nonamesorry 3 Posted May 29, 2010 Share Posted May 29, 2010 if there is gonna be a new flight simulator i wanna see real world traffic real scenery and kai tak back to life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiflyer 129 Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 I myself would be quite wary if a "new" Microsoft Flight Simulator suddenly dropped out of the sky. My experience with FSX is that MS had developed a bad case of save good ideas for the next version-itis, and had a tendency to ignore niggling little problems for extended periods due to the exact same disease. (Why fix Madden 2009 when you can make bucks on Madden 2010?) Aces did good work, but I always had the personal feeling that they could have done much better if let off the leash. I don't see any reason to think that the dynamics behind any new Sim would be much different: meaning I would always be waiting for the next version rather than receiving detailed and timely updates for the current one. "Wary" is a very good description of my attitude. Very much wait and see. (Without holding my breath) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bionicCrab 7 Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 I myself would be quite wary if a "new" Microsoft Flight Simulator suddenly dropped out of the sky. My experience with FSX is that MS had developed a bad case of save good ideas for the next version-itis, and had a tendency to ignore niggling little problems for extended periods due to the exact same disease. It's also an unfortunate power they have over us. As one developer put it... "took them 9 versions to get Directx right" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewart 134 Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 Ahh, but MS did in fact consult the community last year in a pretty exhaustive questionnaire (with an NDA attached for good measure). They perhaps have not consulted directly with the current developers but what if that is exactly the point? What if MS are considering a let's call it "decent" Flight Simulator which includes a SDK but which is user extendable only via an online MS controlled app store? What if MS are simply taking the approach that if addon developers want to be on board then they will come to us, on our terms? MS have been providing the venue for the addon developers party for close on a decade now and I suspect that they are tired of it. I know I would be. I dont know why they should be tired of it. Without those addon developers Flight Sim would never had anywhere near the success it had. Fact is MS isn't satisfied with that. They still want to control every aspect of every market they are in. They have learned nothing from all the anti-trust cases they have been involved in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatthewS 32 Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 It's also an unfortunate power they have over us. As one developer put it... "took them 9 versions to get Directx right" Sure... and I suppose DX9 capable hardware was available back in the DX1 days? No, its a slow process of MS releasing a new DX version and the HW vendors needing to catch up. Then the cycle starts again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bionicCrab 7 Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 Uhmm actually..there was a thing called OpenGL... how come it wasn't revised 9 times? And besides DirectX doesn't just include Direct3D btw... if you ever bothered to open up the SDK you'd realize it has absolutely nothing to do with hardware... that's what you have drivers for. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lildoogood 1 Posted May 30, 2010 Author Share Posted May 30, 2010 well I think it's official flight simulator live is going to be made I hope the ACES team gives it a run for its money with their flight simulator for Microsoft screwing them over and hey maybe the aerosoft one will be good two maybe I'll get all the demos to try before I buy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strid 1 Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 "I mean it is no secret that Aerosoft is very seriously considering competing with them and we are talking to most of the addon developers to see what they want. MS is not" Do you want to announce something ? If not how about an update ?? Has anybody ever contacted MS to see if they can licence or buy the code so can be updated ?? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snave 466 Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 I thought we were supposed to keep quiet about this Simon? Damn! Blast! Right, forget I spoke. I was never here... You ain't seen me, right..? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strid 1 Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 Oh, by the way; Why doesn't Aerosoft do a Madeira size island with DX11 graphics, to test the waters ?? Then expand from there ! I would more then happy to pay 40 just fly the traffic pattern in DX11 Plane, Terrain and water !! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatthewS 32 Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 Uhmm actually..there was a thing called OpenGL... how come it wasn't revised 9 times? And besides DirectX doesn't just include Direct3D btw... if you ever bothered to open up the SDK you'd realize it has absolutely nothing to do with hardware... that's what you have drivers for. So you're trying to tell me that every feature in DX11 was in DX1.0 and that DX2 through DX11 have been nothing but bug fixes? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bionicCrab 7 Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 So you're trying to tell me that every feature in DX11 was in DX1.0 and that DX2 through DX11 have been nothing but bug fixes? No what I'm trying to tell you is nobody needs the new features of DX10 or DX11... it can all be done in 9.0c just fine. The only reason DX10/DX11 exists in the first place is because DirectX launches are tied to the operating system not the GPU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Fletcher 570 Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 Wow folks how a subject can change, bit like a ladies coffee morning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snave 466 Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 Wow folks how a subject can change, bit like a ladies coffee morning Well, so long as it doesn't get onto the subject of hard stools... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waleed 29 Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 Well, so long as it doesn't get onto the subject of hard stools... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subhas 0 Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 I wish I could believe this info... Darryl Yeah exactly. This coming from Microsoft, LOL! Unbelievable! Shubhas Sarkar ou 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatthewS 32 Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 No what I'm trying to tell you is nobody needs the new features of DX10 or DX11... it can all be done in 9.0c just fine. The only reason DX10/DX11 exists in the first place is because DirectX launches are tied to the operating system not the GPU. So h/w tessellation and compute shaders can be done in DX9? Don't think so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleuth 11 Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 Yeah exactly. This cooing from Microsoft, LOL! Unbelievable! Oh no what a horrible scenario, a Flightsim build by aerosoft, a flightsim built by MS, a flightsim built by the old Aces people, Fly.... No standard...what a waste of energy and talent. Please work together for a superb flightsimulator.... Eric 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snave 466 Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 Oh no what a horrible scenario, a Flightsim build by aerosoft, a flightsim built by MS, a flightsim built by the old Aces people, Fly.... No standard...what a waste of energy and talent. Please work together for a superb flightsimulator.... Eric Actually, competition improves the breed. When Fly! finished there was no direct competitor to FS on PC at that time (X-Plane wasn't up to snuff then) and FSX showed that MS had got fat and lazy, complacent and indolent. Competition is precisely what is needed. At no time and under no regulation has anyone ever stated that you can't have more than one flight sim on your system. If there were positive gains from using one sim for bush flying and another for airlines then it's a conceivable scenario that multiple products could co-exist. Frankly, given the costs of addons and the amount spent by simmers, having an `extra` sim or two seems like a bloody good idea! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleuth 11 Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 Actually, competition improves the breed. When Fly! finished there was no direct competitor to FS on PC at that time (X-Plane wasn't up to snuff then) and FSX showed that MS had got fat and lazy, complacent and indolent. Competition is precisely what is needed. At no time and under no regulation has anyone ever stated that you can't have more than one flight sim on your system. If there were positive gains from using one sim for bush flying and another for airlines then it's a conceivable scenario that multiple products could co-exist. Frankly, given the costs of addons and the amount spent by simmers, having an `extra` sim or two seems like a bloody good idea! ok, there you have a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcb 1 Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 To be very honest, I know Microsoft from a very interesting job interview I had with them once, these people could care less about quality and all for making money. Heck, FSX is the best demonstration of this way of thinking. On top of it, once I hear 'Live' in a product name, you know it stands for squeezing $$$ out of customers for a mediocre (at best) product that in reality no one wants (or should want for that matter). I'm betting on the Aerosoft sim that will come out in a couple of years , since these guys here know what they are doing. Here's a bunch of folks who actually use their brains and some common sense when developing stuff. Something that (unfortunately) cannot be said about Microsoft. I'm all for competition, but I sincerely hope that you guys at Aerosoft take the time you guys need to create a killer flight sim that just plainly works properly like we have been wanting for decades now. I mean, let's face it, it took Microsoft how many years to figure out how to create an actual spherical planet instead of a cilinder?...... So I really wouldn't get all excited about that project personally. But who knows, maybe they can churn out a cute toy. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thralni 24 Posted June 5, 2010 Share Posted June 5, 2010 Hmm, parallel thinking moment: What if APPLE devoted their resources to gazumping MSFS - MacFS has a nice ring to it, donchathink..? Course, it would mean we would all have to go out and buy a Mac, but would that necessarily be a bad thing? Teehee. I guess Apple is too preoccupied with iPhones, iPads, iPods and iDoctors (terrible joke, I know -.-) to give that a go, nevermind what seems to be a lack of interest in Mac gaming (although that seems to be seriously changing thanks to Transgaming and Valve). But, it's a very nice fantasy and I'd applaud MacFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow 107 Posted June 6, 2010 Share Posted June 6, 2010 To be very honest, I know Microsoft from a very interesting job interview I had with them once, these people could care less about quality and all for making money. Heck, FSX is the best demonstration of this way of thinking. On top of it, once I hear 'Live' in a product name, you know it stands for squeezing $ out of customers for a mediocre (at best) product that in reality no one wants (or should want for that matter). One could level the same accusations at just about any company as and when convenient. I hear BP is a popular one of late... The fact is that with Microsoft (potentially) releasing any kind of simulator+sdk in the future anyone wishing to compete has to do so on two fronts: the first being the simulator software itself but just as important (if indeed not more so) is the second front called marketing. The amount of $ MS could throw at marketing their simulator, should they choose to do so, is simply phenomenal and is something maybe 1 or 2 other companies on this planet could ever hope to match. And, market cap notwithstanding, I highly doubt Apple could match this kind of spend even if they wanted to. Which they don't. The success of any flight simulator+sdk (from MS, Aerosoft, Laminar, SimGiants etc) depends on reaching as wide an audience as possible over as long a period of time as possible and MS clearly have the upper hand here, by a very long way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow 107 Posted June 6, 2010 Share Posted June 6, 2010 I dont know why they should be tired of it. Without those addon developers Flight Sim would never had anywhere near the success it had. Fact is MS isn't satisfied with that. They still want to control every aspect of every market they are in. They have learned nothing from all the anti-trust cases they have been involved in. They are tired of it because they are not in on the addon revenue stream (other than arguably with Acceleration). And from their point of view why shouldn't they be on it? Of course they want to control (and therefore benefit financially) as much as they can, is this not the very definition of a business? Shareholders could sue if the anything else was the case. Anti-trust? Let's be serious. For a company which has close on 90% worldwide use of their OS any anti-trust case is nothing more than a slight distraction (if that even). Calling it a lesson is overstating it no end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bionicCrab 7 Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 So h/w tessellation and compute shaders can be done in DX9? Don't think so! ATI cards have supported hardware tessellation for ages, long before even DX9.0c. Also ATI/NVIDIA supported "direct compute" through both OpenCL and through CUDA since the 9.0c days. The progress of video cards are not tied to Microsoft... could you please explain that part since you seem to be convinced otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts