There's already a post in the FSX section. I made the same mistake. Looks like mine was removed.

It'll be for a gaming console, not a PC.   

Has anyone tried the Google Earth flight simulator recently?  It's getting better and better with each release.  They've got the makings of the environment component already and with Google Sketchup coming along, wouldn't be surprised if Google had a go at a realistic flight simulator.

The following postings were merged into this thread from the FSX section.  This discussion fits better here than in FSX.

Ragapot12 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 4:15am:


Reading the announcement about this and the other two games announced I found these bits interesting:

Quote:

Quote:


So maybe not XBox exclusive but it does seem geared to online playing although hopefully offline play is still allowed.   

EDIT:  Excerpt from press release:

Quote:


Definitely looks oriented to on-line play. 

Hmmm...

Ragapot12 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 10:57am:


I'm worried about that too. Especially since it's on the LIVE platform. I have two games that use that right now, and I can't stand it.

Ragapot12 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 2:42am:


Is it just me, or does the video in the center of the page not work?

ShaneG wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 6:18am:


I was thinking, if its online based, their servers are doing all the CPU work. Your bandwidth would determine how pretty it looks?

And anyone that has ever played any online game is familiar with the word LAG.

I'm trying to decide if this thread stays here, gets shifted to "other software"  ........ or rightfully goes straight to "Multiplayer"?   

Folks... much as we all love flight SIMULATION... the $$$ are in the casual flier gamer market.  Microsoft is not stupid. 

However, with this release ...they are trying to have their cake and eat it too, I think.  Mistake.

I like my FS2004. 

best,

.............john

yancovitch wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 8:09pm:

Well they definately promote user made addons (they did give away GMax and SDK software with previous releases) but I don't know why they would stop others from profiteering. Unless they were going to release a lot of addons themselves, they wouldn't be losing any revenue, thus no point in it.

I'm not getting my hopes up about this either. If that video was taken from in-game, I can't imagine what the actual simulator would do to our poor, defenseless computers! 

I'm sticking with FSX (and occasionally FS9  ) and just sitting back to watch all the problems with the sim when people get it. 

Hopefully it does not have an outdated, slow, decade old engine like FSX that still runs badly on midrange computers. I'm glad they're doing something new, because I think most would agree that another release like FSX would be disappointing in pretty much every way possible. The only thing that remains to be seen is how well they pull it off. I also, hope, that it's still a simulator, but we'll see when more information comes out. I wonder if they dropped the 'simulator' from the title because it's no longer a simulator, or because they want to differentiate it with the previous flight simulators from some reason? Besides, a "Microsoft Flight Simulator XI" would sound boring.

"Twenty-eight years after the debut of "Microsoft Flight Simulator 1.0," Microsoft Game Studios also announced the internal development of "Microsoft Flight," a new Windows exclusive. "Microsoft Flight" will bring a new perspective to the long-standing genre, welcoming everyone, including long-time fans, to experience the magic of flight."

So it's definitely something new.... I am happy, but also cautious!

Here's a higher resolution video that looks damn sweet:

http://content4.catalog.video.msn.com/e2/ds/99d6370e-0e60-4f1c-8a26-2055ee71c269...

I'm not going to condemn it until more information comes out! Also, it might be pre-rendered, meaning it's may not be the actual game, or the actual graphics! Anyone else remember the DX10 pictures of FSX, that were later found out to be concept art? Come to think of it, it looks like it may be pre-rendered.

If anyone remembers this blog by P-12C? He posted again:

http://paul-flightsimguy.spaces.live.com/default.aspx


"Cough, cough...
Just dusting off the cobwebs a bit. I might actually need to do something with this blog in the future."
which was like 1 day before the annauncement

too early to tell what it will be like imo


pretty much all we know is:
1. The video was probably pre-rendered
2. it will use windows live
3. it will not be developed by ACES
4. it's probably going to be significantly different to MSFS.
5 . it may / may not be a simulator



As far as Windows live goes, it's probably like GTAIV, or Dirt 2. You pretty much only log into Windows live for copy protection (verifies your cd-key and account bascially) and if you want to play online. You can also join friends servers, and message them.... which is great. also, windows live is a free service, I find it HIGHLY doubtful, even impossible to beleive that there will be a subscription free.

I agree with Bill 99%, although I think that it will likely be using a whole new engine, which is great. It will not be ACES developing this like FS9 / FSX, so I doubt they'd use the same engine...

P.S:

http://www.microsoft.com/games/flight/CloudBgnd.jpg

Cool photo. It's the background for the site. KSEA. Obviously not an in-game photo, but just thought I'd point it out.

