within FSX that have little or nothing to do with "eye-candy" per se, but will involve such things as the models, flight dynamics, inter-process communications, multi-player, and so forth. I've seen nothing that even hints at any changes or improvements in the panel and gauge system however... ;(

[sclincoln]

The complete list of new features might be coming out reasonably soon as the development team is close to reaching the Feature Complete milestone (according to tdragger on his blog http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/). That's a slight inference on my part but he did say directly, "I've been pitching in, trying to help the dev team make our Feature Complete milestone." and "the catered meals we brought in this week to encourage folks to stay late and push to make our deadline", so I'm assuming that deadline is coming soon. The next step is content complete, then release. I'm actually expecting it to come out earlier than the holiday season given their previous track record but time will tell.

[velociriptor]

Yo,

What will be really new and innovative about VISTA anyway?... Looked
alot like os10 at the CES screening to me...

[RatRace]

>What will be really new and innovative about VISTA anyway?...
>Looked
>alot like os10 at the CES screening to me...


http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1931918,00.asp
From the assumption one can read of course

[velociriptor]

Yes, well, I habitually employ the "read between the lines" method, which I've developed and nurtured since the good ol' "See Spot run!"
days.. Curse of the sceptic, you might say.

Everyone loves a parade, and a good sales pitch, right?

I seem to recall a similar article, just as compelling, from the summer of 2000 entitled: "Why WinME won't suck"...

But let's all hope for the best- I'd rather our friends at Microsoft choose to delay release and refine the product over rushing to stock
retailer's shelves in time to catch the wave of a certain seasonal
spending phenomenon- acceptable conduct for a lesser, struggling
company.

Hmm.. Am I talking about Vista or FSX?... Does it matter?...

Bona fide updates aside, to get a product that wouldn't require patches, bilge pumps, or other addendum down the line just to keep
it afloat would be a welcome and refreshing change.

Come on, you know you guys can do it- You're the Big Dog; you can afford to wait and release product when it's actually ready for
release.

People will remember and love you for doing something different, and you'll still be able to tap into that spending frenzy next year...


Confession:

The original question was purely rhetorical; I was just checking to see if my signature banner was working.


Even so, by "new and innovative", I meant like, waving hands and pointing fingers at the screen to make things happen?... Like in,
you know, "Minority Report"?... :+

[darrenecm]

With 20-odd years of fans surrounding the Flight Simulator series I'm not sure the FSX marketing campaign strategy is as vital as say a completely new product. I think the important decisions need to be made in what new features FSX will be bringing to the table compared to previous versions.

Hopefully we'll see more of an 'innovation leap' than that seen from FS2002 to FS2004, which in my opinion was very minimal and mostly eye-candy. When I took a look at the FS2004 SDK this minimal improvement was all the more obvious with barely any changes over the FS2002 SDK. It left me very dissapointed with a sense that Microsoft just wanted an easy cash-in by releasing a new version with very little effort.

The one thing I'm hoping for is that the FSX development team has listened very closely to add-on developers and will subsequently build the FSX engine with extensibility in mind, far more so than has been seen in previous versions. I had the gut feeling that all the SDKs of previous FS versions were merely a poorly implemented, grossly unsupported afterthought.

The FS2004 devs allowed only very limited access to the engine and the only way add-on developers were able to introduce some of the more exciting and complex add-ons was to practically reverse engineer and hack away at DLLs and hidden memory locations. This need not be the case with a concerted effort to make the FSX engine easily extensible. All it requires is a 'plug-in' mindset on the part of the developers throughout the entire FSX design process.

Although Microsoft is huge with deep pockets, the FSX development team is a finite size and has a limited time to complete development and release FSX to market. This puts a constraint on what features they can implement at launch. In such situations a 'lowest common denominitor' approach is usually adopted in deciding what to implement.

On the one hand we may have veteran simmers clamouring for greater realism in flight procedures such as ATC, navigation features (STARS, DPs etc) and avionics systems (glass cockpits) - which is the camp I'm in, while at the other end you have the newcomer camp who need things to be approachable and easy. The developers thus find themselves in a juggling act on what complexity to build in and what to simplify. My own personal view is that this unavoidable design obstacle far too often results in an unwelcome 'feature set dilution' for both camps.

The solution to this then is to build in extensibility to such a level that the many add-on developers that have surrounded Flight Simulator these 20-odd years have sufficient access, tools and documentation for the engine to trickle out add-ons. This then allows the add-on devs to step in and take up the reigns in providing products to cater to the needs of the two 'user camps', be they veterans seeking the ultra-realistic flying experience, or newcomers looking for an easy, more approachable ride.

