JBaymore wrote on Mar 10^th, 2012 at 9:32pm:


John,

I am knowledgeable with Wikipedia, how it was formed, how it functions, and how it is funded. I do agree with their characterization of Microsoft Flight as a Flight Simulation Game. I could not have written it better.

Here are two more statements but this time from Microsoft Flight Home. I'm not a member of your college community but aren't they talking about flight simulated conditions?

"Whether you’re at 20,000 feet or just inches above the surface, you’ll experience visually stunning and realistic real-word landscapes with authentic weather patterns, terrain, landmarks and flight physics. See the world from inside a highly detailed and accurate cockpit, or zoom out and fly using the exterior airplane view."
Weather

"Click any of the weather options on the Flight Conditions screen to view a brief description of the associated conditions. Changing the weather can dramatically affect visibility and aircraft control. In conditions with heavy rain or clouds, it is more difficult to see, forcing you to rely on cockpit instruments. In high-wind conditions"

You made the statement that you and your college academic community frown upon using Wikipedia as a reference. Will you tell me why so I will know if I am breaking some kind of rule.

JoBee wrote on Mar 11^th, 2012 at 12:20am:

There you have it. The definition is the opinion of the user. Microsoft has always considered FS a game. As a matter of fact so have I. 

ftldave wrote on Mar 10^th, 2012 at 8:28pm:


You can say anything you want , this forum ,free will , But My sense my brain tells me MSFT will never be the replace of anything
For a simple reason , I have EYES ,and common sense

ACE TEAM remember? those who made the entire world in MSFS series and then M$ Sold it ?
That then this ACE team Was destroy By the same Microsoft for money?

The Only way that this Flight or further Fight Version would "Come to replace FSX" Its by gather & bringing back the team who spend years and several versions of MSFS to build the whole world,but as we and the whole world knows that never going to happen ..its M$

so yes Keep saying that "Flight" its the best Simulator ever made like a FANATIC RELIGIOUS PERSON  , But people does not buy that ..

Flight Will be forgotten and buried .While FSX will be Duplicated   

 

JBaymore wrote on Mar 11^th, 2012 at 7:32am:


John,

I had already, sometime in the past, reviewed these articles except the one from Yale. As you probably already know that Wikipedia favors consensus over credentials. In simpler terms getting the acceptance of many minds even though one original dissenter may be a professor at Harvard. I learned this, not by completing my graduate degree at USC, but in a major corporation that made decisions based on reaching consensus of many at all levels of education. I also learned this during my flying career determining the best and safest method for approaching and landing a helicopter on a pinnacle at high density altitudes or when attaching a foreign object on an airplane, then determining the new flight dynamics, or the best method to survive in the desert if forced down. I receive two papers in the morning, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. I don't fully agree with either, but keep them both for their, what I think, are good but differing editorials of the news.

None of the articles you posted for me reference Wikipedia, support not reading their excellent viewpoint of Microsoft Flight. Their article is in tune with Microsoft's description with the one exception of adding the word simulator. And as I said earlier, I agree with them - when you fly MF in free flight it is a flight simulator. When you select a mission, challenge, or Aerocache Hunt, it becomes a Flight Simulator Game.

Now in reference to your college academic community, is this a special identified group? I know that you are not including me considering our differing viewpoints.

Cheers

Flight Ace wrote on Mar 11^th, 2012 at 2:45pm:


Wikipedia's issues are exactly that lack of some form of seriously accredited peer review, and as Pete just pointed out...... lack of control of content generation.

I'm well aware of the idea and import of concensus... as someone who has spent much time working in Japan  .

best,

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

Case in point.
Years ago I lived in a very small town/village. Population less than three hundred, out in the middle of cornfields.
Out of curiosity, not long after Wiki started becoming known, I looked up the town just to see if anyone had listed it.  For years now, there has been an edit war, where at any given time the town is listed has a suburb of Chicago, or a subdivision of McHenry. It is niether. Not less than an hour from McHenry, and quite a bit further from Chicago, it is it's own villiage, with it's own independant government.
Every once in awhile I check it, and once in awhile it's correct, but that's rare. Have no idea why it happens. Today it's correct, next month it won't be.
Sometimes when you put a bunch of monkeys in a room with a typewriter, you don't get Shakespeare.  Sometimes you just get a room full of poo and a broken typewriter.

expat wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 5:41am:

VERY good point. I forgot that flight schools use FSX -- and why does anyone think Lockheed Martin purchased it?

NO flight school would consider MS Flight as a training product .... the thought of it is a joke.

Anyway there is no debate about it. I have it from the inside at MS that the 'Flight Simulator' series was created and treated as a genuine Flight Simulator for the PC. Whereas they made it clear to me that 'Flight' is being created and marketed as a flying game - NOT a simulator.

The whole 'simulation vs. game' argument is specious at best. It boils down to this; the more you have invested in anything, the more you will be resistant to that thing changing.  If you have spent thousands of dollars on pay ware and thousands more on a home built cockpit and thousands more building the perfect rig to fly it with, of course you're going to ascribe as much prestige as you can to FS. If you're more casual about your flying, then it won't be as big a concern.

It's important to recognize that neither of these viewpoints are wrong or right, but just different.  FS is both a game and a simulator and so is Flight.  Once again, you decide your own level of participation...

To be followed up on later...