Simviation Forum - MS Flight CANCELLED.

Reply #45 - Aug 1^st, 2012 at 11:16am

pete Offline
Admin
'That would be a network
issue'
Cloud Cuckoo Land

Posts: 8500

test

Think Global. It's the world we live in.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #46 - Aug 1^st, 2012 at 2:38pm

jetprop Offline
Colonel
A freeware addict!
a chair infront of a monitor.

Posts: 1523

Strategic Retreat wrote on Jul 31^st, 2012 at 12:28pm:

pete wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 2:56pm:

I remember the day MS (maybe even Bill Gates) dismissed the internet ... (He did learn quickly of his dumb error)

Hmmmmn... no, not quite. He did not dismiss internet as it was, he was sharp enough to recognize the potentiality of such a worldwide net and wanted to create an internet that was HIS. Personal. Constrained. Restricted. Bound only to him, M$ and their desires.

Who among you still remembers like I do the icon of "The Microsoft Network", on ALL the desktops of Win95? Ever asked yourself what it was and what was there for? It was a veritable Trojan Horse of the non viral kind. A Trojan Horse that was never welcomed in our citadels, fortunately.

A proper nightmare. Just think of an Internet ruled by M$... on which you can do whatever you want, bur only as long M$ agrees... and try not to puke.

M$'s hubris level back then redlined for the first, but sadly not the last time. And in fact, with the first and only patch the TCP-IP protocol was released (it was that or stand back and look at someone else doing it in their place) and everyone could connect to The Real Internet.

ViperPilot wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 6:15pm:

The Flight team should be commended for their attempts; they were doing their job with the same passion and excitement we had come to expect for developers. In the end, it was their upper management and MS Corporate that flat lined Flight, plain and simple.

No one here with a brain blames the coders and programmers of Flight. Coders and programmers can be blamed for FSX (but it was another team) which code is rubbish at best, not Flight. Coders and programmers of Flight did their best to keep in line with what was asked of them. They could not make available a feature if the higher ups told them in a non uncertain way not to include, and even if the perhaps wanted Flight to be something better, the eggheads above managed to mess it up BADLY, and now are coders and programmers that are laid off.

A little like; I am a road worker, the head engineer tells me to lay down a road pavement in a certain way, it is discovered then that that road pavement is not adequate to the task, and I am fired instead of the idiot who gave the order.

It happens all too often, and the sympathies go to those who were wronged, not the SOBs that caused the problem. Speaking for myself, I've never blamed the coders and programmers of Flight. When I've hurled written lightnings to M$, I've always directed them to the idiots on the top, apparently so eager and determined to mess it up again, and again, and again, and then another time too.

FSX code rubbish?
The code is just too far ahead for todays machines,the code is one of the most expansive,look at the stuff we can do with FSX now!Can that be done in X-plane or etc?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #47 - Aug 1^st, 2012 at 3:19pm

Cusance Offline
Colonel
its just me
UK

Posts: 47

A sad perspective.
The failure of Flight is a very worrying event, because of what it tells us about MS.
It’s yet another billboard along the road telling us MS may have lost its way. Years ago, MS stood for innovation and progress. Everybody was chasing MS. Now that’s all different.
When Paul Allen and Bill Gates started MS, it was all about code and new product. Leading, not following. MS was a lean hungry company focused on breaking new ground. I read an article somewhere that suggested that it all changed when Bulmer took control. A man allegedly focused on making profit. Who knows, but some signs would seem to support that view. At a global corporate level I have always supported MS as their architecture and systems are the most reliable for a corporate environment. I still believe that, however I have also had many very tough fights with them, especially in the area of licensing. Their heavy handed approach to users, milking the corporate base for all its worth on licensing and sometimes using rather heavy handed methods to bounce one into long term licensing agreements demonstrated I think the new focus on profit. But all that will end if there is nothing new coming along. Now nobody chases MS, all are looking towards Apple and Google for innovation. MS is now a follower, not a technical leader.
I have no idea if MS will still exist in its present form in 10 years time. Somehow I doubt it. It seems to me that as a company it has lost its spark. The Flight debacle is just another sign of this. 10 years ago, this would never have happened, but this is what occurs when you take your eye off the real game, lose touch with your users and your market place. People like Paul Allen would never have accepted the failure of Flight but would have bounced back with something the market would really want to have. In the past MS would never have lost a flagship piece of software but would have retained the hard core simming market inside a new product. However as things stand, marketing folks and bean counters will no doubt advice that they pull out of the simulation market. I don’t think we will see MS back in this environment. And that is actually sad news.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #48 - Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 9:32am

Strategic Retreat Offline
Colonel
Wish people were less
idiotic as an average

Posts: 603

jetprop wrote on Aug 1^st, 2012 at 2:38pm:

FSX code rubbish?