Some of the top-selling games today have SDKs and development tools released to the fan base. Half Life 2, Unreal, Farcry, Neverwinter Nights and, more recently, Oblivion show that releasing well-documented SDKs and capable tools ensures greater popularity and sales performance of the core product. FSX needs needs to adopt this same design mindset coupled with clear SDK documents and support.

If it does, well then the sky's the limit (pun shamelessly intended)

[khaliah]

>Hopefully we'll see more of an 'innovation leap' than that
>seen from FS2002 to FS2004, which in my opinion was very
>minimal and mostly eye-candy. When I took a look at the FS2004
>SDK this minimal improvement was all the more obvious with
>barely any changes over the FS2002 SDK. It left me very
>dissapointed with a sense that Microsoft just wanted an easy
>cash-in by releasing a new version with very little effort.
>

No, don't get the apologist started again.

[sclincoln]

I would think that the main reason that the FS9 SDK looked much like the FS2002 SDK is that MS builds in as much backwards compatibility as possible so the techniques didn't change much.

I've read several places that FSX has been developed for more extensibility. I've also heard that they have been very active in soliciting advice from developers.

The SDK, according to ACES sources, is being developed by a professional writer to be released at the same time as FSX.

From a marketing standpoint, I would think that MS would more closely focus on the types of features that make FS accessible to newbies. After all, that's where at least 90% of the sales are. Those of us who are die hard fans represent the minority. Not to say that there won't be some cool features for us too, but it makes more sense from a sales standpoint to make the product as attractive as possible for the uninitiated. With added extensibility, MS could leave the super high-detailed procedure simulators to the 3rd party developers.

[sclincoln]

>No, don't get the apologist started again.

Yes, only cynics and MS bashers allowed around here. No wonder the ACES team has stopped posting around here. They get a lot more respect at the "other site".

[JSkorna]

Hi Darren,

The MS Team has heard this loud and clear.

Edit: Scott is on the right track also!

Hope this helps,
Jim
http://www.hifisim.com

http://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-development.jpg http://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-proud.jpg [hr][link:www.jdtllc.com|http://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannersupporter.jpg]

[n4gix]

>No, don't get the apologist started again.

Why? He (they) are certainly more entertaining than your constant negativitity, snide remarks, and throughly useless drivel.

It's you - and folks like you - who've not simply caused the nice folks at ACES (remember: they ARE real people!) to not simply quit posting, but indeed to quit reading the forums here.

OTOH, since they no longer waste time here, that allows them the luxury to spend that time elsewhere, so I suppose that's a plus for the other forums...

[khaliah]

>>No, don't get the apologist started again.
>
>Yes, only cynics and MS bashers allowed around here. No
>wonder the ACES team has stopped posting around here. They
>get a lot more respect at the "other site".

Good, the team do NOT need to be reading on the forum about how new technology should be held back for as long as possible and how the next version should be able to run on an Atari 800XL pc. The team needs to better use it time reading about new hardware and new technology to push every new version of fs to the limits of technology.

[khaliah]

>>No, don't get the apologist started again.
>
>Why? He (they) are certainly more entertaining than your
>constant negativitity, snide remarks, and throughly useless
>drivel.
>
>It's you - and folks like you - who've not simply caused the
>nice folks at ACES (remember: they ARE real people!) to
>not simply quit posting, but indeed to quit reading the
>forums here.
>
>OTOH, since they no longer waste time here, that allows them
>the luxury to spend that time elsewhere, so I suppose that's a
>plus for the other forums...
>

If you want entertainment, go play with your flightsim. You have plenty of past versions to keep you happy for years. Yet you spend all your flight time here pooping on everyones suggestions to move the next version further. You have an excuse for everyones idea not to be put in the next version. I'm here and you better get use of it. I will counter any and all of your anti-new-technology views...PERIOD.

[darrenecm]

>>No, don't get the apologist started again.
>
>Why? He (they) are certainly more entertaining than your
>constant negativitity, snide remarks, and throughly useless
>drivel.
>
>It's you - and folks like you - who've not simply caused the
>nice folks at ACES (remember: they ARE real people!) to
>not simply quit posting, but indeed to quit reading the
>forums here.
>
>OTOH, since they no longer waste time here, that allows them
>the luxury to spend that time elsewhere, so I suppose that's a
>plus for the other forums...
>

Hi Bill.

Is it the general perception then that the FSX bloggers have stopped viewing this forum and generally go elsewhere? I haven't been around long to read enough threads to get that viewpoint.

I would have thought that the only valuable information to an FSX dev-blogger reading a forum is information of a critical nature. The only way to make a product better is to listen to the criticisms from its potential users after all.

Now I guess it all depends on the way those criticisms are voiced but do the doom-sayers and outright Microsoft/FS-bashers outweigh those who offer largely constructive critical comments? Surely not?