P.P.S

http://www.microsoft.com/games/flight/

Notice the picture of the pilot on the right is a Women. And also the woman in the video saying, 'when I was young, I dreamed I could fly'. Wonder if they're connected?

P.P.P.S

Quote:

Considering there's only been a 5 second video, and a press release. I think you're jumping the gun. We'll see.

Also, water on high 2.0x in FSX pretty much halves fps, in modern games you get no such hit because they use newer technology, and they're also much better optimized.... and a modern flight 'simulator' (?) should be more multithreaded, too. Besides, they should be loading the GPU more. With FSX my graphics card is practically idling. Load the CPU & GPU so no processing power is left to waste.

Also, I'm not sure why you would want graphics done by the CPU, anyway.

Quote:

It uses Windows Live, but that doesn't imply that it's online based, or online only (although it may need an internet connection to run, for verification). To my knowledge, very few games offload any significant portion of the work to the sever.

I would be excited but theres no point to get excited when i dont even have a computer that can run FSX so it wont be able to run this.

Quote:


Of course, they are connected.  This is the beginning of the marketing campaign for this offering. 

The target audience is likely the gaming market that FSX started to move toward.... and everything that is offically posted aboit "Flight" seems to be also pointing toward.

What is the prime target audience demographic in that sector,........... teen aged / young adult boys.  How do you "sell" with subliminal messaging to that audience and catch their attention? 

Think about it.   

Notice the formal elements of composition used on that image.  What draws your attention on that young lady?  Notice the use of the clouds, and how that affects things there a bit.   Look at the discrepancies in the lighting shadows to notice some stuff is retouched for "effect". 

And add in a nice young female voice on the voice over.

Perfect!

The choices used in this kind of "teaser" are not coincidences.  High paid marketing folks are all over this kind of stuff.  It is what they DO. 

One more message about what MS is probably thinking.

best,

..................john

Something also tells me that if it were ported to console (and I highly doubt it... The video only says Windows, not Xbox 360) they would make it very Kinect compatible.

Still. A flight simulator game like that needs a keyboard and actual controls. I doubt they will let a repeat of 'Steel Batallion' happen.


I reckon they'll put the game off for 2 years and try to bring in customers on a 30th anniversary kind of marketing scheme. A 2012 release seems most likely in my eyes. November 2012 would make it a 30th anniversary.

Fr. Bill wrote on Aug 18^th, 2010 at 12:48am:


I think the polite word you are looking for is speculation.

And being that we are all engaging in it, and you have predictions you wanna add that you state are based on bread crumbs, please share your sources. Would love to see what you got.

Solid wrote on Aug 18^th, 2010 at 4:47pm:


MS has said it will be for the PC

I agree that it's time we move foreward.

I suspect that MS is changing the title to more accurately reflect the direction FS is going which is a bit more game oriented.
IMO this is no a bad idea as long as it still remains a simulation at heart.
Personally, I would wecome an aspect of "Flight" that would make such things as air racing and formation flying, etc more accesssable and realistic. As it stands now, it's too contrived and limited IMO.

I would also welcome  a combat sim base on the new  code.

As I already staded, we need more info before we condem it.
We might be pleasently surprised.

In any event MSFS as we know it is history so lets move on.

ShaneG wrote on Aug 18^th, 2010 at 5:58pm:

Vista was so 'bad' that they kept it on for another go and turned it into Windows 7. Try Windows Mojave for a bit and see if you like it

I've never ever ever had a bad Vista experience and I've had for quite a while... Not long after the release actually. It's probably my favourite OS to date... Any issues whilst using Vista were down to the 3rd party companies.


I would love to know what they could do to the series to take it anywhere. Besides from a huge realism increase (lets face it, the weather and physics aren't great) there isn't much left. Modernise the airport list and improve the terrain in the lesser known areas (Port Angeles is such a lovely to fly around, but the terrain doesn't do it much justice as the towns look a mess from the satellite imaging). Just little addons. It would be FSX v2.

Here is the thing, due to the ACES team being fired approx. 2 years ago; the ACES team did not make this game, the original Microsoft designers made this game. It is going to be a game not a simulator. None the less it does look like a great game!! 


BUT!!! There is a rumor that Microsoft is willing to higher a new ACES team, or re-higher the old ACES team to make a new flight simulator. **thats just a rumor**

I prefer not to say that a game series is moving in the wrong direction when all we have is some vague marketing BS and a non-gameplay video. Wait till we actually see the game.

