Microsoft: 3rd party could make MS Flight a confusing mess.

[kinetic2080]

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/ms-unconvinced-by-third-party-flight-content/091531

It seems MS think 3rd party would make Flight less approachable to newcomers...

-

[Nels_Anderson]

Well, you have to admit that they have a valid point there. Newcomers to the flightsim hobby to have a lot of trouble dealing with installing add-ons...just look at our forums here for all the questions.

[fxsttcb]

From Publishers to Microsoft: 'Don't kick us off the Flight' (http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/publishers-to-microsoft-don-t-kick-us-off-the-flight/089614):

“We will be taking the lead role in new DLC for the launch and first months,” Flight’s executive producer Joshua Howard told MCV. “As we gain more experience with the distribution model and our consumers, we will explore opportunities to grow our content offerings.
Yo! Microsoft! What about a vetting process? Windows has WHQL, so, why not use a similar process for Flight and Third Party DLC? MSFQL?
Open up the GFWL Marketplace to include MSFQL developers, allowing third party development, and still maintain your standards...Don

or are you afraid to compete on an even playing field?

[mgh]

Microsoft discussed this with at least two 3PDs and they couldn't agree conditions.

[raimondo2]

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/ms-unconvinced-by-third-party-flight-content/091531

It seems MS think 3rd party would make Flight less approachable to newcomers...

-

I completely disagree with this piece of writing ideology. Course this is only my opinion.
But what Ms is doing here is to dictate who - how and when - a selection of people (if any) will be allowed to add third party addons to flight - in case their plan fail.

Sorry to say - and yet - sorry to be in a negative ground - although with good reasons - this kind of policies not only will not help grow of any new talents designers - also put off potential developers.

I want to be honest - with this new microsoft management ideas - they look very very selfish to me the way they do things - now they think to give up some of they total control of dlc - only becouse of massive negative messages they got trough simmers all over the web - they are finally realising that many are unhappy of what they have been showed up to now.

[loki]

Newcomers to the flightsim hobby to have a lot of trouble dealing with installing add-ons...just look at our forums here for all the questions.

That is a problem with the current sims, but locking third party developers out isn't the answer. One could build a better add-on install system while still allowing third parties. Then again, as mgh points out, it sounds like neither side could agree on terms.

I'm interested to see how they think they can build a larger ecosystem than what FS9 and FSX enjoy.

[raimondo2]

That is a problem with the current sims, but locking third party developers out isn't the answer. One could build a better add-on install system while still allowing third parties. Then again, as mgh points out, it sounds like neither side could agree on terms.

I'm interested to see how they think they can build a larger ecosystem than what FS9 and FSX enjoy.

--------------------------------------

Yea !! i like to see that too !!
my bet - without a public sdk - there will not be any ecosystem at all !!! (apart from ms dlc ecosystem) :D

[alaskancrab]

If we can get the Xbox quality standards and not those General Purpose windows standards, I'm all for it :)

[rhumbaflappy]

I agree with Raimondo. After all, how well did Micorosoft do providing addon content to any of their old gaming software? Practically nothing offered. It's like they give a minimum effort, and then quit producing when it gets minimally difficult.

Most 3rd party software is produced with some passion (even obsession) that overcomes the difficulties. I don't see Microsoft's employees doing that. Also, attempts to enter the GFWL marketplace using anything other than Windows Internet Explorer leads to a redirection to the xbox website, and a notice that the page doesn't exist. This is 6 days before the Flight release? And we're all supposed to depend on them for DLC?

http://www.xbox.com/Live/PC

Come on, man!

Dick

[HectorD]

What Microsoft is doing is catering to the braindead costumer who wouldn't care about flying aircraft in the first place. How is installing addons confusing? maybe the first time you do it, but that's it. I hope you all realize that they are raising their middle finger to the community that helped make FS what it is today. I for one won't even bother downloading the free base package.

[Paxx]

Re: The article.

I'm tired of hearing about Joshua's corporate goals and reasoning. If this, then that, maybe so, maybe not, tell a story, help it grow are all cheery thoughts and admirable aspirations, though they tell us nothing about Flight as a sim or a game. I don't want or need to know how Joshua will get Flight on as many platforms as possible, good luck with that. Tell me whats planned for the frickin' store beside marketing test pattern content.

Talking about the product at this time and not corporate strategy might be advisable.

[lifejogger]

It is all about money. In the past Microsoft sold the basic flight simulator and then, a large percentage of the people who bought the simulator spent hundreds of dollars or more on add-ons from 3rd party developers. So Microsoft is cutting out the 3rd party developer hoping we spend 100s of dollars buying add-ons from them (Microsoft).

[alaskancrab]

That's up to you to learn. MS standards are pretty clear. If by the 29th you cna't figure out the new requirements are you probably aren't a developer to begin with.

[vonBobo]

Ok... this has me even more excited for the future of xplane. If this standoff continues between the 3rd party devs and MS, we are going to have a flood of content for xplane by the end of the year.

Has anyone else fallen in love with performing cobras and backflips in the xplane f-22? That's some sweet flying right there.

MS- good luck with your new direction! Let me know if you ever decide to release FS11.

[vonBobo]

It is all about money.

What do you think expansion 1 will be?
my guess: a 777 and california. The only way to get off the island will be to purchase the plane. This is a console game and the tens of millions of folks playing it don't want to spend hours over the Pacific, so "Simulation Rate" will be replaced with star shaped "portals". Somewhere over Hawaii will be a portal with the other end somewhere within sight of the california coastline. $20. They may even throw in vegas, because everyone buzzes the strip (once)!

Face it, this game isn't designed for simmers. MS is now being very honest and open about that fact.

[torkermax]

MS is now being very honest and open about that fact.

There are wisdom in theses words. Perhaps the acknowledgment/truth was all that is needed for some to accept the fact and move on.

[tigisfat]

I've somewhat moved on. It's not made for me, so it doesn't matter what I think of it. Thinking out loud here though: Have people forgotten how to sell a product?

Business schools used to be taught by retired businessmen. Now the professors are all career academia types with no experience whatsoever. The result is guys like this clown, who gives tons of interviews but jabbers randomly about how great he is and what his master plan is. I want to be impressed with a product while reading a marketing interview, I don't care about the decisions that were made internally and how great of a leader he is. People who aren't into aviation don't spend time on it, and that's all there is too it. I really do hope I eat my words, but these magazine interviews for flight show a special arrogance. The only people reading them and looking them up are us, and it's not what we want to read.

Literally, shouldn't it sound alarms to them if the only people paying attention are the people they consider 'yesterday's demographic'?

[vonBobo]

MS is now being very honest and open about that fact.

There are wisdom in theses words. Perhaps the acknowledgment/truth was all that is needed for some to accept the fact and move on.

I agree. They didn't make it for us, they don't need us or our wants, so why did they have the desire to smoke screen us?

[vlooi]

Yeah, MS is now acting Retardus Maximus with a line of software that became a passion for so many over the years. I never thought I would ever consider XPlane, but let me tell you, I am now monitoring daily what add-ons are getting released for XPlane, and what's being planned for release. I am simply sick and tired of "games" that's released with a heavy infestation of "consolitis", and then adapted for the PC. Nice MS, cater for the kids with their little boom boom boxes, and leave us simmers to maybe take XPlane into the future with our varied and enormous pool of talents that was always given for FREE to the community.

[fxsttcb]

...Thinking out loud here though: Have people forgotten how to sell a product?...Literally, shouldn't it sound alarms to them if the only people paying attention are the people they consider 'yesterday's demographic'?Yep! and Yep!

[alaskancrab]

I don't get you guys sometimes.. one week you are complaining there is no SDK. Then you get the SDK and then start complaining because everyone doesn't have equal access to the marketplace.

Edit: You are very close to earning a unpaid vacation from here.

[loki]

Thinking out loud here though: Have people forgotten how to sell a product?

