This is a perfect example of pleasing noone by trying to please everyone. It amazes me how a huge company like MS are idiotic enoguh to think you can casualise what is essentially the least casual genre ever.

You want my advice MS? Make a proper Flight Sim 11 with a great globe and improved modern graphics. Second: add alot of mission structure and tutorials and aids for new guys and girls to feel it's easy to get into.

Flight Simming is fun and not that hard: it's just a ridiculous initial learning curve and if you can make that super easy and then have loads of missions and campaigns after that I believe you can make a hugely successful flight sim.

Microsoft tried to destroy this community ,a community that wasn't intended to exist by them , instead of Join it and even be proud

  I said it It will last 6 month it last much less

a lot its being said in this part of the forum , many strangers came in and defend this "little game" with vehemence and even dear to said that it was better than FSX ,that it came to replace it (I read it so many times in MS site)

Many were kicked out of this site ,many insults and strong argues for what?

they thought they could control FS community with their cheats,manipulations and lies

I don't feel sorry for them? I feel sorry for the families and people in Denver Massacre, or many other who really are in disgrace in this world ,as for formers of MS Fraud ,they will find another job a more honorable one

Alex



 

alrot wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 8:31am:


Wow, ease up Alex. It wasn't really The Great Satan. It was just another example of how people employed at a big corporation can do really stupid, regrettable things. If you'll advance your career by telling your boss that "it's great" even though it's awful, well ... I think it's a common occurrence in "authority-driven hierarchies". Happens quite frequently, sorry to say.

Steve M wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 6:40pm:

exactly

, I'm sorry that I repeat some of my word I said about this Flight Game before

  I remember that one of the first thing which concern me was that this new game will offer his new SDK but using Maya Instead 3dmax/gmax ,I rememeber a long debate I said wow now I am going to have to learn Maya software how much it will cost ? this was a train of rumours maybe even dropped on purpose by the own M$ it self

  They started a lot of rumours on the internet ,and this is why you can actually see only the latest 2 was about AFTER it was released ,and this section of Flight has been almost frozzen about three months ago ,and It was release in February 10 and this part of the forum was open in September 20 aproximaly ,
More pages of Rumors 


ftldave wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 10:34am:
 

    Its not a great satan Satan Dave but lets faced some of their deal ,the invitation to the main FS websites webmasters and that whole art of manipulations involved ,the TOP super secret craps months before it releases ,the  the last lies about they would be releasing New York ,Alaska the rumours about that they were going to make the whole world ...to me the company was very dishonest ..the simple fact that No SDK Only we will make the airplanes and scenery ONLY we will win the whole money and grab the whole FS comunity makes me feel disapointed about this company ..

  I went back in this forum I INVITE EVERY ONE  to read this five pages of this part of the site,..
how many problems ,argues , The poor Strategic Retreat was call Microsoft hater and a lot of insult because he had a common sense point and was not to applause M$ ..

This whole Flight not the software The propaganda  has cause a damage to FS community ,I hope it recovers back ,I been in this a long time ago and I would be sad if it dissapears

  If I were M$ I would make the whole world again and like I read before make a new FS11 starting by LISTEN to FScommunity make a nice SDK and if it better than FSX or FS9 it would make more profit than Flight and maybe even more than FSX ,

to redeem themselves.. because at least I could never trust them anymore

Alex

Whilst I'm not going to pretend I'm sad about MS Flight dying or the Workers being laid off I am sad that so many members of this close-knit Forum had to go before Flight Died.

I'm still mourning the fact that BradonF & other long term members have pretty much left because of arguments over this stupid game (Flight).

No problem for me!... ...!

It was a short experience...
I gave it a try, it didn't really suit me, so, as usual, I am back to having loads of fun every day, with my trusty FS 2004 (and FSX).

It was free, so, nothing lost, for me... ...!

Paul... ....!

Microsoft will only continue to produce a flight sim if they think there is good money to be made off of the investment of time and resources.

I think with the difficulties presented by attempting FSX (taxing the crap out of people's systems so that there were nothing but complaints from the community for years) and the total flop that was "Flight".............. they are likely out of the flight sim biz.

I think what we are really waiting for is someone else to pick up the fumbled football.

best,

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

FLIGHT HAS DIED!!!
Ah the sweet taste of victory!
We can speculate what may happen in the future of flight sims, but honestly there are way to many curve balls out there. So lets just enjoy the fact that WE, the simming community, beat MS.

Since a lot has been said about Micosoft's failure creating Flight the way they did it (which I also see as a screw-up), I  applaud their decision to pull the plug early. Hopefully they rectify this and come up with a winning business model and set of solutions to fit what the market really wants

In my opinion, Flight failed because of three main reasons.

1.  No support for third party - The only reason that FS ever became half of what it is today is all of the freeware and payware developers. 

2.  Extremely limited geography - Not since the very early versions of FS were we limited to one area.  This was a huge leap in the wrong direction.  Whoever came up with this idea should be fired.