Yes.

jetprop wrote on Aug 1^st, 2012 at 2:38pm:

The code is just too far ahead for todays machines,the code is one of the most expansive,look at the stuff we can do with FSX now!Can that be done in X-plane or etc?

Look, ALL you can say CAN'T change THE FACTS that FSX works fine enough NOW on VASTLY MORE powerful rigs than when it was born... but its NEVER CURED stability and compatibility problems that are STILL THERE in spite of the new hardware exist only BECAUSE its code is RUBBISH beyond any attempt of saving it.

Not to add that when you say that the code is "too far ahead" to me only seems a shameless excuse to justify the shoddy coding. A little like saying: "let's make a program that can be used only on SEVEN years from now hardware and THEN, to keep our asses out of danger, let's say our code is SO FINE and SO FAR AHEAD, it cannot be understood today nor maybe EVER by not enlightened people like us".

Let me guess, you don't find ANYTHING strange with the part among quotation marks written up above, do you?

Fact is: you like FSX? Use it freely. But try and make a favor to yourself and DO NOT BECOME BLIND TO THE FACTS.

As about your question, yes, it can be done on X-plane etc. Actually on X-plane etc you can do MORE, and without searching for workarounds. Don't knock it down in the name of parochialism unless you've tried it first, or you'll only be exposing yourself to ridicule. Tongue

There is no such a thing as overkill. Only unworthy targets.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #49 - Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 10:04am

jetprop Offline
Colonel
A freeware addict!
a chair infront of a monitor.

Posts: 1523

Strategic Retreat wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 9:32am:

jetprop wrote on Aug 1^st, 2012 at 2:38pm:

FSX code rubbish?

Yes.

jetprop wrote on Aug 1^st, 2012 at 2:38pm:

The code is just too far ahead for todays machines,the code is one of the most expansive,look at the stuff we can do with FSX now!Can that be done in X-plane or etc?

Look, ALL you can say CAN'T change THE FACTS that FSX works fine enough NOW on VASTLY MORE powerful rigs than when it was born... but its NEVER CURED stability and compatibility problems that are STILL THERE in spite of the new hardware exist only BECAUSE its code is RUBBISH beyond any attempt of saving it.

Not to add that when you say that the code is "too far ahead" to me only seems a shameless excuse to justify the shoddy coding. A little like saying: "let's make a program that can be used only on SEVEN years from now hardware and THEN, to keep our asses out of danger, let's say our code is SO FINE and SO FAR AHEAD, it cannot be understood today nor maybe EVER by not enlightened people like us".

Let me guess, you don't find ANYTHING strange with the part among quotation marks written up above, do you?

Fact is: you like FSX? Use it freely. But try and make a favor to yourself and DO NOT BECOME BLIND TO THE FACTS.

As about your question, yes, it can be done on X-plane etc. Actually on X-plane etc you can do MORE, and without searching for workarounds. Don't knock it down in the name of parochialism unless you've tried it first, or you'll only be exposing yourself to ridicule. Tongue

No need to get angry,god!
But FSX is stable on my machine,and its an acer so. Tongue

But I do not deny that FSX coding is well..unfinished.
But the base is good,look at software like A2A,PMDG,ORBX.
The thing is:FSX is expansive,new things are still being made even tough it's a relatively old sim!

And how on earth is all that stuff a 'workaround'?
It's just ingenious ways to make new stuff.

OH and also:name anything X-plane can do that FSX can't? Roll Eyes

(except model waves,wich I'm not sure is in X-plane either)

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #50 - Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 10:11am

Xpand Offline
Colonel
Expert on flying bricks.
Portugal

Gender:
Posts: 381

FSX's engine is perfect for its purpose. It's demise was the fact that it's very bad at using the multi-core systems. It only uses one of the cores at a time instead of using both. If you run it in a single core with the same power you'll see its true capabilities..

Up is the way to go.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #51 - Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 10:31am

Strategic Retreat Offline
Colonel
Wish people were less
idiotic as an average

Posts: 603