Just Microsoft. Compare the Mac vs PC ads Apple created to the Gates and Seinfeld ones Microsoft came out with. Apple's made it quite clear what their purpose was and what they were selling (and many people thought they were amusing, if not always accurate), while Microsoft's left most people who even noticed them scratching their heads. Apple is very good at correctly identifying their market and selling to it, while Microsoft always seems to have trouble on their consumer products (iPod vs Zune, for example).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtEsSdP6sR8

I'm getting the feeling from these interviews that they may have missed the mark a bit with Flight. We'll just have to see how well it does, especially 6-12 months down the road when the novelty has worn off.

PS - The above video was created by people inside Microsoft, so someone in there recognizes some of the problems.

[loki]

Then you have missed the point most are trying to make. With FSX, anyone could create any kind of add-on they wanted and release it however they wanted, commercial or freeware, to improve upon what came with the base sim. Right now, there is no way for users to do that with Flight. The only add-ons will be the ones Microsoft decides to release. If you don't live in Hawaii, then you won't get to fly out of your home airport, and there is no way you can fix this.

Per the article:


However, it will think about allowing third-parties on board if it struggles to meet a massive demand.

They said they will think about bringing others in, not that they are allowing others in right now.

[JSkorna]

Then you get the SDK...

Where can we get the Flight SDK? The last we heard, MS was not going to publicly release the SDK.

[raimondo2]

Where can we get the Flight SDK? The last we heard, MS was not going to publicly release the SDK.

exactly !! is going to be nowhere !

I like to fly over Sicily in Italy - how long ive to wait for my Dlc ?? :)

and what about the Japanese customers ?? will ever a Sapporo Dlc be available ?? :confused:

You can see for yourself - the dlc model (Ms only) - without a public sdk - is the end of the line (unless dlc is continental coverage - i will no put my hands on the fire) - even those who want to give a go with flight - will get fedup if they can not fly on their favorite areas and they have no Chance to produce anything to help themselfs or others. It is not the case of lack of scenery - planes - or fix a vor or ils - it is a matter that you have to take what they pass you - or jump out of the plane !!

[alaskancrab]

Where can we get the Flight SDK? The last we heard, MS was not going to publicly release the SDK.

Really you have a quote from MS? I missed that. Lets hear from a company that's not tied to FSX, like MS.

[loki]

Did you read the article in the OP at all?? Mr. Howard has stated that MS themselves will be providing all content for now. Not to mention additional comments like this one:


“Instead of opening this up to everything, anywhere, by anybody, which frankly creates sort of a confusing mess for a new customer, we get to manage it more, tell a story, help it grow and get on its feet."

This doesn't sound at all like a statement made by someone who would be opening up add-on development the way it is for FSX.

[vonBobo]

Then you get the SDK

link?

[angels355]

At last, a thread with a breath of fresh air. Why should it be a bad thing to point out how badly a product is being done, especially when the cause is from bull headed managers who don't know a thing about flight simming.

Howard is making me want to puke, saying "“We’re trying something very different,” MS Flight’s exec producer Joshua Howard told MCV. “Instead of opening this up to everything, anywhere, by anybody, which frankly creates sort of a confusing mess for a new customer, we get to manage it more, tell a story, help it grow and get on its feet."

Outside of this ecosystem did you know that is called being a "nanny state", where they control every aspect of every minute of the day? Because we are too stupid to do it for ourselves? Do they have any helicopters in Flight because that is what Howard is a helicopter mom.

Can a 747 be hacked into Flight because I would like to see the new Flight engine and 32 bit technology in DX9 brilliance throw up some big vorticies? No pun intended.

Every time Howard opens his mouth he grates against the flight sim community. I like to hear him speak truthfully however, because it indicates a giant problem. As I mentioned before I think he should be fired. And flight simulator should be rescued.

I wonder if they can load flight into my Timex watch?

[alaskancrab]

This doesn't sound at all like a statement made by someone who would be opening up add-on development the way it is for FSX.

Or it could be someone who isn't willing to put up with FSX shovelware on Flight?

[loki]

So where's the SDK then?

[JSkorna]

In his imagination.

[raimondo2]

“Instead of opening this up to everything, anywhere, by anybody, which frankly creates sort of a confusing mess for a new customer, we get to manage it more, tell a story, help it grow and get on its feet."

and you believe that is why - Howard swallowed the sdk with msfs basic world too ??

give me a break !! - - it is all about money - Ms is taking a gamble that it might or might not pay back - nothing to do with new users getting lost -.

He remind me of a banker - really ! same methods - techniques - press - publicity - facebook - tweeter - youtube - magazine images - interviews - WOW !! HOORRAY !! all nice and flashy - ! fine - but where is the simulator ???????

[mgh]

Howard is making me want to puke...

Do they have any helicopters in Flight because that is what Howard is a helicopter mom...

Every time Howard opens his mouth he grates against the flight sim community. I like to hear him speak truthfully however, because it indicates a giant problem. As I mentioned before I think he should be fired.


I thought we didn't make personal attacks here?

[angels355]

I thought we didn't make personal attacks here?

Not a personal attack, a business critique. In the real world people fail and get fired. If he's just following orders from Phil Spencer, he should be fired also.

[alaskancrab]

So where's the SDK then?

In the hands of the people who made the scenery and the aircraft. I'm certain if Mr Howard is willing to make such statements he'll also make it available in writing when the time comes. Not when you say so.

[JSkorna]

Ah, so there is going to be a public SDK?

Then all the freeware can be developed and released?

Then all the freeware doesn't have to be sold through the MS Marketplace?

This is all pretty deep stuff and I don't mean snow!

[marith]

I have just visited the Games for Windows Marketplace (following a comment earlier in this thread), and what I found interesting was at the top of the PC Games page they were advertising 3 games, one of them being FSX Gold.

With MS Flight less than a week away you would have thought they would have put a "MS Flight coming soon" instead. Maybe selling more FSX Gold is their backup plan, lol.

Edit: This is from the UK. Maybe elsewhere there will be different games advertised.

[alaskancrab]

Ah, so there is going to be a public SDK?

Then all the freeware can be developed and released?

Then all the freeware doesn't have to be sold through the MS Marketplace?

This is all pretty deep stuff and I don't mean snow!

No Jim.. I just proved the existance of the SDK. Now prove to me that addon developers aren't subject to a commercial license :)

[loki]

I just proved the existance of the SDK

No, you just stated the obvious in that they have tools internally for developing aircraft and scenery for Flight, not that they have an SDK that will be usable or available for anyone to use. You are still missing the point of people's complaints. Flight will not have any ability, at least for the foreseeable future, for anyone to build what ever add-ons they please, unlike FSX. We are stuck waiting for Microsoft to release whatever they want, whenever they want. I very much doubt I will be able to fly around Calgary anytime soon, if ever, in Flight.

[Paxx]

No Jim.. I just proved the existance of the SDK. Now prove to me that addon developers aren't subject to a commercial license :)

Since we are just going with what we pull out of our arse, I hear (from my arse) that Flight doesn't require an SDK at all. New content spontaneously creates itself within the confines of the 4th parallel when you start the title. Observers noticed a slight rise in GPU temperature when this happens. Afterwards turning the knob to eleven is suggested.

In other news reports from the field suggest butter may be delightful when dining on certain Paralithodes Camtschaticus.

[JSkorna]

No Jim.. I just proved the existance of the SDK. Now prove to me that addon developers aren't subject to a commercial license :)

The only thing you have proved in this thread is that you are full of the deep stuff.

[Ragtopjohnny]

Is there a link the SDK?????? Put up or shut up time.....oh, and the link for the FLIGHT SDK.......

Or article perhaps about it?

John Thuot II

[alaskancrab]

Any more non developers want to bet that Microsoft isn't going to try and impose yet another standard on us... oh say the Flight file formats!

[JSkorna]

The beta testers have already seen the Flight file formats. Notice there is nothing on the Internet about this?

Why does everyone keep asking you for a link to the Flight SDK and you haven't posted it yet?

[Ragtopjohnny]

I think we know the answer to that one Jim, simply put, it ain't out there.....:rolleyes:

John Thuot II

[ricardo_NY1]

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." — Thomas Jefferson

I'm glad Howard is simply a MS employee and not an elected politician.

[Ragtopjohnny]

Supposed MS Employee.....:p.

I can also be a millionare online too if I wanted to be....:) :D

John Thuot II

[angels355]

I have just visited the Games for Windows Marketplace (following a comment earlier in this thread), and what I found interesting was at the top of the PC Games page they were advertising 3 games, one of them being FSX Gold.

With MS Flight less than a week away you would have thought they would have put a "MS Flight coming soon" instead. Maybe selling more FSX Gold is their backup plan, lol.

Edit: This is from the UK. Maybe elsewhere there will be different games advertised.

I bought six FSX Gold. :cool:

[alaskancrab]

The beta testers have already seen the Flight file formats. Notice there is nothing on the Internet about this?

Why does everyone keep asking you for a link to the Flight SDK and you haven't posted it yet?

Wow and you teach school? you are pretty disrespectful man. YOu aren't even a developer enough to realize that the SDK itself is pretty useless without an actual RELEASE first. Putting the damm horse before the cart. Anyone that needs a dev environment knows enough to use P3D .. or have you not heard of .NET? This isn't 1998.

[angels355]

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." — Thomas Jefferson

I'm glad Howard is simply a MS employee and not an elected politician.

Yeah, shivers!

[JSkorna]

Wow and you teach school? you are pretty disrespectful man. YOu aren't even a developer enough to realize that the SDK itself is pretty useless without an actual RELEASE first. Putting the damm horse before the cart. Anyone that needs a dev environment knows enough to use P3D .. or have you not heard of .NET? This isn't 1998.

So asking you for the link to that SDK you KNOW is public, is disrespectful?

We had the FSX SDK before FSX was released. Please note that the 29th is five days away. Surely something must be ready by now?

What does PD3 have to do with this? Or is it just a way to try and throw this off track?

[angels355]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNcQX033V_M

Let's try to be kind to one another.

We are trying to think through difficult subjects, and it is not beneficial to green glowing brains when tempers flair.

Some of the things we are trying to fathom are, how can our buddies MS completely ignore the desires of the FS community? We are probably agreed that it is due to greed, they have made Flight as simple and pretty as possible, as easy to understand as possible, for example not putting a 747 in front of a new customer who can't imagine flying one and instead having small or classic simple planes. Trying to reach as large of an audience as humanly possible. Then if that fails maybe they will cater to us, chopped liver, with taped horned rim glasses, they'll give up on enticing supermodels to play flight then reluctantly drag their feet back to boring flight simmers who do nothing but complain about ground control and SID's and STAR's and keeping the hardware cooled down enough to prevent it from bursting into flames. That's us, boring, a small group, with money ready to spend. AND WE DON'T HAVE A DATE FOR THE PROM!! We're not dumb however, our itchy flap fingers tell us something, we're not doing all that bad, we have FS9, FSX, X-Plane, and leather flight cap and goggles and we're not going to despair. We have Carenados, Realair's, PMDG's Level D's, Orbx, Rex. I think we have surpassed what MS has imagined.

When they come crawling back to us, we'll remember the lousy treatment they gave us, and "We'll give 'em what for!" We'll tell 'em, hey, you didn't even include us in your target market, if you want our business back this is what we'll need: 64 bit engine, fully multithreaded, optimized offloading of work to the GPU's and sound card, and ALL features of the ENCYCLOPEDIC Flight Simulator dramatically improved because you know we've been neglected for a number of years now!! Let's retape our glasses, straighten our pocket protector, install new calculator batteries, because this season "we're going all the way to the Super Bowl, and when we get there we'll already have won it!" --paraphrasing "Heaven Can Wait"

[ricardo_NY1]

The topic........Howard and some other characters at MS think that the newcomer is going to be confused with the insanity of so many airports and now also the vast selection of third party add-ons, etc. It's all a crock of bologna. It's an artificial excuse for ensuring that their Windows Live revenue generating idea doesn't fail-so they believe. Flight could have been released however they wanted to release it, either as a full bore simulator, the restricted version they seem to be releasing or 2 in 1. They could have easily appealed to both audiences but its pretty darn obvious that releasing an SDK is not in the best interest of their wallets, therefore the lame excuses. Those slap heads owe the community a third service pack for FSX before they go about trying to make a dollar on that service pack with Flight. This team has sat there and refined FSX for the past couple of years and want to make money out of what they should be releasing as a much needed service pack for FSX. Or does anyone here think Flight was built from the ground up?

And I do mean OWE. As far as I am concerned, Intel, AMD, NVidia and ATI could make a good faith donation towards that service pack considering the amount of cash we forked over to them thanks to MS' miscalculation about processors and sticking us with a hardware road-blocked software.

[mgh]

Not a personal attack, a business critique. In the real world people fail and get fired. If he's just following orders from Phil Spencer, he should be fired also.

"Howard is making me puke" is a business critique?

[fxsttcb]

MS does not want external 3rd party development "at this time". That leads me to believe that they may have plans for an SDK. Not that one exists. Contrary to the allusion that one does exist, it is not necessary for the developer. Their own internal tools, probably similar to what we might consider an SDK, will suffice for them.
MS may have a big bucks DLC backup plan for an SDK, in case all else fails(insert large by huge dollar sign here), but I doubt we'll see anything of that sort for a year or so.

The following is a statement of fact. Pure and simple.

...one week you are complaining there is no SDK. Then you get the SDK and then start complaining... So where do we "get the SDK"?
Rude? Disrespectful? If you think asking for clarification of a statement you made is either, then so be it. I'm rude and disrespectful...Don

[Paxx]

...
So where do we "get the SDK"?
...

Try http://alaskancrabs.net/arse/stuff_that_doesnt_exist/Flight/SDK/FUD.pak

[alaskancrab]

Not sure it matters... given there are only a handful of companies that meet the Xbox/GWFL quality standards in the first place, rushing out a public version of the SDK is not a priority, given that ultimately the EULA would be abused by commercial developers just like the EULA was abused with the FSX SDK.

Learn the difference between commercial and private use of the software first.

[Paxx]

... meet the Xbox/GWFL quality standards in the first place, ...

Lets not even get started on this whimsical fantasy.

[alaskancrab]

I'm going to name names then... George from Flytampa, and Stefan from Aerosoft... outside of that doesn't seem anyone actually even understands 3D modelling.

[fxsttcb]

Again how exactly did they create the aircraft and scenery if there isn't a published SDK floating around?
It's called a development/developers toolbox. Not for publication. For internal use only. It basically describes the methods and constraints to be used with the core.
Throughout development it is a "living" document. As each module is coded, the internal variable(s) necessary are added to the toolbox and verified.
This practice starts with day one.

Why would a synopsis of the entire code structure be published?
Only the relevant "event" and "variable" data along with expression parametrics, to incorporate those, would be needed in an SDK.

In that sense, an accurate, viable, SDK could only be written after all events and variables are described and instituted.
With MS approach to Flight as a living, breathing, entity, it would seem that an SDK would not be compiled for a long, long, time...Don

[Paxx]

I'm going to name names then... George from Flytampa, and Stefan from Aerosoft... outside of that doesn't seem anyone actually even understands 3D modelling.
Good to know the names of the only two people in the whole world that understand 3D modelling. I imagine they are too busy for casual forum conversation.
Thank you.
/ricochet

[alaskancrab]

Yup at the level that is considered competitive in a $35 billion dollar industry yes. These guys would be professionals that could work for anyone, but they choose the FS lifestyle for whatever reason.

[Paxx]

Good to know your admiration thought process I guess?
You sound like someone familiar...
hmm

[fxsttcb]

I'm going to name names then... George from Flytampa, and Stefan from Aerosoft... outside of that doesn't seem anyone actually even understands 3D modelling.What they are using to compile the 3D data into a form useable by the Flight core, may be an existing compiler or a custom internal solution. Either way, it would only be a miniscule portion of what an SDK might contain. We don't have a clue as to what modeling suite or combination is even in use.