3.  Gameplay concept - MS abandoned its core set of FS users completely by making Flight nothing more than an arcade game.  After all the hype, all the suspense, all the preview screenshots, teasing all FS users, it was an absolute insult.  I can understand trying to broaden the range of users to sell more copies, but they should not have ignored the cult of FS users that have bought every version of their product over the last 20 years.

Honestly, I think this is the end of MS Flight Simulators.  I do hope something will replace it, but I doubt MS will.  All I have to do is walk through a gaming store to see that.  Years ago such stores were dominated with PC based games, there were dozens of different flight sims, driving sims, action games, etc.  Now the stores are mostly taken up with console based games, with few developers spending much time or money for PC.  My theory for this shift is because almost anyone can afford to buy the latest game console for a few hundred bucks, but it can easily cost a thousand or more for a decent gaming computer capable of running the latest software.

I'm sorry for the programmers that lost their jobs, but I wonder if the really high up bigwigs are looking at the dude that decided to trash the *simulation* aspect in favor of the *game* aspect, and taking the route they took, and are asking "What the H3LL were you thinking???"  Or, were the really high up bigwigs just as guilty of stuffing it?

i myself would be so proud if i came out with a product which resulted in a moderate profit, but enabled and encouraged 3rd party developers to challenge their creativity, to produce addons to enhance the product, and make a profit too if needed...kind of a balance of live for oneself and live for others....that to me was so nice about fsx...it created so so much more................correct me if i'm wrong.....

Well... that was quick...

pete wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 4:32pm:


True at so many levels.

best,

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

JBaymore wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 5:47pm:


Sadly enough, not only regarding software of any kind.

It still surprises me to hear that, even with Microsoft, money is ever an issue in producing a good product.

On the beta forums for MS Flight, there would be hourly topics where people were asking where the AI was, asking how to use the radios, asking how to skip the missions, asking how to make it more challenging.

They've also released a new DLC - The Carbon Cub... For like £7!

All in all, the game (with all its addons) comes to something crazy like £30-£50. FSX has more, for vastly less.


Yeah. They shot themselves in the foot and didn't notice their own pain. I liked Flight, until I realised that the beta was as complete as the full release. It looks nice, it can play nicely, but it's so dull. They could've easily made it suitable for the hardcore players as well as the newbies. They just didn't. Instead of trying to impress, they just cut down as much as possible.

If FS11 was as simple to use as FS9/FSX, but as detailed and as realistic as something like X-plane, it would've been great. Create 100% usable cockpits, and have TCAS/GWPS/virtual co-pilots, etc. It could've been a lot of fun, but still tamed for the new players.

Sad day, for them.

machineman9 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 11:17am:



remember this?

alrot wrote on Jan 20^th, 2012 at 3:25pm:


I was crying desesperatly  to tell you 

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


The thing all businesses, games, people - EVERYTHING - need to pay attention to -  is that if you piss people off - it will be public very soon. The internet is THE medium of today and it is 100% democratic. If people don't like something - it will soon be known. MS unfortunately have a built in arrogance after years at the top.

Flight was what it proved to be. Most here thought it from the outset. Some defended it - I suppose in optimism.

Looking at how we had to pay for every little bit of everything that barely matched the best of what FSX already had to offer in a tiny % of it's area - maybe it's best that Flight is gone -  so we can focus on what is still an absolute classic PC series - the

Flight Simulator Series

.

alrot wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 4:09pm:

No.
M$ doesn't give.

The cancellation of MS Flight is just another continuing chapter in the epic called The Slide of Microsoft.

Microsoft's in bad shape right now. They are a computer software company run by corporate executives that have no clue as to what and who their market is. Posting their first profit loss for a quarter in many years, they are scrambling to 'circle the wagons' and consolidate every bit of extraneous revenue possible. Flight is one of those casualties; a bastion of negative press that Microsoft could not continue to be associated with.

With all of the negative publicity surrounding Win 8 and its incompatibilities with legacy peripherals and software it is not surprising that the corporate mentality in Redmond is to 'cut, cut, cut' all of the fat while they can, run lean and sneaky, and hope they can ride out the storm for as long as possible. I would not be surprised if this trend continues, especially if the release of Win 8 falls flat.

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.

test

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.

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

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

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

jetprop wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 10:04am:


Not angry. Testy maybe, but angry not really.

And I'm not a god (yet).


jetprop wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 10:04am:


You're one of those lucky, then. Just read around and see for yourself how lucky you are.


jetprop wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 10:04am:


That's putting it REALLY mildly.



jetprop wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 10:04am:


Big deal. FSX can be expanded. You make it sound like it's a first. Must I remember you that FS9 preceded it by count of YEARS.


jetprop wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 10:04am:


The answer to this question is in the next quote.


jetprop wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 10:04am:


Let's then take FSX NOT MODIFIED with outside fighter gun packs. Let's take two P-51D with WORKING GUNS for FSX. Let's connect on peer2peer WITH FSX and have a slugfest IN FSX'S SKIES. I challenge you, Sir.

