Jump to content

Bye Bye MS FLIGHT


Recommended Posts

i really still dont get what this Prepare3D thing is! its like a pimped FSX right? but with the same looks or? but mabye better code and performance and less CTD´s ?

It's right now like FSX SP3 and when they bolt on a new Direct X it will be like SP4.

There are still limitations but it is in every way better. More stable, faster etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's not that it is comes as surprise to us (the whole plan was ill conceived) but it seem Microsoft has cancelled MS FLIGHT. http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/news/1006601.20120726.Microsoft-cancels-Fligh

The price of ignoring community....

Microsoft gave up on Flight Simulator already a few years ago. Instead, they tried to get on the game market with a flying game that had potential but is killed in it's infancy. Now they stop all fly

Lockheed Martin has bought the rights from Microsoft to develop on their core and they have made Prepar3D out of it.

Not quite. You should never forget that this is not their core target group. If this doesn't work you shouldn't be too surprised if they drop the title like a hot potato.The managers ofthis project would be in real trouble to explain this totally different scope to their management.

I

Link to post
Share on other sites
snapback.pngEric Bakker, on 26 July 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

I wonder if this will free the way for an 'entertainment' version of P3D.

But this might be not a market LM wants to be active in...

So they say, but they sure do not make it hard to buy P3D. The field where they ask for what education institute you work for/study at is optional!

Very true, but when asked why they removed all plane and airport selection screens at startup of P3D, LM answers 'because it is not an entertainment product anymore'. A very silly statement, and a stupid decision also IMHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the end of MS FLIGHT is no surprise for anyone I guess, I have never tried it, and will probably never do. I have had an eye on the development though, and from time to time I have had the feeling of give it a try. My time in the virtual cockpit is not endless however and my wonderful FSX is taking it all. Maybe it's time to now move on to PREPAR3D.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A very silly statement, and a stupid decision also IMHO.

I don't think that it is silly. They are working for a defence contractor! What do you think their managers would say if they want to sell games?

They have to be VERY careful how to explain their decisions They will talk about training for casual pilots, raise interest for students, who could become valuable developers and companies that produce sceneries which could be used in other projects. They can sell a dual use product but NEVER a game! How could a game help customers to prepare people for real conflicts. It must not look like a game!

In a way Flight was the complete opposite. But as I expected, the product was developped in a totally different time by different managers. If the product doesn't is profitable thery don't need it and so they dropped the projects after not even six months.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that it is silly. [...] It must not look like a game!

I think you got me wrong.

What I meant to say: I fail to see what selecting an airplane and an airport for startup has to do with looking like a game.

But if that is how they felt it looked, then why not change the GUI, or make it simpler even, but still leave a startup setup in the sim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incredible! I mean, what were they thinking? Were they not paying attention at all to any of the present flight Sim community that uses FSX? For years people have been speaking about how poorly coded FSX was and how much more they would enjoy it if the game wasn't so demanding on the computer's resources.

When MS Flight came out I swear I thought that it was just a small ' quickie' to hold the arcade community while they worked on the serious simulator. I don't know who's running the show over there but they were obviously oblivious to what's going on in this huge field. Some heads should roll because of this if there is any management in that department.

I mean they had to lose some money on this endeavor because I know they've been advertising MS Flight for at least a year before it came out. And now, less than a year after it comes out, it goes out the window. That had to be costly to some extent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is very interesting, as one of the former developers tells a bit about where it went wrong and how much would have been possible:

Yes, a good thread but I think he oversimplifies the matter by blameng everything to Joshua Howard. If you looked at his profile it was quite obvious that he would be a very good scapegoat. When suddenly the Xbox team got this project they really had to think what to do with this... thing. Members of the Aces team probably started to climb the walls just to get out of there while Joshua Howard was at least one of them.

I would think the simple fact that Joshua Howard was in charge was already a pretty sure sign, how the situation was.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean they had to lose some money on this endeavor because I know they've been advertising MS Flight for at least a year before it came out. And now, less than a year after it comes out, it goes out the window. That had to be costly to some extent.

Sure, but you are missing a very important fact. When flight was started Xbox was one project of many. In fact Microsoft replaced many of the X-Box managers due to all the problems in their project, but suddenly X-Box was the most succesful part of this department. They were put in charge of everything.

Microsoft Flight had no real marketing money. Everything was done on their servers. An additional Webpage doesn't cost anything. Flight probably had to pay everything from their original budget. The managers that were in charge were not the same guys who originally gave Flight its Budget, so they had nothing to fear from a lack of success. They only had to demonstrate their good will and after Flight produces bad numbers they could easily tell to Microsoft that they had to cancel the project due to itsa bad results. But it was not their problem. If they would have been in charge they would have never authorized this project.

Link to post
Share on other sites

, then why not change the GUI, or make it simpler even, but still leave a startup setup in the sim.

They don't need such a screen. They don't sell to an end-user, instead they licence their product to a developer who uses i9t whit his hardware or his own sceneries and they sell thweir products to military units or anti terror squats. If they need such a screen they will write their own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

]snapback.pngEric Bakker, on 26 July 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

, then why not change the GUI, or make it simpler even, but still leave a startup setup in the sim.

They don't need such a screen. They don't sell to an end-user, instead they licence their product to a developer who uses i9t whit his hardware or his own sceneries and they sell thweir products to military units or anti terror squats. If they need such a screen they will write their own.

Only if an installation of P3D uses only one aircraft and one airport (for startup) this is a valid argument.