As they find that another event or variable may be needed to accomplish their task(s), now or in the future, I'm sure they confer with their MS counterparts to either add it/them to the toolbox, or, find an existing set and do a workaround. They probably are privvy to only a small portion(s) of the code on a need to know basis...Don

[flightman]

Well, you have to admit that they have a valid point there. Newcomers to the flightsim hobby to have a lot of trouble dealing with installing add-ons...just look at our forums here for all the questions.
That is only because there are no standards applied to add on installation. Many PC users are very unfamiliar with or uneasy about manipulating folders and zip files, but if presented with an executable which opens install shield would have no problems. And if they are still having trouble with that maybe they shouldn't be allowed near a computer.

[flightman]

I'm going to name names then... George from Flytampa, and Stefan from Aerosoft... outside of that doesn't seem anyone actually even understands 3D modelling.
If you get yourself into a hole, stop digging.

[flightman]

Some thoughts on the wise words of Joshua Howard:


“We’re trying something very different,” MS Flight’s exec producer Joshua Howard told MCV. “Instead of opening this up to everything, anywhere, by anybody, which frankly creates sort of a confusing mess for a new customer, we get to manage it more, tell a story, help it grow and get on its feet."
Flight's exec producer? Seems Microsoft has delusions of being in Hollywood giving him a job title like that. As for telling a story, in other words follow the narrow trail we set out for you.


“I believe this ecosystem will come to be larger than the existing product’s ecosystem. And that will be a point where I can’t meet the appetite of a customer base, and I will invest to bring more people in."
The "existing product's" ecosystem is the entire Earth surface and the atmosphere above it, populated with traffic and ATC. If Howard expects Flight to (eventually) have a larger ecosystem, within the limits difined by the title "Flight", where does he propose to go? And apparently it's only then he proposes to invest in bringing more people in.


“I’m also not interested in limiting MS Flight to merely a triple-A title. I think MS Flight can appeal to people who wouldn’t ever consider themselves gamers.”
As Flight has limited appeal to simmers and almost no appeal to gamers he'd better identify this group of non-gamers pretty soon to be able to sell DLC to them.

[mgh]

As Flight has limited appeal to simmers and almost no appeal to gamers he'd better identify this group of non-gamers pretty soon to be able to sell DLC to them.

May be, just may be, Microsoft actually undertook some in-depth market research before deciding to develop Flight. Have you?

[Ragtopjohnny]

I'm going to name names then... George from Flytampa, and Stefan from Aerosoft... outside of that doesn't seem anyone actually even understands 3D modelling.

Names is NOT a LINK for the SDK. We asked for LINKS. Not NAMES. Put up or shut up time.

John Thuot II

[vonBobo]

Asking someone in a focus group "would you play this game?" is an eternity of difference from someone discovering the Flight bloatware on their new Windows isntall and actually deciding to buy content for it.

[vonBobo]

Yup at the level that is considered competitive in a $35 billion dollar industry yes. These guys would be professionals that could work for anyone, but they choose the FS lifestyle for whatever reason.

What's your point? Even if there is an SDK, it's obvious that MS isn't going to release it publicly and allow a free market dev environment for Flight in the same manner that they do for FSX. Mr Director has even said so. So what good is it to have 3 dev groups working on Flight (instead of just MS), releasing content in a slow, costly, and calculated manner, when compared to today we have literally an unlimited amount of Devs working on FSX, continually adding depth to every inch of the globe.

If flight is a turd in 4 years, maybe then MS will bring down the walls and open the dev market and rebrand flight as the new FS11. Until that happens, the existence of the SDK is pretty much irrelevant. On top of that, you don't even have a slight clue you can point to that the SDK even exists. Again... what's your point? Are you just wanting to put up a fight?

[mgh]

Asking someone in a focus group "would you play this game?" is an eternity of difference from someone discovering the Flight bloatware on their new Windows isntall and actually deciding to buy content for it.

Don't you think that Microsoft might possibly have known that, and have done in-depth market research?

[ViperPilot2]

More innuendo and supposition.

Avoid feeding the beast that this subject has become; you'll be much better off in the long run.

Leave the disinformation and speculation to those who revel in it... pipe dreams are exactly that.

[mgh]

Early in 2011 Microsoft posted a job advertisement which included:


We are looking for a technical Program Manager to own the graphics and environment features for the game, as well as drive and define the tools and 3rd party SDK.......lead a team of industry veterans to create a high performance and great looking experience. You will work closely with a handful of select 3rd parties to evaluate our tools and documentation as well as our own internal development team to create the SDK......Work closely with 3rd party content creators to gather feedback and build production requirements...

Much of the discussion is pure semantics. Surely, it's obvious that there must be an internal Microsoft SDK which is likely to be very different from any version that may be released publically.

Also read the advertisement carefully before getting too excited and note the reference to select 3rd parties

[vonBobo]

Don't you think that Microsoft might possibly have known that, and have done in-depth market research?

Market research, focus groups, what's the difference? It's all just random data until someone interprets it into the STORY they want to tell (highlights pieces they want, throws out pieces they don't want). MS wants exclusive rights to the Flight addon revenue, and guess what? Every single piece of data and every pie chart graph they parade around the office will show that this is exactly what their "customers" are wanting. (side note- if Flight fails, it will again be the fault of the customer, as the exec team would never admit to mistakes).

Flight isn't a market driven decision, it's a business driven decision. Were any current users of FSX on Flightsim or Avsim asked to be involved the marketing research? Politics, marketing, sales, auditing, even accounting- it's all story telling to justify your own needs. Just like the rest of us are doing here.

[n4gix]

If anyone actually takes the time to read the names in the CREDITS list, I think there are going to be a lot of very surprised people.Yes, two companies very publically rejected MSGS's terms...

Why have so many people concluded that those two were the only ones invited to participate? I know of at least one other company who declined to participate this time around, but made no public announcement about that decision simply to keep the door open for possible future participation.

[mgh]

Market research, focus groups, what's the difference? It's all just random data until someone interprets it into the STORY they want to tell (highlights pieces they want, throws out pieces they don't want). MS wants exclusive rights to the Flight addon revenue, and guess what? Every single piece of data and every pie chart graph they parade around the office will show that this is exactly what their "customers" are wanting. (side note- if Flight fails, it will again be the fault of the customer, as the exec team would never admit to mistakes).

Flight isn't a market driven decision, it's a business driven decision. Were any current users of FSX on Flightsim or Avsim asked to be involved the marketing research? Politics, marketing, sales, auditing, even accounting- it's all story telling to justify your own needs. Just like the rest of us are doing here.

Do you really believe Microsoft released the funding to develop Flight without a full analysis and business plan?

[Razor68]

If you get yourself into a hole, stop digging.

Only 2 people that understand 3D modelling. Wow, that hole is got to be so big he can't get out of it. Maybe he's going to reach the inner core of our planet, lol.

[rhumbaflappy]

S - D - K

Software Development Kit

The Kit has not been prepared.

Internally, the GFWL developers of the scenery and aircraft use their own tools, which are generally under constant development. This has been true of all the FS versions. Even though Flight may not be part of the FS series ('S' as in Simulator), the development process would be extremely similar.

An SDK is a compilation of tools and documentation to allow 3rd party developers NOT in the software creation loop, to add content, or alter the software. Developers in the creation loop are given just enough info to participate in their segment of development.

There is no SDK for non-public usage. There are just tools, phone calls, emails... but no KIT.

If and when a KIT is available, Microsoft will let us all know. Microsoft will probably want some money for it ( They have done this in the past by selling 'deluxe' editions. ) There may well be an allowance for 3rd party developers, but it appears Microsoft is going to keep a lid on what is allowed. They appear to want to keep everything as simple as possible for the gamers who download content.

Once you wrap your head around the idea this is a flying game with a very controlled ( and detailed ) environment, the marketing and distribution of content is understandable. This is never going to be like the old Flight Simulator series. This is going to be a simple flying game with activities, missions, earning points, multi-player task completion... a more game-like and social experience that just happens to involve imaginary flying.

