MS Flight and then....

[jackpilot]

It was so nice, nobody was chasing the rainbowanymore , peaceful life between the FS9 and FSX people, the first group comfortable with a non issue and stable software, the second group enjoying the scenery at10  FPS ( ) between system crashes ...and now we will have to scrap everything and test new fields of incompatibility between our switches and their action, display weird angles of scenery and tackle unforseen problems due to fantastic new features that even our hyper clocked -computers cannot  handle yet ....etc etc

Even Maurice, with his amazing setup  just  entering the sweet zone of contentment after 40 months in the desert of fine tuning, will have to rethink everything and switch to intergalactic android networking to be able to test the new Flight Nirvana  and try to figure out how he can get at least 50% functionality vs what he achieved previously..

[MLeavy737]

  Well see if we even get a chance to try this things in a sim. Im a little concerned at the new new pay as you go and downloadable content type pricing plans that exists these days. I just read an article that mentioned MS Flight being downloadable for free but locked into one region. Hawaii.  Seems like extras will be downloadable for a cost. To me that no longer gives the freedom to developers but puts all control and content through MS. Basicslly the Apple/iPhone type system. Well see if thats good or bad.

Mike L

[Maurice]

Even Maurice, with his amazing setup  just  entering the sweet zone of contentment after 40 months in the desert of fine tuning, will have to rethink everything and switch to intergalactic android networking to be able to test the new Flight Nirvana  and try to figure out how he can get at least 50% functionality vs what he achieved previously..

Sadly, you are probably right Jack unless some knowledgeable simmer tries it first and states categorically that there is no way this will work in our flight decks because everything is proprietary and there is no way of interfacing it to our flight decks. I don't believe MS will go that route because they know darn well that countless buyers will want to add external hardware and multi displays even if they are not building a full flight deck.

So my prediction is that yes, MS flight will eventually work with our flight decks and that yes, I will likely be stupid enough to try it & complicate my life yet one more time 

Maurice

[Bob Reed]

Just on what I heard many moons ago, I don't think Maurice will have to spend any time working with this new software in his sim. So keep working with what you have!

[jackpilot]

Good news...we have enough talented people in the community do continue improving FS, and care for our needs.

[blueskydriver]

Truthfully, I dont see any reason to upgrade. When you think about the hardware is actually catching up to FSX, so to speak. Give it another year or two and the CPUs will have enough power to handle FSX full bore with multiples of add-ons. Even with I7 2600k today, mine is blazing fast and I am using everything I can in terms of enhancements.

Like FS9 is today, with the updated hardware, FSX will be like that down the road. However, within that time frame a code enhancement will happen, so the video cards can take advantage of it. Be it Prepar3D on someone else, they'll see that if this can be done, it would change the whole dynamics of FSX. With MS Flight taking the gamer approach, the needed changes to FSX will look more appealing.

Besides, have you ever checked out RealFlight RC simulator G6 verison? That is exactly what MS Flight looks like. In fact, do you remember that FSX even has a RC style plane that you can fly with a RC controller? Oh yeah, it's there and my Real Flight RC controller does fly it, just like a yoke and pedals can fly Real Flight RC Sim. The point is, Real Flight RC Sim has the exact same type of "game play" as MS Flight! Yet, the gamers didn't take to Real Flight RC Sim at all, even though in verison G6 it has been directed towards to them. Of course MS is bigger with marketing hype, but in statistics, Real Flight RC would be a sample size of the same population that MS is marketing towards.

Finally, MS likely has more in store for FLIGHT, but they're not going to let the cat out of the bag all at once because they still need suspense and hype to help sell it. Thus, it brings me back to the whole concept...why upgrade anymore? Looking at what Maurice just posted about the pilots visiting his sim; there is no need to upgrade. And, the problems he had that day could be any reason under the sun, and not exactly FSX related.

Will I upgrade again and sell years worth of software off for a good deal, like I did with FS9? Bob hopes I do (just kidding...lol), but no I likely wont; especially, with FSX working as good as it does. However, we all have said that before and look what happens... Truthfully, we used to say in the military "A bitching Soldier is a happy Soldier!"; well, a bitching sim builder is a happy, but bitching sim builder!

How about we add a year from now to the the subject title. So, what do you think it will be like in year from now for Flight Simulation? Give your predictions...

BSD

[jackpilot]

As far as I am concerned I will still be using FS9!
Couldnt care less about scenery, as FS9+airports addons is by far good enough if you fly your sim airliner IFR as it should be.
Will not have to wait for computers to catch up as they already offer plenty for that good'ol FS9.

Old Grumpy Bear Jack


(PS: Mostly sincere but in part to stirr the debate  )

[Maurice]

Even with I7 2600k today, mine is blazing fast and I am using everything I can in terms of enhancements.

BSD

OK BSD, please try this scenario. Put your plane in JFK or other large airport, add 100% traffic with Traffic X or some other traffic add-on, add 50% car traffic & tell me what you see. With my I7 980X overclocked to 4.6 GHZ, I get a 'nice' slide show of about 5 fps or so on the ground and I never tried to take off under those conditions.

My current setup has 20% airline traffic, 10% GA traffic and no road vehicles. With that, I get very acceptable frame rates of around 20 fps when stopped on the ground but when turning while taxiing, the image has a definite jerkiness which is hard on the eyes (especially the way I drive in the turns  .

Of course this is with 3 undocked windows. A single expanded front view would be much better frame wise of course. Take off, cruising & landing are quite good so little to complain about really.

So, if you fly mostly with little traffic as you would if you fly online for instance, FSX is quite acceptable as is with current PC hardware. But to me, a great part of the fun is also seeing lots of live airport traffic instead of a deserted apocalyptic scene  .