And then, there is the academic version, which is (officially) aimed at student pilots that use it at home. But of course you can argue that this student also just uses one aircraft from the same airport always. ;)

Well, I leave the argument at this, lets stay on topic. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Go Lockheed Martin, go!!

Yes, GO to the bank and GO and buy the FS11 code. That would be something really great. Seriously though, surely Microsoft want to do something with that asset. Like sell the code to a third party if they aren't going to continue to use it.

Can't say I'm shocked, never even tried Flight to be honest.

Rhydian

Link to post
Share on other sites

Microsoft gave up on Flight Simulator already a few years ago. Instead, they tried to get on the game market with a flying game that had potential but is killed in it's infancy.

Now they stop all flying games and simulators and leave the flight sim market.

I cannot find any joy in that.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of expected that, the product was a total disappointment for most flight simmers and for what it seems also for those that just want to fly without learning anything (gamers) :-)

Now, their statment says "we evaluate our portfolio to see what is best for gamers..." , really? then why did they cancel FSX? that was not the best decision for all those loyal customers that kept on their flight simulator.

Link to post
Share on other sites

....Well..

While MS Flight isn´t what we (the FS community) wanted, it could have been the entry door for newbies and a new generation of flightsimmers.

So like Eric says - I find no joy in that.

Whereas the beancounters won, or MS just had to prove (in a strange way) that there isn´t a profitable market for flightsims, will probably remain unanswered.

Regardless why, I´m afraid that a new flight simulator from MS in any lookable future has been closed together with MS Flight.

So being cocky helps no one.

Finn

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, their statment says "we evaluate our portfolio to see what is best for gamers..." , really? then why did they cancel FSX? that was not the best decision for all those loyal customers that kept on their flight simulator.

Because they thought they knew, but they didn't. They developed what they thought would be successfull, only to find out they were wrong. Now my guess is they're evaluating to see what exactly went wrong. Why did they assume something that turned out to be not true? Let's hope they take lessons from it for the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From a modellers point of view Microsoft Flight Sims have been a good source of entertainment for the flight simming community. The SDK's to enable third party developers to produce free and payware add-on's have always been made available eventually although some bits are missing or mis-leading to say the least. But it was - and hopefully - will continue to be a reasonable Flight sim package with the initial cost within almost everyones budget. It has it's faults but so does almost every game/sim i have ever purchased or tried. With M/S Flight sim what increased its longevity as a platform is the ability of third party developers to add to the package. Everyone has it's personal preferance as to what version they prefer and I must admit that FSX really turned me off from the start. Now I will not even think about FS9 or modelling for it.

It is a shame that the development team was released after FSX but I also think that FSX has a good future if developers keep publishing add-on's for it. Also it would be great if somebody from MS Land decided to reform Ace's or an equivilant to expand FSX back to a Flight Sim and add extra's that the community have asked for during the last 3 veersions and get rid of the "living world" if required to enable this and still run efficient on the current and projected hardware platforms. I wanted to fly - not see sheep or dolphins, whales etc as my old PC ground to a halt updateing dynamic scernery.

Excuse my spelling and iy is late in the UK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they thought they knew, but they didn't. They developed what they thought would be successfull, only to find out they were wrong. Now my guess is they're evaluating to see what exactly went wrong. Why did they assume something that turned out to be not true?

I doubt that they will even do that. For Microsoft Flight was a very tiny project. Most of the managers won't care about it.They gave the whole project less than six months to prove itself. For a real tryout this period is too small, so it looks more like the shortest grace period to kill the project.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that they will even do that. For Microsoft Flight was a very tiny project. Most of the managers won't care about it.They gave the whole project less than six months to prove itself. For a real tryout this period is too small, so it looks more like the shortest grace period to kill the project.

I agree, I think big biz is to a point that if the profit margin doesn't hit a 500% minimum, why bother? I don't know... Big biz is out of my league but I know that Flight Simulation programs are a multi- billion dollar endeavor. I also know that MSFSX is still at the top of the pile when it comes to all the great advanced, additional scenery, aircraft, missions, etc. but Prepar3D is beginning to see some real quality companies making 'versions' for them and that's got them on FSX's heals. Companies like Aerosoft, Orbx, FTX, GEX, REX, and UTX to name just a few.

I have at least a thousand dollars sunk into my FSX addons, (I'm afraid to get an accurate count because it's very likely to be twice that), and I haven't tried Prepar3D yet. I can safely say that I won't be moving over to P3D anytime soon. I just can't afford to re-buy another collection of add-on programs to fit P3D. Then again, I think I may have seen a few add-ons that can convert at no cost to the buyer of the FSX version.

If they all start doing that, I may reconsider but for now, I can't complain much about the FSX program. It's poorly coded and has no direct support but then, the cost of a Sandybridge mobo and an i7 2600k is rapidly dropping and coming into my reach in another month or so. As for the direct support well, I found that I needed direct support from the add-on manufacturers on occasion but not really from the main program, FSX.

Direct support to P3D may be of some value to someone just starting out but I don't think that most veteran simmers really need it. I could be wrong but it's still not the strongest argument for changing over. In the end, it's all good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mathijs,

Will this encourage the cause for the development of a new Aerosoft Simulator? The estate of the Flight Sim World is in shambles enough and the time might be just right.

Cheers,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mathijs,

Will this encourage the cause for the development of a new Aerosoft Simulator? The estate of the Flight Sim World is in shambles enough and the time might be just right.

Like Matt says, I also don't agree to that, currently I have more flight simulators on my HD than ever before, FSX, P3D, X-Plane, DCS, IL2, RoF, Take-on Helicopters, ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...