Should a very complete and detailed SDK be made and released, and should Microsoft give up on the control-freak aspect of content addition, we may be able to turn this into a simulator. As I understand, the software is more modular in it's creation, so if the modules are explained and 'hooks' are provided to add ATC, real-world weather, etc... we may be able to make something that simmers would like. Of course, it may get morphed into a driving game, or a boating game, or a combat game... So it could become a mess, which Microsoft has stated it dosen't want to allow.

Time will tell. I'm not optimistic about an SDK, hence my advice is to just accept it for what it is, and let go of what it isn't. There still is FS9 and FSX to keep many of us busy for the future. Download the free Flight, check it out. You may find a smile on your face as you play it. Or not. It's free. ( But you may need to make sure Internet Explorer is your default browser... )

Dick

[Paxx]

So to sum this thread up;

Current Flight executive producer is trying to eliminate "confusion" for millions of new users. While perhaps an admirable goal, the legacy community is doubtful as this being the true reason why such drastic changes from years past. Official plan is; if Flight reaches goals and the need arises, executive producer will call in more resources. Community remains doubtful.

Alaskancrab announces that quality xbox standards have something to do with all this.

Rhumbaflappy discovers terrible Games for Windows Live website is pretty basic and advertising FSX.

Various folks comment about Joshua and the direction Flight is aiming for. Nothing decided.

Alaskancrab announces you probably are not a developer. Thanks buddy.

Various comments and dissertations about business, other aviation sims, honesty, money, wisdom, smoke-screens and agreement about disappointment abounds.

Alaskancrabs announces bewilderment at SDK dilemma and vacation plans. Coconut Bra not included.

Community members discuss various SDK issues and strategies for the enlightenment of thread lurkers and passersby.

Alaskancrabs announces more bewilderment at Microsoft announcements from the future. I dunno, what a long strange trip its been?

None-the-less the thread carries on discussing possible locations of a possible SDK.

The community learns that the Flight developers have an SDK. Thank you Alaskancrab.

Paxx farts something out-of-his-arse. Nobody is impressed. This is a good thing.

More speculation on speculating whether SDK speculation and links are available.

Alaskancrabs announces the taking of bets on Microsoft file format changes. Community fails to participate.

More discussion on SDk and terms and conditions for addressing other community members.

EULA abuses for FSX are brought into the discussion via our favorite seafood delicacy.

Alaskancrab names names. Community initially unimpressed, and wondering why Alaskancrabs is naming names.

More discussion follows about various dev tools, plans, pixie dust and uh ..what? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04) Whats that? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04)

NEWS FLASH - Only two 3D modellers found to be competent in the whole wide world. Fortunatly they are dedicated to FS ( no offense intended for ppl that were named). Crowd is amazed, and gathers at the hole.

mgh reminds us of the marketing studies, business plans and analysis Microsoft has probably done in regards to Flight. Conversation on the results of these actions by Microsoft become the focal point of the thread. Bill reminds us that all is not lost - please read the credits.

... stay tuned!
:)

[Ragtopjohnny]

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o176/ragtopjohnny/popcorn.gif

John Thuot II

[vonBobo]

I really don't care how many 3rd party devs are allowed into the walled garden. As it looks right now, Flight appears that it will not be the open and free market of addons that we all enjoy/desire today.

[vonBobo]

Do you really believe Microsoft released the funding to develop Flight without a full analysis and business plan?

You are not reading my posts (that you are responding to)

Of course they spent marketing money- hence my thoughts on MS using it to tell a fictional story, instead of developing a product that their fans were asking for.
Of course they have a business plan- hence my thoughts of MS monopolizing the addon content.

I'm going to stop responding to you, unless you start reading my posts.

[angels355]

"Howard is making me puke" is a business critique?

Technically speaking.

[Ragtopjohnny]

Or personal, pending how you feel abou that :p.

John Thuot II

[fxsttcb]

Hey, if I'm puking, that is some serious business...Don

[angels355]

That is only because there are no standards applied to add on installation. Many PC users are very unfamiliar with or uneasy about manipulating folders and zip files, but if presented with an executable which opens install shield would have no problems. And if they are still having trouble with that maybe they shouldn't be allowed near a computer.

Among frequent addon installers, exe's are not well liked, because often they automatically trample all over your installation. Sometimes causing the ruin of the installation and you have to start over from scratch. I had one addon a few days ago that had the worst possible A380 panel, all the gauges and the panel itself were from FS98, FSX rejected all of the gauges. If I recall because I converted the automated installer to a manual installation I was able to back out of it.

I think MS just doesn't want Flight to have a bad reputation for bugs and technical problems so they want to control everything. But that is just the superficial excuse, the real reason is greed, money, and controlling a closed system to maximise profits. For example while I have purchased FSX Gold, I plan to buy the entire PMDG line of products amounting to probably a couple hundred dollars. Money not seen by MS.

People that want to control everything make up a lot of likely excuses.

[angels355]

Some thoughts on the wise words of Joshua Howard:


Flight's exec producer? Seems Microsoft has delusions of being in Hollywood giving him a job title like that. As for telling a story, in other words follow the narrow trail we set out for you.


The "existing product's" ecosystem is the entire Earth surface and the atmosphere above it, populated with traffic and ATC. If Howard expects Flight to (eventually) have a larger ecosystem, within the limits difined by the title "Flight", where does he propose to go? And apparently it's only then he proposes to invest in bringing more people in.


As Flight has limited appeal to simmers and almost no appeal to gamers he'd better identify this group of non-gamers pretty soon to be able to sell DLC to them.

Right on! High five!

[mgh]

You are not reading my posts (that you are responding to)

Of course they spent marketing money- hence my thoughts on MS using it to tell a fictional story, instead of developing a product that their fans were asking for.
Of course they have a business plan- hence my thoughts of MS monopolizing the addon content.

I'm going to stop responding to you, unless you start reading my posts.

The fictional story is the one you are suggesting that there is a worthwhile market for a product that their fans were asking for.

A more likely story is that Microsoft closed ACES and stopped developing FS11 because it thought it was no longer worthwhile, because it appealed to too small a market, and that Flight was developed to appeal to a larger one. That seems to be a perfectly rational reason not requiring any fiction. Follow the money as they say.

[Ragtopjohnny]

We should do an occupy MS for Microsoft so they don't get greedy about Flight :p.

But still I think that somewhat hit it on the head when I had to call support before and they always stated its not a good idea to install third party aircraft, which many problems can arise from. I'm sorry, why make it open ended then in the first place? Duh?

John Thuot II

[mgh]

Technically speaking.

So, techncially speaking, angels355 makes me puke is acceptable in these forums?

[angels355]

So, techncially speaking, angels355 makes me puke is acceptable in these forums?

Yes it does. Please, just tap your sword on both of my shoulders. :D

[angels355]

All I can say is, I am thoroughly disappointed with MS' attitude, contrarian marketing plan, and shocking closed community approach. They have billions of dollars to force this through and establish it. For example that is how X-Box got established, they were not making profits initially, they developed the X-box market at great expense and enormous financial backing. So Flight could become big and established because they have the mega bucks to do that.

In most marketing plans, they take a good product, even better if it has established itself as profitable for three decades and has an established customer base dying to buy more, and you advertise more, do more to please the customer base, make more expansion packs, clean up bugs and improve performance. Take Coke or Pepsi, they have not radically changed because they have an established successful product with a long history of success, and established customer base. But you know, Pepsi and Coke are not exactly PC. Along comes a new brash manager, prune juice is just about the same color, it's very sweet, yet it is natural, full of antioxidants and so good for you, some people such as the new manager love it and can drink it 4 times/day, 10 times the rate the new manager drinks Coke/Pepsi. These companies have enormous resources, so they bottle prune juice day and night in recyclable containers, and ship out many truckloads of it with the Pepsi or Coke label on it. They say, we took many of the good things from Coke/Pepsi out of it (it's a liquid, it's dark, sweet, and comes in convenient containers), we're going to mass distribute this and we're certain that we are going to reach a much much larger audience. How is their customer base going to respond?

