Looks good...Can't really say I want it yet though... 8)

The autogen looks great. The airports look kinda cartoony.

Ya...definately no FSX for me...When I saw those airport ground vehicles...I was totally un-impressed...Fly-Tampa makes 'em better...The only thing that really "pleased" me was the road traffic...but other than that...

Quote:


Roger that. See you at FS11, perhaps.

You know, in the grand scheme of things, I am compelled to say that I feel a little sorry for the ACES team. From what we have all gathered, they are also dedicated flight sim fans who have put a lot of effort into this new sim. And look at us. We are nit-picking at them for the smallest things such as the liveries. Heck, I've seen far worse liveries in real life. Let's look at the new things they have given us so far in FSX:

1. Space flight
2. User-operated ATC controller function for MP
3. Head movement [default this time - no addon needed]
4. Self-shadowing and bump maps
5. Mission "EDITOR" [are we forgetting about this?]
6. Improved water dynamics [I'm not talking visually here]

Now let's look at the things that we are complaining about:

1. Number of planes*
2. Liveries*
3. Aircraft dynamics [this is the only complain I support so far]
4. Hardware**

*There will always be better planes and liveries in the addon community anyways.

**So what if the hardware requirement is high? This is the 21st century and Moore's Law is always pushing computer technology.

Again, all I can say is that I feel sorry for the ACES team in that they are being nit-picked for almost anything these days. They did something we wanted them to do. They provided us a demo, they posted blogs about their progress, they allowed us to post screenshots and state our own opinions without having to face the corporate red tape. They even allowed many people from all over the world [not just at an Oshkosh computer stand but at their own studio as well] to come over and test the actual beta.

What do we all give them in return? A big spit in the face. Back in the days when FS98 was new, the FS community was friendly and considerate as well as open minded. But now look at us. We have become nit-pickers. We are throwing tomatoes at the very people who enjoy making the very thing we take for granted these days. If this keeps up, I doubt I will visit the FSX section of the forums when FSX is released.

I am studying to get a bachlers in coomputer programming in the hopes of one day creating my very own car sim so that I can share it with the rest of the world. Now considering what kind of treatment the ACES team has received, I can imagine what kind of treatment I would most likely receive when my future car sim comes up to its 25th anniversary. If this happened to me 25 years down the road, I'm pretty sure I would most likely quit development. In fact, I'm willing to bet that a few good developers in the FS team had quit because of the bad wrap that they received from the community.

I am pretty sure that this post will not change everyone's mind and that is "not" my intention with this post. I am just posting this to remind everyone of who is "really" shooting at who's own foot around here.

I agree totally Katahu ...... FSX will be a BETTER base to build from than any of the previous releases. I'm looking forward to seeing what the developers out there can do with what looks like a fantastic start point.

You go, Katahu!!!!

WELL SAID ROLLERBALL!!! 

Very well said Roger 8)

Quote:


I was talking about the ACES team. Not Microsoft.

actually...you cant wait on ppl here....( i found some of the airports that ppl have posted........ avsim forums somewhere..i dont remember....it showed chicago , etc...even the aircraft list in the beta...woooo has the c172 garmin  etc.....very gelous of those non FS flying fools...half these ppl dont even know what its all about or the history behind this simulator....*(((((( very sad microsoft)))

flight dynamics? I agree. that is most importanant and second to the looks. I candy of course to gather that drive to fly whatever it is and dynamics ( right dynamic's) to fullfil the sense of reality. I have to say though, when i flew the beaver in the demo , wow!!!!!
the flight dynamics seemed to be pretty realistic , i am not to familure w/ how the beaver flys, but the way the plane turns,climbs , decends , flaps set...that the reactions are fairly realistic. Ima student pilot, forgive me if im wrong.lol.

Quote:


In most areas yeah, the flight charateristics of the beaver are pretty good.
However it's like it doesn't even have floats excet when landing.

In reality, the beaver should be a bit unstable and tend to sink when banking to steep due to the floats.

Quote:


yes...this is a very good point!

People want better dynamics, but lets face it: The dynamics only can really be changed as we all want with a new flight model, and I think that would probably kill a lot of the backward compatibility!

Then you would get hundreds of complains from people saying that they woulnd't buy FSX because their payware wouldn't work in the new version, and that M$ don't think about the customers, etc,etc!

FS is a huge sim and we have to make choices!

Do we want backwards compatibility and have to keep the same flight engine with litle changes from version to version, or do we want a new flight engine but at the same time loosing lot of the backward comp.?

I would like to see a new flight engine, but I don't suppose M$ will do it soon......

.....remember CF3???

cheers

I don't think you oculd use cf2 a/c in cf3...as I remember cf3 was a completely new thing that had nothing to do with the 2 previous incarnations of cf....I could be wrong though, it's been a loooooong time since I last used cf3...

The flight dynamics are the only things we should be complaining about. We shouldn't be complaining about the little things like airport vehicles and the look of the visual models or aircraft selections as those can easily be corrected with addons that are made by those with more resources than Microsoft.

I also like to see improved flight dynamics. But as PisTon pointed out, it could kill backwards compatibility. Take the scenario below as an example:

Let's say that Company XYZ creates a sim for a community. Later on the community creates addons that improve the sim and demands that Company XYZ make major improvements on the next version of the sim. Company XYZ does as the community demands but it turns out that such a move would make the addons of the previous version incompatible with the new version due to such changes. As a result, the community blasts Company XYZ and accuses the company of forgetting about its customers [like cleobis pointed out]. Then the company implements the old setup of the previous version into a new version and makes minor changes to it to maintain backward compatibility. But then the community blasts Company XYZ again but this time accuses the company for ignoring the demands to improve the dynamics.

As a result of the above scenario, one or two good developers of the dev. team begin to quit due to the excessive pressure mounted by the community and then Company XYZ is back to square one which then brings the community back to square one. Do you see the endless cycle?

Right now, I'm beginning to have second thoughts on whether or not I should even bother to attempt to create a sim of my own.

Quote:



http://www.fs2004.com/forums/index.php?s=645a12a9b1b2f0a7f8c0e4051258e7bf&showto...