Quote:


Best advice I've heard yet! 

We haven't seen or heard hardly anything at all! This is almost like a gossip thread! 

FuturePilot wrote on Aug 19^th, 2010 at 12:14am:

This IS a gossip thread.

"How do I install this aircraft?"

"I downloaded 'the' 767, how do I install it?"

"Where can I find such and such?"

"What's the best payware aircraft?"

We get these questions way too often. I bet you the majority of FSX users have never heard of PMDG.

I think it would be a great idea to have a feature integrated within MSFS, where every single payware or freeware addon for MSFS can be downloaded, and installed without the user having to follow instructions. Just point and click. It would add greater exposure to mods anyway. I don't think it's a bad thing if it's true.

machineman9 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2010 at 6:03am:


You hit the nail on the head, some developers do make it very simple (some even use .exe files to auto install), yet others do crazy things with the file structures.  I once downloaded an aircraft where there were .zip files in each of the model/panel/sound/texture folders that also had to be unzipped to function.  Or another couple of large freeware providers where you have to download model, panel, sound, textures separately and assemble it after download.

JBaymore wrote on Aug 19^th, 2010 at 11:15am:

I'm not complaining about the quality, I am merely concious of those who might not understand the file structure quite so well.

There are freeware autoinstallers around. I'm sure they don't take too long to set up. For the sake of those who don't know the file structure quite so well, it would be nice to have a standardised way of packaging the addons.

If MF had SDK software which packs and unpacks the files, that would do the same task. Just select the plane, it searches for the related media (textures, files, sounds, etc) which are linked to it, and bundles them up a proprietary file type. Then unpackages them and adds them. It's a better standard and it wouldn't be much more effort for devs to do.

So THIS is what it's like in the FS world before a new release huh? I didn't get FSX until Nov.08 when I finally got a rig that can run it past the splash screen so I missed the past few "here comes the next version" seasons. I've read through many pre-release discussions of video games. But this I know is a different and more mature crowd. I will be following this with popcorn in my hand.

I hope the FS community is treated better than the train and city building sim crowd has been treated lately with the direction companies been taking the past couple years.

A bit more info.......
http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/111/1114324p1.html

One key line from the article is, ".....Unangst described the plan as akin to what JJ Abrams did with Star Trek – simultaneously be respectful of the hardcore fans while injecting new life into the games.....".

i kinda feel it's still a cheap promotional gimmick.....showing little respect to the loyal simmers by throwing that little sardine, just enough to pull the strings to make everyone jump up and down, left and right.........................makes me feel sad for some reason.....

Goodly morning all...

This Topic like Aircraft Crashes in the Real Aviation Forum I find for myself with limited knowledge is best to keep quiet and wait for the HOLLYWOOD MOVIE to come out...             

Cheers...Happy Landings...Doug

In my opinion, Microsoft should work on improving the core of the simulation itself, allowing for better flight dynamics, weather, scenery engine, graphics, realism (like sloped runways) and especially performance (and also immersion). Add missions to capture a broader audience would be cool. I don't really care about the default aircraft, I don't think too much time should be wasted on them to have features that only 0.01% of the market would use. It must be modifiable, preferably with links to simviation, avsim (etc) in the readme or something so interested users can download add-ons. I don't think too much time should be spent on improved scenery (i.e. the scenery complexity slider) because it's fine how it is and most people can't max that out anyways. Basically, I want a better simulator (or game whatever you want to call it), not a FSX with some new missions, better aircraft, and even crappier performance with pointless graphics options that 0.01% of the market can use.

FWIW......
Is it too early to have a dedicated "MS Flight" forum?

At least a couple of FS forums already have one.

For one thing, if MS is monitering the forums, perhpaps it would be prudent to have a dedicated one early on?

Besides, isn't this the premier FS site? 

If underrstand what I have been reading from various sources, "Flight" has ben in developement  since the first of the year using the mothballed FS code,
So it is hardly a glimmer is someones eye and there are definate plans to releases it.

Anyway, a dedicated forum would make posting about Flight easier for everyone concerned.
As time goes on, the "Flight" posts are bound to increase substantially.

Of couse simV is not subsidiary of Microsoft. However, I believe we all can agree that we want MS to hear (and pay attention to) what we have to say.

I think the FSX forum only really got opened when the demo was out, or atleast when there was a massive amount of detail about it. I don't see another forum coming along soon until there's actually something to be excited about.

specter177 wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 7:00pm:



Yeah...... they were right.   

best,

.........john

Quote:

I doubt that preview video is even real. Probably an artist's rendering. 