I'm certainly not complaining about what I have; I'm just saying that if something better graphics wise came along, I'm pretty sure that the temptation would be much too great for most hardcore flight deck builders except perhaps for a few hard heads like Jack for instance  assuming of course they have the financial & other means to upgrade.

I'm certainly not a masochist who needs the pain associated with FS upgrades. But I'm certainly glad I suffered the pain to move from FS9 to FSX. Maybe some day, I'll be willing again to suffer some more pain.

But BSD, remember as well that you mentioned new PC hardware would also improve & run FSX even better. Well, upgrading the FSX PC itself is the biggest pain in the butt, so if you are ever going to do that, why stay with FSX if something better was also available that would better utilize the graphics hardware capabilities?

Change is part of life & stagnation applies to very few people who are forever content with what they have and never covet anything else (and good for them I say). But if everybody was like that, we would still be living in the stone age or with Sublogic sim on an Apple II 

Maurice

[Maurice]

As far as I am concerned I will still be using FS9!
Couldnt care less about scenery, as FS9+airports addons is by far good enough if you fly your sim airliner IFR as it should be.
Will not have to wait for computers to catch up as they already offer plenty for that good'ol FS9.

Old Grumpy Bear Jack


(PS: Mostly sincere but in part to stirr the debate  )

Oh grumpy bear jack, following your logic which I find quite erroneous, you would not need any of the fake useless gauges you have in your overhead when flying IFR or VFR for that matter, nor would you need wraparound visuals, nor any kind of airport ground traffic at all, nor would you need the many other accoutrements you have in your sim that do nothing for you except please your sense of sight & pride in your sim.

Now, how is that any different than wanting the best possible scenery you can imagine with the best possible frame rates. I maintain that whether flying IFR or VFR, the scenery is truly one of the most important part of the flying enjoyment if not the most important as any airline pilots or even G.A. pilots would probably concur.

When most people think about flying, they think about the magnicent vistas you see when you are up there (or about throwing up like my wife does :-). If all you do when you fly is bury your head in the gauges & never look outside, then you are 100% right but in that case, do yourself a favour with the visuals and just keep your one projector or even better, sell it and just use a 19" monitor. That's all you really need to land in zero-zero visiblity .

And so that you never get jealous again, whenever you come & visit, I will stick a monitor in front of the shell and disable the projectors & all my scenery add-ons. This way, you'll feel right at home 

Maurice   

[jackpilot]

Mau,
My  point was NOT about the 180 visual but the fact that I can live with FS9 lower quality scenery as a trade off for a near perfect fluidity, notably on the ground and not changing my PC.

Having a 180 visual is an amazing treat, especially at Airports, and at low altitude (weather permitting.) The peripheral vision it allows makes a world of difference and compensates for the lack of motion. After experiencing your Sim it would be unthinkable not to have one.

I fully agree that enjoying the scenery is a delight, real or sim, but even when I fly for real I spend more time scanning my instruments and charts than anything else and when I look outside it is mainly to scan for unexpected traffic.

Being  able to go successfully from A to B on a precise route, at given altitudes, merging with the traffic, managing fuel and performance,  following  ATC instructions , ending up aligned with the proper runway even if hidden by a cloud cover,  leaves little time for anything else, sim or real and can also be a great source of satisfaction for a pilot.

So DO NOT DISABLE YOUR VISUAL next time I buzz Gravenhurst!!

[blueskydriver]

Well, saw this video just this morning. It gives all the answers:


Check out this video on YouTube:

Microsoft Flight Trailer


Sent from my iPad

BSD

[Maurice]

Well, saw this video just this morning. It gives all the answers:

BSD

Maurice

[rprather]

What bothers me more than ANYTHING about Microsoft Flight, is the amount of emphasis Microsoft is placing on acrobatics, missions, etc. as well as the "downloadable areas" thing. I could be wrong, but it seems like MS Flight is more focused on reaching the masses by adding more "game" elements, than being a hardcore simulation. Maybe it'll be both... I don't know, but I hope it doesn't get dummed down to appeal to the masses. Plus, if additional areas are downloadable... what does that mean for cross-country/intercontinental flight? FSX basically opened up the world... I hope they keep that aspect of the simulation.

[MLeavy737]

Yeah good luck downloading an SDK that allows builders  to get what we need out of it! Never know i guess.

Mike L

[Maurice]

What bothers me more than ANYTHING about Microsoft Flight, is the amount of emphasis Microsoft is placing on acrobatics, missions, etc. as well as the "downloadable areas" thing.

I know I'm trying to remain optimistic here, but if you recall, they did the same thing when they introduced FSX , minus the downloadable part which is a real downer. I don't think they talked about FSX in terms of discovering the world or in terms of flight training either. It also looked like just a game in their TV ads at that time, so who knows?

However, the situation does indeed look bleak for anyone hoping for a new & improved FSX like simulation. This may well be a blessing in disguise though for FSX add-ons developers since the market share should remain pretty big still.

Maurice

[usajet93]

Yeah Flight isn't in my future. Just to many negatives from what I've been seeing. If they want to expand the market and there profits they must beat the competition. (X- Plane) I have been a MSFS enthusiast for a long time. And I have always preferred to run MSFS (because of all the add ons) then X Plane but if what I read is true then most may stick with FS9 or FSX. Or make the X plane switch. The cockpit builders (Such as myself) would be forced with what's already out there now because of the restrictions MS Flight has.

It's to bad to hear all of this because I was looking forward to this new flight sim. I'd rather wait for another year or more to get a full flight simulator that we all of us can enjoy. If we are only able to fly around Hawaii then what's the point of getting it. (Even if it's free!) Well it maybe a good! You can always practice our touch n go's!

Nathan