The Situation Is Not So Bad

[xxmikexx]

Most of you are disappointed, but it was obvious to me two years ago that MS had walked away from the FS community, and it seemed likely to me that any future product would be built from scratch, used only online, and therefore aimed at a different audience, which is exactly what happened.

Yet when you think about it, the situation is not so bad. You still have FS2004 and FSX, there is no reason why the development of addons for the FS market shouldn't continue, and there's every reason to expect that a vibrant FS community can continue to survive.

You have only to look at TrainSim.Com for why I say this. MS walked away from Train Simulator long ago -- never even did the promised Train Simulator 2 -- yet addons continue, and indeed MSTS 1 itself continues to lead the train simulation product line pack in terms of number of users and realistic locomotive and rolling stock physics.

So try looking at the bright side. Imagine that MS had named the product something other than MS Flight. In fact, imagine that they had named it MS Flying Game For Beginners. You wouldn't have been upset by that, would you? You wouldn't have felt any more abandoned than you did the day before yesterday, would you?

[xxmikexx]

I should add that these are early days for MS Flight. Perhaps by three years from now it will be a really sophisticated system with high fidelity addon jetliners, realistic navaids, massively multiplayer opportunities for things like simulated air traffic control, and military games, blah blah blah. Who knows? You only know what it looks like today.

I think there's plenty of room for both systems, FS and MS Flight alike. All they've done is increase the number of available choices. While I myself will be sticking with FS2004, that doesn't mean that other users won't eventually get the same level of satisfaction from MS Flight, and it doesn't mean that freeware and payware developers will have to walk away from what exists today.

[ricardo_NY1]

I'm with you because from the first screenshots, I knew we weren't getting anything new. It was pretty obvious it was along the lines of the old platform/engine, not anything of today's technology. What I was hoping for was a streamlined FSX that was more friendly towards today's CPU's and not as processor speed dependent. Looks like the solution will be somewhere down the road with even better hardware.

[xxmikexx]

What I was hoping for was a streamlined FSX that was more friendly towards today's CPU's and not as processor speed dependent.

Friendliness toward the average CPU is part of the announcement. I also want to observe that as far as I can tell roughly half of the FS community is interested in general aviation, not jetliners and airlines. I think it's pretty clear that this user subgroup will soon be well served by MS Flight though not from the viewpoint of the FS developers.

EDIT: Here's why you should be optimistic. By now everybody on this site will have seen webmaster Nels Anderson's fact sheet article of yesterday morning, yet I just logged the count of users in the major forums and got this ...

Outer Marker - 60
FSX - 136
FS2004 81
MS Flight 36

So I have to wonder whether the negativity in the MS Flight forum is representative of the attitudes of most of the users of this site.

[benEggleston16]

I assumed from the beginning it would be less serious, why not call it FS11 if it wasn't?
Then there would have been no risk of losing the old community

[xxmikexx]

I assumed from the beginning it would be less serious, why not call it FS11 if it wasn't?
Then there would have been no risk of losing the old community

Are you going to get stop using your existing FS installation because you don't like MS Flight?

[Firekitten]

Friendliness toward the average CPU is part of the announcement. I also want to observe that as far as I can tell roughly half of the FS community is interested in general aviation, not jetliners and airlines. I think it's pretty clear that this user subgroup will soon be well served by MS Flight though not from the viewpoint of the FS developers.

EDIT: Here's why you should be optimistic. By now everybody on this site will have seen webmaster Nels Anderson's fact sheet article of yesterday morning, yet I just logged the count of users in the major forums and got this ...

Outer Marker - 60
FSX - 136
FS2004 81
MS Flight 36

So I have to wonder whether the negativity in the MS Flight forum is representative of the attitudes of most of the users of this site.
They probably havn't noticed, or cared...

As for GA... The Approach of Flight doesn't seem to even cater for that well... and it certainly won't cater for bush pilots... in the slightest. Wonder how far down thier list of areas, the remote north of Canada or Alaska would be? Or more specifically... any bush planes.

[xxmikexx]

They probably havn't noticed, or cared...

As for GA... The Approach of Flight doesn't seem to even cater for that well...

GA aircraft are simple compared to airliners -- simpler airframes and dramatically simpler cockpits. I see it as simply a matter of where they're starting. Isn't it normal to proceed from the simple to the complex rather than the other way 'round?

[fxsttcb]

Isn't it normal to proceed from the simple to the complex rather than the other way 'round?Right on the mark! FS < FS2 < FS3 < FS4 < FS5 < FS98 < FS2K2 < FS9 < FSX > Flight. OOPS! Hey, a little "back-up and re-group" never hurt anybody...Don

[benEggleston16]

Are you going to get stop using your existing FS installation because you don't like MS Flight?
Good point, I didn't think that through properly, I was just thinking about the sentiments on the FLIGHT forum yesterday

[Firekitten]

That was more a graphical and technological progression... remember, fs never came with the high fidelity and complex airline simulations you use...

As for GA aircraft being simpler... technically yes, but I'd say its harder for ya as you actually have to use the controls rather than a keyboard ;) (off topic)


Flight isn't fs... that much we know now, might it be? Well, I think we'll all wait and see what expansions come out, but right now, my fleeting interest has passed, and I'll be watching the new orbx toys surpass flight in every regard :D

Its beyond what they're doing at the moment...

[angels355]

Mike, you have some kind and comforting words. Good to hear from you.

I would say that a great deal relies on whether MS decides to change their mind and release the SDK. On the other hand, if Flight is very different from the flight simulators of the past, then will it be good enough to fly a PMDG in? That's a good question, is Flight good enough to fly a PMDG in it? Is MS Flight Simulator gone? Do we need someone like Aerosoft to take over? No SDK means Flight is just another ordinary game. No Project Opensky aircraft? That's just insulting to the flight simulator fanbase. Or does MS plan on having conmmercial developers submit add-ons directly to MS and licensing them to be allowed to run in Flight? In their effort to take over the add-on market by force? That would result in not only no freeware like Project Opensky but also dumbed down arcade add-ons censored by MS to be politically correct, as they don't want it to appear to be anything more serious than an arcade game. One thing is for sure, a lot of "synergies" went into Flight. If we are needlessly getting upset, then show us the SDK!