The Flight team tore down FS completely stripped it, and are selling the stripped down components with no plans at all of rebuilding it. Not a product for serious flight simmers, and their long term stated goals are contrary to what we want.

Their new marketing strategy is strikingly similar to the auto junk yard. What do the neighbors think of an older car that needs repair? It's less than worthless in their eyes, in fact it's going to cost money to haul it away to the junk yard. What does the junk yard think of such a car? Almost no cost to acquire it, you break it down (in the UK I believe they are called "breakers" if I remember correctly), and sell each component at a stunningly high price. I think the people that didn't appreciate MS FS saw it as junk, broke it down, stripped it, polished up some components and are reselling it off piece by piece. They probably think their lack of realism and lowly GA aircraft are more politically correct also. If Homeland Security can squash a little girl and her lemonade stand, what would they think of our hobby? BTW, how dare they bully a little girl! Original owners of Mustangs and other similar cars can sell their cars for $30K to $100K or more. I don't know what I can get for my Caddy that the neighbors used to hate, but it would be nice to get $10K.

This new marketing strategy has caused me a great deal of confusion, so far I don't see anything that I'm willing to spend money on. I mean everything they say is contrary to what we hope for, how do I justify spending any money on it? Instead I'm going to buy more FS addons.

Regarding the "Occupy" movement, participants in it stated plainly "what we want is Communism", so obviously count me out.

[vonBobo]

The fictional story is the one you are suggesting that there is a worthwhile market for a product that their fans were asking for.

A more likely story is that Microsoft closed ACES and stopped developing FS11 because it thought it was no longer worthwhile, because it appealed to too small a market, and that Flight was developed to appeal to a larger one. That seems to be a perfectly rational reason not requiring any fiction. Follow the money as they say.

MS wants more customers, so they are going to put an end to the free enterprise addon market. Seems like an unreasonable response to a reasonable need. That is the fiction.

[mgh]

MS wants more customers, so they are going to put an end to the free enterprise addon market. Seems like an unreasonable response to a reasonable need. That is the fiction.

the free enterprise addon market doesn't pay Microsoft anything, so why should it be concerned about it. Microsoft has decided it will make more from Flight than from FSX - that's a rational decision. Remember Microsoft knows sonmething we don't know - FSX sales.

[Ragtopjohnny]

That's true mgh --- very true, but if they want people to upgrade, shouldn't they at least want to have a backward compatibility some how? That way we could use all out beloved FSX aircraft and new Flight Stuff if we upgraded.

John Thuot II

[loki]

That's true mgh --- very true, but if they want people to upgrade, shouldn't they at least want to have a backward compatibility some how? That way we could use all out beloved FSX aircraft and new Flight Stuff if we upgraded.

John Thuot II

Not if it keeps getting in the way of improving the sim engine. A large part of the performance issues with FSX are due to keeping backwards compatibility. Up to a point backwards compatibility is a good thing, but sooner later, you need cut things off as it will get in the way of moving forward. It takes time and resources away from other areas.

Of course with Flight they also want you to buy DLC through the Marketplace, so being compatible with FSX wouldn't help.

[angels355]

That's true mgh --- very true, but if they want people to upgrade, shouldn't they at least want to have a backward compatibility some how? That way we could use all out beloved FSX aircraft and new Flight Stuff if we upgraded.

John Thuot II

One of their goals was to break from legacy software. Not to mention excluding all 3rd party addons, even my favorites Santa's Sleigh, the flying hot dog, and the Klingon battle cruiser (I think it had a photon torpedo that was really cool). They probably view all 3rd party developers as freeloaders making money on their product. But what motivation do I have to spend money on Flight? No POSKY's, no Klingon cruiser, no ATC.

BTW, I mentioned in my previous post that Flight has a lack of realism and lowly GA aircraft. If you get into a plane, completely ignore ATC, and take off and casually fly around aimlessly in restricted airspace, the FAA is going to be angry at best. At worst you get an F16 escort back to the airport. How PC is it for them to encourage random flying around controlled airspace?

John you'll always be a famous aircraft developer in my book!

PS: "KSEA request touch and go landing in someone's backyard to pick up some aerocache..."

[mgh]

That's true mgh --- very true, but if they want people to upgrade, shouldn't they at least want to have a backward compatibility some how? That way we could use all out beloved FSX aircraft and new Flight Stuff if we upgraded.

John Thuot II
Flight is to be free. How would Microsoft make money if existing 3rd party add-ons could be used with Flight - especially as Microsoft made nothing from the add-ons in the first place?

[angels355]

Flight is to be free. How would Microsoft make money if existing 3rd party add-ons could be used with Flight - especially as Microsoft made nothing from the add-ons in the first place?

Respectfully, many members have said that they would be willing to pay $100 for FS11 or 12. However it has to be good, no resting on laurels 32 bit DX9 technology. 64 bit, fully multithreaded, DX11/12. Seriously if they had any business accumen they would pull resources out of useless projects like Wurd, and bring dem over to the new Aces deam, serioyusly hoo bneeds a more iadvanced spelging checer??

[richlp]

Respectfully, many members have said that they would be willing to pay $100 for FS11 or 12. However it has to be good, no resting on laurels 32 bit DX9 technology. 64 bit, fully multithreaded, DX11/12. Seriously if they had any business accumen they would pull resources out of useless projects like Wurd, and bring dem over to the new Aces deam, serioyusly hoo bneeds a more iadvanced spelging checer??

And if these "many members" actually DID follow through and spend the $100... MS might stand to make a million dollars or more... how could they resist? ;)

[mgh]

Respectfully, many members have said that they would be willing to pay $100 for FS11 or 12. However it has to be good, no resting on laurels 32 bit DX9 technology. 64 bit, fully multithreaded, DX11/12. Seriously if they had any business accumen they would pull resources out of useless projects like Wurd, and bring dem over to the new Aces deam, serioyusly hoo bneeds a more iadvanced spelging checer??
Companies don't make decisions on what "many members" may have said - they will base them on their own research. I suggest that at $100 total sales would be negligible expect for the tiny number of hardcore enthusiasts.

It needs to be realised that Microsoft is a business and not a charity and it will only develop what it thinks is going to be worthwhile. It no longer thinks that FS11 is worthwhile. Some people here need to realise that the FS11 market is too small for Microsoft to care about.

[vonBobo]

the free enterprise addon market doesn't pay Microsoft anything, so why should it be concerned about it. Microsoft has decided it will make more from Flight than from FSX - that's a rational decision. Remember Microsoft knows sonmething we don't know - FSX sales.

That's true also. But MS never even tried to compete in the addon market. MS didn't even create the popular and prosperous addon market, but now they believe that they can simply take it over and sit back and let the money start rolling in. It's a bully move, sure I get it, but I don't think they have their finger on the pulse of what the addon market is really about.

Why should MS care about the free addon market? It's likely one of the top reasons that many of us stay with FS, and why no other flight title has lasted decades. It gives me the freedom to create the exact environment I want to fly in. It's not like all of us are simply Add-On crazy and will buy anything- these addons are tailored to our needs. I'm afraid MS's Flight market is going to appear shallow, contrived, and expensive, and to discount the current market place is really short sighted (right now I'm building an alaska environment with Era Alaska planes and scenery reminiscent of the Discovery show- is Flight ever going to be that awesome?). How can MS ignore the tens of thousands(?) of free addons available just at this website alone, and believe that they don't have any consequence?

Here's an analogy- lets say Honda is tired of the "tuner" aftermarket making tons of money off of their automobiles- adding turbos, rims, etc. So Honda releases a car that only Honda parts will fit on, nothing else. You can choose from these 2 turbos, and these 5 rims, and these 2 floor mats- one of which was a special design by a well known mat maker and is up priced accordingly. Is that car going to be celebrated by the tuner market in the same way their other models were?

