NZFF

http://forum.avsim.net/index.php?app=ccs&a...0Pages&id=8

Avsim performed an interview with the MSFlight lead, Joshua Howard.

I was board 20/30 minutes with it .. the jump thru the loop is for the arcade games and grew outta them last century . The last comment tho is interesting .... maybe its proven to be a flop !

JH: Microsoft Flight is our effort to bring this franchise a whole new audience. Our focus now is on making Microsoft Flight the most enjoyable flying experience we can, for anyone who has imagined what it’s like to fly. If returning to Flight Simulator makes sense again sometime in the future, I am confident that Microsoft would not ignore that possibility, but it’s not something that is being actively considered today.

Well - that's the nail in the coffin for me. They really have lost the plot, big time. All Joshua can do is bark on about "trying something new" - implying that hard core simmers are somehow stuck in the past. Well, they're not - as I suspect they'll be going to Prepar3D in their droves.

FSX is dead, long live FSX!!!

Adamski wrote:

QUOTE (Adamski @ Mar 20 2012,3:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well - that's the nail in the coffin for me. They really have lost the plot, big time. All Joshua can do is bark on about "trying something new"

I believe Charl would be proof the FS9/FSX is well in the realm of the genie - PMDG toasted Flight .. talk about FSE .. well i believe they lost the plot .. I think all MSFS had to do was rebuild default airports , change the autogen to be adjusted be more in line with customers cry's , few other things .. long live FSX , shite going to be around for many years yet and being realistic , many are only starting to catch up .

All they had to do was tack on the "sales/unlock" system to sell their own add-ons or allow other developers to sell via their gateway.

I have "Rise of Flight" (though hardly play it) and the "purchase/unlock new aircraft" system is easy and works well. I think the same system works in Railsim <?>.

The fact that Flight doesn't even support TrackIR shows you "where they're coming from". If they think the market in "hardcore simmers" is tiny, then I suspect the market for this half-baked arcade game is even smaller.

Should I dare to say it but are they the same directors running it as the ones running ORBX

dbcunnz wrote:

QUOTE (dbcunnz @ Mar 20 2012,2:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Should I dare to say it but are they the same directors running it as the ones running ORBX

Could you expand on that a little Doug - or is it too sensitive?

After reading the interview there doesn't seem much point in my buying 'Flight' as it seems FSX does most things I need already, and Flight will not do them as good or better, and will not have as many features as FSX.

They do not seem to be describing an 'as real as it gets' simulator, and is it just me or do I detect a slightly derogatory note in the use of the term 'hard core' simmers?

Lapun wrote:

QUOTE (Lapun @ Mar 20 2012,10:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They do not seem to be describing an 'as real as it gets' simulator

I think you have hit the nail on the head with that comment, with all this reading about disgruntled simmers and devs across the forums I have found nowhere where MS stated Flight was a "Simulator". The simmers (us) ASSUMED that it was and hyped Flight completely out of proportion, to then bag the hell out of the MS flight team for their (the simmers) misinformation and false rumors.

FSX is an amazing world renderer yet simmers are still looking to the heavens for the new Messiah, honestly why?

Rotordude wrote:

QUOTE (Rotordude @ Mar 20 2012,10:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

FSX is an amazing world renderer yet simmers are still looking to the heavens for the new Messiah, honestly why?

Because hardware is cheaper and more powerful - and FSX is (by programming standards) pretty old. It doesn't even support DX10 (properly).

Ask a scenery designer or aircraft developer "could FSX be improved?" - I'm sure you'd get a response.

Having said that, I'd be happy with FSX for a fair while yet, just as it is, with maybe only a service pack that cures a few of the bugs/memory leaks and implements DX10.

If Joshua Howard clearly stated in the beginning what the intended market audience for MSFlight was he would of saved a lot of angst and backlash wthin the simming community. Instead he decided to shroud the whole project in secrecy and have everyone second guess what was being produced. Was it perhaps that they did not know what the end result of their endeavours might be (maybe financial restraints)? They may in fact have set out to produce another "hard core sim" but perhaps realised along the way that there might be more dollars in kids and their X box sets marketplace. This decision is what will ultimately lead to Flight being a flop. If youth can't shoot it, stab it, punch or kick it, battle with aliens or immerse themselves in a fantasy world (and do it all on a phone or tablet) then they are just not interested. On the other hand the simming community want something better than FSX and this isn't it. Who wants to be stuck with default MS aircraft? So who will buy it....seems a very small demographic to me.
Another nail in the Microsoft coffin.
The flight sim community has now "matured" to the point that I can see a good quality open source community flight simulator emerging, perhaps using something like Outerra as the physics engine. Perhaps X plane and Pre3D will evolve to the point whereby they become the FS that Microsoft should have produced instead of Flight.

Rotordude wrote:

QUOTE (Rotordude @ Mar 20 2012,10:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

FSX is an amazing world renderer yet simmers are still looking to the heavens for the new Messiah, honestly why?

You have nailed on the head ... with the weather generators , photoreal with NZSI or VLC , the complex aircraft NGX for example , one thing that could be looked at is the oceans , sea's and waterways , you have your navigation right down to the tee ... but as Adam said the Hardware , some overspend for what they need and some under ... end off the day the choices of software is staggering .

Yes, FSX is 'pretty old' - but there is nothing better, and it did take until the advent of the i72600K and GTX series cards for the hardware to catch up and now run it properly.

'Flight' has given FSX a new lease on life and we simmers will benefit from the 3rd party developers renewing interest as they breath a sigh of relief.

Lapun wrote:

QUOTE (Lapun @ Mar 21 2012,11:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

'Flight' has given FSX a new lease on life and we simmers will benefit from the 3rd party developers renewing interest as they breath a sigh of relief.

A good point -- you could look at it as the best of both worlds for developers -- plenty of life left in FSX, and the hint of a more open Flight down the track.