Okay guys, I don't usually have time to post outside the screenshot forums, sorry, and I expect that and the length of this post is going to be why not many are going to reply to this
but, anyway, just for once, after reading widely on the FSX forum, here's my contribution to the debate around FSX. It’s not a moan, it’s a suggestion. I love MSFS and am grateful to the hard-working and creative developers, and look forward to one day running FSX….. but I think I have a point to make which is a little different from, though also similar to, those already made.
I'm going to compare FS development to a normal game's development.
My point in short:
People say developing a new FS is different – a unique case. But why should this be so. Is it logical or beneficial to the game, the customers, or MS? I think not.
My point, in long:
This is how, I have noticed, most cutting-edge software companies seem to design most normal games.
1. They project what high end cards will be capable of by the time when they expect to finish the game.
2. They make a game which will play well on those future high end cards, and okay to poor on today's high end.
3. They release it and those rich enough to have the best hardware get the most out of it, others can at least play it.
4. A while later, they release a datadisk with extra content, maybe improved interface, features, graphics, that may once again push the envelope for the new high end. They make money, users are happy.
5. If the game is really good and also moddable, it can have a very long shelf-life without using distant-future technology - The Elder Scrolls Morrowind for example.
6. Later, they release the games successor, once again pushing the envelope.
*Of course, many successful games don’t push the envelope spectacularly and are able to work on many people’s machines on release.
This is what MS seem to do with FS and particularly FSX.
1. Look much further into the future than normal software developers do - in the case of FSX, they aimed at a technology still in development over an uncertain timescale, thus causing a 3 year gap between sim releases and basically losing money they could have made by releasing an FS9 upgrade or at least a large data-disk in mid-2005.
(This data-disk/game could have contained – more high detailed regions for FS9 – ‚payware-quality‘ planes (if freeware and payware developers can do it for FS9, why wait for FSX) airports and cockpits – better textures and denser autogen – all the improvements serious sim pilots wanted, e.g. to ATC, the weather, flight models – more detailed mesh in more areas etc etc. None of this would need a big upgrade to the engine or technology as far as humble I can see)
2. Prepare a game aimed at this still developing technology, which causes complications while making the sim – bugs and other problems, no doubt some false starts in development with dual-core, dx10 optimisation etc – which prevents them from focusing on the things people wanted changing or on optimising textures, physics and other things that would make it run smoother.
Of course, they improve the graphics and put in some great new features along with a ton of stuff that was possible a year ago and could have been in a datadisk. This is necessary to make people want it even though many know from experience that it’s going to have a ton of problems and not run perfectly until near the time the next sim comes out, if then.
3. Release it – and watch people struggle with it, wondering why it doesn’t run completely well even on their super-machine that totally pwns the whole world. They observe all the complaints, many of them being the same as the complaints made about the previous sim on it’s release – bugs, errors, poor optimisation, stuttering even on high end machines.
In the case of FSX, they actually advertise it widely, causing many new people to buy it blissfully unaware of what a nightmare it’s going to be, because all the other new games run well on their rigs, or at least run.
4. Members of the team are either sent to different sites and forums, or simply go voluntarily because they are involved in the development and know how hard it was and care about the product (this is more likely to be the case, I believe!), and mollify the critics and dampen down the anger by admitting that mistakes were made, corners cut, they tried to do too much, the money-men pushed for an early release etc. These arguements are all made in genuine good faith, I think - must be terrible to see everyone laying into their work....
Their key argument, though, is that the sim is made this way to have a long shelf life and therefore we should expect it to run badly. This is what I take issue with because...
...what they don’t say is that just when you finally have a rig capable of running it at its best, they will release a new sim, thus making it hard for many normal mortals (who find it difficult to resist the need to have the newest and best) to enjoy using the ‘old, tired’ sim they have any more… and ‘upgrade’ to the new improved version.
(This concept of a 'long shelf life' differs from that of other quality games, where people continue playing them long after they run easily on their computer, because the technology is not so far ahead. The actual length of this sim's 'life' is the same as that of any other quality, moddable game for most people, because they upgrade to the newest sim when they have just managed to cope with the old one. The difference is in the quality of the experience, not the length of the shelf life.
Some people don't upgrade of course, but I doubt if that is really part of MS's policy...)
Of course, many people are happy with it, because they expect it to run poorly and simply love the new features, and some enjoy bragging that they can run it well
but there are not nearly as many happy people are as there could be. And so the cycle of frustration and griping continues.
5. Hope things calm down over time and as hardware improves and cheapens. Watch as freeware and payware developers find ways to deal with all the problems in the game. In the case of FS9, finally release a patch that changes very little.
Don’t release a datadisk with improvements, because that would please people and make money. In the case of FSX, promise patches which will totally upgrade the sim, but will almost certainly (I suspect) just focus on upgrading it to Vista and DX10 compatibility, a huge job in itself, and solve few of the other problems, let alone deal with the core issues of real simmers.
6. Start looking at new future technology which is unproven and uncertain, and begin to aim the new sim at that. Probably. Well, we’re all hoping all the complaining and expressions of frustration and anger aren’t going to put them off developing FS11, aren’t we? : )
Why does it have to be this way? If they followed a normal pattern:
- they would release things more people could play and enjoy on release – fewer complaints
- developing the sim would be easier and they would be able to focus on bugs and optimisation and new features that make use of existing or near-term technology
- they would make more money by releasing a full sim every 2 years and a datadisk in between
- some people would complain there wasn’t much new in the new sims… but generally, a decent helping of new, quality features and content, with some manageable advancement in the technology used and hardware needed would please most simmers, who are often hungry for more…me included : )
Well, this is my opinion and contribution to the debate. I don’t have time to participate in an argument but please feel free to agree or disagree….
Regards
Krigl
Pages: 1 