[angels355]

Companies don't make decisions on what "many members" may have said - they will base them on their own research. I suggest that at $100 total sales would be negligible expect for the tiny number of hardcore enthusiasts.

It needs to be realised that Microsoft is a business and not a charity and it will only develop what it thinks is going to be worthwhile. It no longer thinks that FS11 is worthwhile. Some people here need to realise that the FS11 market is too small for Microsoft to care about.

Bya this mispelging I ahve highlighted above I can see you are onboard to divert resources from the Wurd team!

Any way, "many people" have said that this is not a crisis situation, that we ahve years to go before we come close to a crisis in our need for a new truly advanced flight simulator from any source. But the community isso upset not to mention disappointed that I wonder if this in itself will foment a crisis, and perhaps a company like EA Games with their 64 bit (multithreaded at all??) DX11 Frostbite enginge could see an opportunity to produce a flight simulator that could plug into our addon community. Aerosoft has tried before but recently gave up for lack of a good engine. I understand that they are now providing addons for X-Plane.

I am having a lot of fun folowing ATC to the letter in FSX Gold in long jet flights, however if a 64 bit flight simulator came along that could take advantage of a Socket 2011 i8 E 64 bit system I would be itnerested in it.

Wurd to the Aces!

[mgh]

There's nothing to prevent any other company that thinks it can make money by developing an FSX replacement to go ahead and do it. I wonder why none has, especially as Microsoft is now out of that market apparently?

[angels355]

There's nothing to prevent any other company that thinks it can make money by developing an FSX replacement to go ahead and do it. I wonder why none has, especially as Microsoft is now out of that market apparently?

In this article in Dec MS vaguely replied that they would not discount the possibility of a new Flight Simulator http://forum.avsim.net/blog/1/entry-24-the-ms-flight-sim-my-thoughts/

I know something about starting a business from scratch, and as modestly incredible as my skills are I can't imagine doing it. Anything is possible in theory. But market forces are really bad, could get even worse due to international circumstances. I would have to have a huge profitable project going that would be able to drive it. However it seems to me like other companies with deep pockets might see the need and opportunity.

MS is in the position however to produce FS11 or 12 with relative ease, they were very close twice, with the actual FS11, and the second time with this Flight core that could have been implemented into an FS11 or 12. What does it cost for a new 64 bit multithreaded DX11/12 engine? One million USD? I was shopping for a car before the series of recessions/depression that started about 12 years ago, I had been working literally around the clock about 80 to 90 hours/week. I was probably endangering my health with such ridiculously hard work. But, I wanted to marry one of my girlfriends and you know they demand to go shopping at the best department stores, I mean for sure for sure! AND I knew what was important in life, buying a Porsche 911 Turbo (considered a Ferrari also but repair costs are a little concerning). At that car shop, someone walked in and wrote a check for nearly $1 million USD for three cars, I sat in one heehee, while the check was waiting to clear. Someone with talent and that kind of walking around money could do it.

[alaskancrab]

What does it cost for a new 64 bit multithreaded DX11/12 engine?

you keep asking... but the entire Win XP usergroup.. that's the cost of 64bit/DX11 :)

[aircav1970]

This thread is making me puke....:(

[ricardo_NY1]

Companies don't make decisions on what "many members" may have said - they will base them on their own research. I suggest that at $100 total sales would be negligible expect for the tiny number of hardcore enthusiasts.

It needs to be realised that Microsoft is a business and not a charity and it will only develop what it thinks is going to be worthwhile. It no longer thinks that FS11 is worthwhile. Some people here need to realise that the FS11 market is too small for Microsoft to care about.

So let me ask you a question.........you state that MS no longer thinks that FS11 or FS is worthwhile................but it was worthwhile for the past 15 or so (MSFS) years, correct? According to you, MS will only develop what it thinks is going to be worthwhile, so it would be a matter of fact to state that it's all been worthwhile since, let's say FSFW95 where MS' role can't be argued (Sublogic). So tell us how suddenly things are no longer worthwhile in this time and era where the hardware and graphics and everything else is so great that the community was excited at one point about a new release? Was there a mass extinction in the past couple of years of the people who have made things worthwhile for the past 15? Your idea is illogical based on your own logic.

[angels355]

you keep asking... but the entire Win XP usergroup.. that's the cost of 64bit/DX11 :)

Could I get them to work for free for a few years, for the team? Maybe t-shirts? Free tour of Marymoor Park?

[alaskancrab]

No but you can think before you criticize the world's largest software company. I'm sure all of you know so much, but the reality is you are the "no dos prompt" generation.

[angels355]

Everybody, go over to the "Your feelings on Microsoft Flight" thread http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?243361-Your-feelings-on-Microsoft-FLIGHT&p=1658907#post1658907 . A beta tester has given us a run down on his experience, he says he is allowed to express his opinion, and you're going to want to hear it.

[vonBobo]

No but you can think before you criticize the world's largest software company. I'm sure all of you know so much, but the reality is you are the "no dos prompt" generation.

how dare anyone criticize microsoft!


????

[alaskancrab]

So you are suggesting folks at microsoft aren't aware of 64bit and dx11 technologies? what i'm suggesting is you are going to have to do better than naming off nomenclature to sound smart.

[loki]

So tell us how suddenly things are no longer worthwhile in this time and era where the hardware and graphics and everything else is so great that the community was excited at one point about a new release? Was there a mass extinction in the past couple of years of the people who have made things worthwhile for the past 15?

The cost of developing a AAA title game/sim has gone way up from where it was 10 years ago. Expectations have increased as far as quality and detail is concerned. Just look at the posts in different forums from freeware developers packing it in because they got tired of people complaining that they didn't meet some random level of detail. Are there plenty of customers for a detailed flight sim? Sure. Are there enough to justify the current costs of development? Microsoft obviously doesn't think so. At least not if they don't get a cut of add-on sales (which they could get if they followed Valve and Apple's examples, instead of just cutting off everyone outside of a select few). The fact is, it costs millions of dollars, and years of time to develop a modern game or sim, and a company has to evaluate whether it's worth spending that money on a relatively small community, or put the money into a larger one that they think will have a greater return. The dedicated flight sim community will have grown since FSX was released, but it likely hasn't grown enough in MS' view to justify the expense of a new sim.

On the flip side, they are trying to make a profit from DLC sales in the same way that MMO and other games do, and I'm not sure there will be enough interest in the very tightly controlled model they are pursuing.

[mgh]

So let me ask you a question.........you state that MS no longer thinks that FS11 or FS is worthwhile................but it was worthwhile for the past 15 or so (MSFS) years, correct? According to you, MS will only develop what it thinks is going to be worthwhile, so it would be a matter of fact to state that it's all been worthwhile since, let's say FSFW95 where MS' role can't be argued (Sublogic). So tell us how suddenly things are no longer worthwhile in this time and era where the hardware and graphics and everything else is so great that the community was excited at one point about a new release? Was there a mass extinction in the past couple of years of the people who have made things worthwhile for the past 15? Your idea is illogical based on your own logic.

Times change and successful companies change with them. The fact that FS had been worthwhile in the past is no guarentee that it's going to be worthwhile in the future. The world is littered with failed companies that didn't realise that and continued to churn out the same old products regardless. FS11 would have been an improved FSX with no wider, general appeal than FSX.

Given that Microsoft, unlike us, have the actual sales figures it is in a position to make a rational decision about what's worthwhile. Your points about technology and people are misconceived. What matters in making investment decisions is the bottom line - will the forecast revenue from future sales justify the estimated expenditure on development.

A report from the Entertainment Software Association (which includes Microsoft as well as the other major games developers) is an interesting read. It shows that 2010 the total sales of computer (as opposed to video) games were 24.6 million (page 10). Of those, 1.5% were categorised as Flight games (page 8). That means that the total sales of all computer Flight games was about 370,000 a year. Note the use of the word, all which means FSX sales numbers must be less than 370,000.