I doubt an FSX blogger would stop reading this great forum due to the minority of forum 'trolls' and their pre-teen mental ages rendering them incapable of forming clear, constructive criticism. Is it simply not the case that they haven't posted as much because the demands of work on FSX prevents them? I'd be really surprised if it wasn't but again, I aint been around these here parts that long :)

Anyway, isn't it the case that when these trolls find out the devs have moved onto another forum, they will simply follow, register at the other forum and continue their inane banter there?

An effective solution is to use forum software that allows those registered (i.e the FSX devs) to banish any 'troll-minded' posters to the confines of an ignore list at their discretion.

Could this be a good time to switch to a more feature-rich forum software system that gives those registered more control and tools via a 'User CP (control panel)' style feature? Such 'quality control' at the poster's fingertips, and those available to the moderators, will ensure we only see good quality, genuinely constructive criticism :)

[darrenecm]

>
>Us 'Simmers' are usually only to quick to reach into our
>wallets as soon as a new version is released but I feel that,
>unless MS have some inovative improvements over the current
>FS2004 + add-ons package that most of us are running, there
>may be a reluctance to jump too soon.
>
>I wonder if someone in the know, could assure us ardent
>simmers (not sinners!) that the new inovative improvements
>that we are all hoping for, will work out of the box with
>Windows XP, and that the subsequent use of Vista will be icing
>on the cake.
>
>I guess, what I'm asking in summary is:
>What will work with XP and what will will only work when Vista
>comes along ?
>
>Any takers?
>
>Regards,
>Stuart
>

When I think back to my earlier post and my comment on the dissapointment I felt at the 'innovation leap' from FS2002 to FS2004, maybe it was coloured largely by the fact that a lot of add-ons for FS2002 I had installed made the new features of FS2004 largely valueless. I never really thought about it like that until now :)

It seems then that the devs have their work cut out ensuring that FSX's new features not only surpass the out-of-the-box FS2004 feature set, but also overshadow FS2004 features already imeplemented via add-ons too. No mean feat considering some of the excellent FS2004 add-ons available.

One pet hope I'm clinging to is that aircraft panels and instruments switch from clunky bitmap drawing via GDI/GDI+ to hardware accelerated bitmap and vector graphics. XML gauges may likely still have a place in FSX I guess but lets also allow C/C++ gauge developers to embrace DirectX's abilities for the gauge visuals too. That way FSX will be able to faithfully handle the 'glass cockpit' technologies that are so prevelant in many modern aircraft flying today.

On a more factual level, the FSX tech-demo and presentation on how the terrain rendering system is implemented is certainly an innovation leap that has me excited. Hopefully it will result in a richly detailed world far superior to that seen yet in FS2004. If so it will make flying (and navigating) via VFR much better than what FS2004 ever allowed.

And with the crux of my previous post in this thread being on extensibility, I also hope the new terrain rendering system allows for further customisation, enabling add-on developers to push the realism levels to even greater extremes.

[tgibson]

Hi,

IMHO I don't think their departure had anything to do with this forum, it had to do with the recent interview and editorial presented here. I guess there was some material in there that they did not authorize and/or like.

The details have been discussed in another thread.

Take care,

[n4gix]

>If you want entertainment, go play with your flightsim. You
>have plenty of past versions to keep you happy for years. Yet
>you spend all your flight time here pooping on everyones
>suggestions to move the next version further. You have an
>excuse for everyones idea not to be put in the next version.
>I'm here and you better get use of it. I will counter any and
>all of your anti-new-technology views...PERIOD.

LOL! Unlike yourself, I have no world view deformed by unrealistic expectations and fueled by wishfull thinking. Indeed, I am rather well-grounded and well-connected with the nice folks at MS/ACES.

I should also point out that your participation in this - or any other - flightsim.com forum is only at the sufferance of the website's owner and his designated representatives. It is not a "right," but on the contrary is a "privelege."

There is no "anti-technology conspiracy" at work, save only that which is in your fantasy world view.

In due course, all will be revealed for everyone to judge who was right and who was full of it... ;)

[n4gix]

>Is it the general perception then that the FSX bloggers have
>stopped viewing this forum and generally go elsewhere? I
>haven't been around long to read enough threads to get that
>viewpoint.

In the past thirty days:

flightsim.com: 0 posts

avsim.com: 25 posts

simflight.com: 13 posts

As Tom pointed out, details are in another thread, but it is clear that the management here insulted the nice folks at ACES, and coupled with the near lack of meaningful discussion and/or viable, well-formed, and cogent suggestions, decided to spend their free time were they were better appreciated.