Formula_1 wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 9:45am:


I'm sure if they were going to try to appeal to the huge market they would add levels of control. IL2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey let you choose the realism settings. From easy up to 'realistic'. And the controls, physics and gameplay was affected from those choices. Other games let you select the individual aspects of the game you want to make harder. A lot of racing games let you turn off the racing line, ABS, traction control, etc, all independently of one another. MSFS have forever been doing this, but it will probably come under names for difficulty levels, then you can develop your own 'custom' difficulty level thereafter.

Atleast, that is how I can imagine it would be if this were a game for all generations and all persons.

P.S, I do like the story mode option. I am sure they would have 'free flight' and 'career mode' or something like that. That would be brilliant. Reckon money would affect it? Or bursaries/scholarships, etc. E.G earning $100 for a crop dust or something, but then get met by Red Bull and asked to fly a time trial to win flight training and a Red Bull Air Race passs.


Also... What about some kind of character progression? Change how your pilot looks, but also, change how the controls handle depending on your experience. A newbie pilot might have the controls a bit more shakey whilst they get to grips, but a more experienced pilot might have perfect control over the aircraft... Or is that going too far?

I think I'm just coming up with ideas instead of working with what we've been given. 

I suspect that the word "sim" has been drpoped purely for marketing reasons.

The general public equates a "sim" as boring, difficult to master and only for the hard core.

I have been told by a few people who have bought MSFS in the past that It is boring and they found it impossible
to land a plane etc.

We all know that is not true of couse and now MS wants  to simply give FS an more user friendly tiltle the general public will be more attracted to.
Then once they got them, offer some fun things to do to hold their interest until they can gain some expertise in sim type flight.

This of couse does not mean that a hard core sim is not included as its core. MS has aread stated that "Flight" will remain true to MSFS' "hard core" fans.

Remember the timeless words of wisdom from  Shakespeare as he was talking about renaming a rose

How many people bought their Flight sims for the 'gaming' experience?

JBaymore wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 1:39pm:

Keep It Simple wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 12:23pm:


Sorry, but I just read the article you posted..... and did not see that direct sentiment quoted from Microsoft in there anywhere.

Can you point it out?

What I did take notice of was the quote from the Microsoft guy:

"I think the one piece that was missing was a big significant commitment from Microsoft Game Studios to push the service the same way Halo pushed the service on the console…that's been the missing element and that's what we're doing now."

best,

................john

JBaymore wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 1:39pm:


Here:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-20013915-56.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_me...

Quote:

Sorry if this has already been mentioned... but is Aerosoft carrying on development of their flight simulator after this release?

From what I'm seeing on the Aerosoft forums, they are not to happy with MS Flight now underway. They say they are continuing with their sim.

Keep It Simple wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 12:23pm:


UbiSoft did the same thing with the latest installment of Silent Hunter (The submarine sim).

They also went the more arcade style development to attract a wider audience.

It was such a fail it seems that Ubisoft in such an attempt managed to sink the silent hunter series completely.

How ironic, they sunk the sub.

Lets hope MS does not fly our beloved MFS series into Mt. Erebus.

Since I first posted in the beginning, I have changed my opinion.

Based on my reading, Microsoft Flight appears to have been in development for about 18 months now. Microsoft is officially announcing it now as a Beta version will soon undergo internal testing. Add-on development is supposed to be easier than ever, showing that 3rd party developers may benefit from Flight being released. Performance is the #1 goal in Flight and has been since day one of the project.

My final opinion is that MS Flight will be better than FSX, with more realism and better performance. Online flying is focused on much more than in FSX. Flight will not be a little flying game. It should be a simulator. We should look forward to it. (But still not get our hopes up too much.)

My post is based on reading many blog entries and forum posts with people giving inside information they are getting from someone on the Flight Team. My info may not be accurate, but I feel that the people who are being negative about MS Flight should stop and just wait. At the moment, we don't know much more of the big details other than that it has been announced and it's a flight simulator. Give it a chance. It may end up being great.

this whole this is confusing ,I only wish one thing ,MS think above all in the designers roll ,the series MSFS has been succeeded because of the independent designers around the world ,so make things easy for them..
remember the serie MSFS was ,A simulator ,a game ,and a game of design..

I know nothing.. And that's a fact!

Jeez! Why do I even post anything?  My point is: The people being so negative about Flight should stop. We don't know many details at all. If you have anything bad to say, I assume you guys could make a better flight simulator?