Page 9 lists the top 20 best selling computer game by units sold. Needless to say Flight Simulator doesn't appear in it.

http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2011.pdf

[fxsttcb]

I Googled "Flight Simulator X"; About 3,670,000 results
Then I Googled #1 StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty; About 1,560,000 results
The Google "Poll" shows FSX has been more than two times a popular subject than the #1 game.

Kinda shows that you can statistically analyze something and return your pre-conceived notion of a result.

I don't know what marketing statistics or target demographic MS used in the creation of Flight, but, the average age of the most frequent game purchaser is: 41.
Not folks I would consider kids.

Let's do some theoretical numbers. MS spends $50 million to create FSNext and prices it at $99.99.(I'd pay it, would you?)
If it sells, in the US alone, as well as FSX did it's first year(1 million units), they could expect a $99.99 million gross. Remember, that was in US sales alone.

Now, I dont know about you, or MS, but, a potential 200% GROI(100%net+-), in a year, sure does look like a pretty good investment gamble to me...Don

[ricardo_NY1]

Times change and successful companies change with them. The fact that FS had been worthwhile in the past is no guarentee that it's going to be worthwhile in the future.

Are you kidding me or do you wish to just argue for arguments sake? Almost two decades of "Worthwhile" performance per your description and you say it is no guarantee? The only thing guaranteed in this world is death, but what would it take you to buy a stock?



A report from the Entertainment Software Association (which includes Microsoft as well as the other major games developers) is an interesting read. It shows that 2010 the total sales of computer (as opposed to video) games were 24.6 million (page 10). Of those, 1.5% were categorised as Flight games (page 8). That means that the total sales of all computer Flight games was about 370,000 a year. Note the use of the word, all which means FSX sales numbers must be less than 370,000.
Page 9 lists the top 20 best selling computer game by units sold. Needless to say Flight Simulator doesn't appear in it.
http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2011.pdf

A report from 2010? Why not show me a report of how many Nintendo 64's were sold in 2011? There was a point in FSX sales where the stores needed more inventory. Show me sales figures from 2006 pal. And don't overlook the fact that most copies of a software like MSFS will be purchased within the first days to weeks after release.

So you would like to make the argument that the revenue potential for Flight Simulator has become so small, it's not "Worthwhile" anymore based on 2010 sales figures? Would you advise Microsoft to stop producing the Windows operating system because only "Inset number here" of Windows XP copies were sold in 2008?

The only misconceived item between our discussions is your presentation of what would be considered skewed data.

[mgh]

The only misconceived item between our discussions is your presentation of what would be considered skewed data.

The real misconception is your irrational belief that because you want FS11 it must therefore be worthwhile for Microsoft to develop it.

[Paxx]

No but you can think before you criticize the world's largest software company. I'm sure all of you know so much, but the reality is you are the "no dos prompt" generation.

We know what we want to buy. Microsoft, the worlds largest software company that has vending machine peanuts available in the cafeteria, decided not to service that market at this time.

So we are disappointed.

Why do you feel lame insults will change this? Why did you feel the need to join the worlds #1 Flight Simulation website forum and participate in the disappointment by generally being a pronouncement troll, thread hijacker, and wannabe bully? Curious minds wish you would/could explain yourself.

[vlooi]

mqh, please show us the facts you're basing your argument on. Please link us to the site where MS is stating it is not worthwhile for them anymore. Unless you can substantiate your facts, don't expect anybody here to support your statements.

[fxsttcb]

...but the reality is you are the "no dos prompt" generation. Exactly! We use Windows XP and newer, thus, "no dos prompt" is necessary. Though, the DOS Command Line is still available, and functional.
Or, did I misconstrue another of your odd statements...Don

[mgh]

mqh, please show us the facts you're basing your argument on. Please link us to the site where MS is stating it is not worthwhile for them anymore. Unless you can substantiate your facts, don't expect anybody here to support your statements.
The obvious facts are that Microsoft stopped developing FS11 and began developing Flight. A rational conclusion from those that is that Microsoft didn't think FS11 worthwhile.

Do you think Microsoft decided to close a worthwhile development (FS11) and switch to one that was less worthwhile (Flight). If so, can you link us to a site where Microsoft states that?

[ricardo_NY1]

The real misconception is your irrational belief that because you want FS11 it must therefore be worthwhile for Microsoft to develop it.
So you believe that I want FS11? Have I ever stated that idea or that it would be worthwhile for MS to develop software around my desires? To rid your mind of any misconceptions about what I want, I'll tell you exactly what I want..........I'd like for MS to release another service pack for FSX to address some performance issues or for Intel to release a stock 4.8ghz chip OC'able to like 6.2ghz on air.

The topic is not about presenting data, it's about logically throwing out a couple of things out the window. 1) The fact that some noobs are confused and scared to death of the vast selection of add-ons is an artificial piece of bologna excuse to cover up the fact that MS wants no intruders or competition. And 2) People are lamely claiming that the same group of people who have made MSFS an almost two decade franchise somehow lost interest and MS is now forced to look towards pizza eating dudes getting kill streaks in MW3. It's all bologna. It's a marketing ploy that can win or backfire in a big way, and many people including myself believe it will backfire.

Why do people make such big distinctions about a name? FLIGHT MSFS11 FS11........it's all the same! That they removed the "Simulator" or "11" part is just a marketing move. It's still the eleventh incarnation, even if they talked the entire flight simulator community out of it.

[torkermax]

I have no desire to have a new sim/game so I care not what it is or isn't. Speaking of fictitious names,MSF11, why not FS2012. Well, there was FS95,98, 2002, 2004?

[Paxx]

... It's a marketing ploy that can win or backfire in a big way, and many people including myself believe it will backfire ...
Well said. Although I would argue that Flight is actually an attempt at creating a Operant Conditioning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning) system within a tightly controlled environment disguised as a marketing ploy using a 29 year legacy title as a test bed.

Studies and research discover many things. In business monetizing such discoveries may be fruitful. The coming months will demonstrate how fruitful Microsoft's Flight research pans out. It isn't rocket science, it is simply what kind of chocolate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yO9A5pfSUX0#t=108s) sells.

[mgh]

th
So you believe that I want FS11? Have I ever stated that idea or that it would be worthwhile for MS to develop software around my desires? To rid your mind of any misconceptions about what I want, I'll tell you exactly what I want..........I'd like for MS to release another service pack for FSX to address some performance issues or for Intel to release a stock 4.8ghz chip OC'able to like 6.2ghz on air.

The topic is not about presenting data, it's about logically throwing out a couple of things out the window. 1) The fact that some noobs are confused and scared to death of the vast selection of add-ons is an artificial piece of bologna excuse to cover up the fact that MS wants no intruders or competition. And 2) People are lamely claiming that the same group of people who have made MSFS an almost two decade franchise somehow lost interest and MS is now forced to look towards pizza eating dudes getting kill streaks in MW3. It's all bologna. It's a marketing ploy that can win or backfire in a big way, and many people including myself believe it will backfire.

Why do people make such big distinctions about a name? FLIGHT MSFS11 FS11........it's all the same! That they removed the "Simulator" or "11" part is just a marketing move. It's still the eleventh incarnation, even if they talked the entire flight simulator community out of it.
Why would it be worthwhile for Microsoft to release a further Service Pack for an obsolescent product?

Of course it's all about marketing and money - what do you think it's about?

[Paxx]

Why would it be worthwhile for Microsoft to release a further Service Pack for an obsolescent product? ...

Because customer appreciation can travel the many marketing roads Microsoft fails at. And because it would be trivial to do now that it has been done to a certain extent.

I don't expect Microsoft to understand that though. The glasses they wear are perhaps too focused.
/shrug

[alaskancrab]

C Programming Language w/win32:
FS98-FS9

C++ Programming Language w/win32:
FSX (wrapped up fs9 tech)

C#/C++11 Programming Language w/o Win32:
Flight ( only enough money and time to test Hawaii, so far)

[JSkorna]

Seeing that we have a thread that is a "confusing mess" here, this one is done for now.