[khaliah]

>LOL! Unlike yourself, I have no world view deformed by
>unrealistic expectations and fueled by wishfull thinking.
>Indeed, I am rather well-grounded and well-connected with the
>nice folks at MS/ACES.
>
>I should also point out that your participation in this - or
>any other - flightsim.com forum is only at the sufferance of
>the website's owner and his designated representatives. It is
>not a "right," but on the contrary is a "privelege."
>
>There is no "anti-technology conspiracy" at work, save only
>that which is in your fantasy world view.
>
>In due course, all will be revealed for everyone to judge who
>was right and who was full of it... ;)
>
Don't bet on those fs2004 pics dressed up as fsx pics. Maybe atc with sid's and star's and multiplayer atc and 3rd party friendly(much much much much friendlier than previous versions) just might save you from "full of it" title.

[sclincoln]

>Is it the general perception then that the FSX bloggers have
>stopped viewing this forum and generally go elsewhere? I
>haven't been around long to read enough threads to get that
>viewpoint.
>
>I would have thought that the only valuable information to an
>FSX dev-blogger reading a forum is information of a critical
>nature. The only way to make a product better is to listen to
>the criticisms from its potential users after all.
>
>Now I guess it all depends on the way those criticisms are
>voiced but do the doom-sayers and outright
>Microsoft/FS-bashers outweigh those who offer largely
>constructive critical comments? Surely not?
>
>I doubt an FSX blogger would stop reading this great forum due
>to the minority of forum 'trolls' and their pre-teen mental
>ages rendering them incapable of forming clear, constructive
>criticism. Is it simply not the case that they haven't posted
>as much because the demands of work on FSX prevents them? I'd
>be really surprised if it wasn't but again, I aint been around
>these here parts that long :)
>
>Could this be a good time to switch to a more feature-rich
>forum software system that gives those registered more control
>and tools via a 'User CP (control panel)' style feature? Such
>'quality control' at the poster's fingertips, and those
>available to the moderators, will ensure we only see good
>quality, genuinely constructive criticism :)
>

By this point the ACES guys have developed pretty thick skin. In my limited experience, they handle criticism pretty well. As a matter of fact, tdragger just handled a guy over at the other place who was ranting about some non-existant trim issue with a great deal of diplomacy even though the guy got pretty insulting and quite insistent. The problem is when it gets personal and comes from the people involved in running the site who should know better.

I don't think they're going to switch forum software here just now. At least, I hope not. They just recently made a big switch.

[n4gix]

>>In due course, all will be revealed for everyone to judge
>>who was right and who was full of it... ;)
>>
>Don't bet on those fs2004 pics dressed up as fsx pics. Maybe
>atc with sid's and star's and multiplayer atc and 3rd party
>friendly(much much much much friendlier than previous
>versions) just might save you from "full of it" title.

Now you're just being silly. You cannot possibly have failed to perceive the obvious... Try reading what is not written, then meditate on that for awhile. You'll eventually determine the pattern, and what you fail to perceive now will become clear.

[khaliah]

>Now you're just being silly. You cannot possibly have failed
>to perceive the obvious... Try reading what is not
>written, then meditate on that for awhile. You'll eventually
>determine the pattern, and what you fail to perceive now will
>become clear.
>

The only thing that comes to mind is you copying fortune cookie messages on this forum.

[sclincoln]

>The only thing that comes to mind is you copying fortune
>cookie messages on this forum.

Ok. That was pretty good. Although, I think what Bill was alluding to is that he has inside information but due to the terms of the NDA he is under, he isn't allowed to reveal anything or even say overtly that he is.

[khaliah]

>>The only thing that comes to mind is you copying fortune
>>cookie messages on this forum.
>
>Ok. That was pretty good. Although, I think what Bill was
>alluding to is that he has inside information but due to the
>terms of the NDA he is under, he isn't allowed to reveal
>anything or even say overtly that he is.
I know. I was just picking. He is lucky fsx won't have guns. Then we could settle this.

[n4gix]

>>The only thing that comes to mind is you copying fortune
>>cookie messages on this forum.
>
>Ok. That was pretty good. Although, I think what Bill was
>alluding to is that he has inside information but due to the
>terms of the NDA he is under, he isn't allowed to reveal
>anything or even say overtly that he is.

Mr. Lincoln wins the stovepipe hat!
:9

Anyone who's developed good "detective skills" could gain the same insights as another who person who has direct "inside information," based upon carefully reading what the official spokespeople (i.e., tdragger, pixel_poke, and a few others) have written, as well as what they haven't explicitly written.

For example, if a direct question is asked, and you receive an oblique answer, parsing what was said against what wasn't said will yield the precise answer first sought... ;)

It's a process the philosphers call "deductive reasoning..." :)