Crap. We can't do it, can we? FSX STANDARD just... can't.

With X-plane STANDARD, on the other hand, you only need to install the peer2peer module and choose the planes and the place for the slugfest.

Written above is a little known capability of X-plane (and I really do not understand why. Was X-plane something I had to advertise, I SURELY would emphasize this non shared by FS capability of it), almost an undocumented feature, but it's there for everyone to use.

I'm not denying anything FS9 has done!



Quote:


So you think it should all be done standard?
Well,then in that case FSX does indeed suck.

But what I mean is:they are still inventing new things for FSX,standard FSX does suck but look at it's capabilities!
Damage and wear,weapons,great weather systems,random stuff(I mean stuff like in accu-sim planes),cockpit shaking,enviourment sounds,high detail,you name it!It's all been done and who knows what will come next!

And I still don't understand why some people can't run FSX,I do know for one that some people think that FSX only looks good at high settings...
Not true.

This isn't meant angry or anything,just saying.

Strategic Retreat wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 10:35am:

Correction: Obsolete. The engine was built in the time where comercial multi-core computers were just starting to appear, so they couldn't have guessed how a recent multi-core system would work with the game. Many of the games/programs of the FSX development time period between 2004-2006 don't support multi-core systems as a whole, using only one of the cores. 

I said it because many users reported that, when they tested the CPU charge while running FSX, only one of the cores was actually contributing to the performance while the other was practially at idle. This happened with me as well..
But the FSX engine is far from rubbish, I remember one of the guys from ORBX saying it had the best "far-horizon rendering engine" even today and a good multi tasking capability.

Strategic Retreat wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 6:58pm:

Well.
You say you aren't wanting to push someone into not using FSX while everywhere in your post you say that FSX is rubbish.

I am not going on about how FSX code isn't rubbish  because otherwise this discusion is going to go on forever and we don't want to get offtopic do we?

But this is what I see:
FSX is for those who have the patience to tweak it and hone it to perfection,its a jewel then.

FS9 is for people who want a straight out sim,wich doens't need tweaking but still looks good but not amazing.
If you do tweak FS9 it does get amazing,sometimes near FSX quality.

This is all I am saying.

Oh and if someone DOES say flight is perfect then I will join you on the visit.

jetprop wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 3:54pm:


It's a matter of freedom of choice and freedom of being able of naming what you know as rubbish as such.

I don't keep you from yours. Please, return the favor.


jetprop wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 3:54pm:


If you have a CONCRETE argument against my naming it rubbish, bring it forward. And yes, we are off topic, but this part of the forum is destined to an early demise and sloooow traffic, so I don't think we'd be scolded too harshly.

Mind you, a CONCRETE argument is not one that bases itself on personal tastes or impressions. It has to be objectively verifiable.


jetprop wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 3:54pm:


You sir have a scale of values that is something else.

If you pass me this metaphor; I don't buy a car to fiddle with the engine, the steering, the suspension and all the other mechanical and/or electrical parts when I want it to go. If I buy a car, this MUST allow me to do a school run with my kids or to go in vacations in these days without me having to stop every 10Km to rewire something, or use duct tape (which is shockingly expensive here in Italy, by the way) on the bumper right after any time we hit a bit of rough road.

The same, in kind, applies to any end-user software I use.

Of course, I believe that each and any of you MUST BE FREE to buy a LADA, or a NSU Prinz, or whatever, and pass the rest of your automotive days on the hard shoulder of a road in wait to find a way to make your car move again. I am NOT denying ANYONE this freedom, if it makes you happy.

I prefer my car to bring me where I want and back with as little as possible to no fuss, though, spending as little fuel as possible and cuddling me with warmed air from the heater when outside is too cold and air conditioned when outside is too hot. And in the name of the same above exposed beliefs of freedom of choice, I will make my choices accordingly.

Be this clear, it was a metaphor. Not starting to speak about cars now.


jetprop wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 3:54pm:


FS9 was looking default FSX good with the support of freeware AND payware add-ons already by he time FSX came around...


jetprop wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 3:54pm:


Fair enough.


jetprop wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 3:54pm:


Good. Should it happen, remember to wear boots, better if with reinforced tip for maximum damage, army boots are good too if you don't have those. Wellingtons are the minimum requirement, should you don't have any of the two other and preferred kind of boots.


wahubna wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 4:19pm:


Cease and desist any hoping in the matter, friend. M$ had chosen a way with Flight. That way was WRONG, anyone with a brain could see it, but what Flight was, was not a simulator or a game. It was merely a way for M$ to squeeze easy money out of their chosen cash cows (us), had it worked.

We didn't give them the hoped for easy money. We didn't make their scam work (I'm using for it the name I feel appropriate in describing what Flight was, if you don't like it... tough).

We sank their dear Flight with absolute prejudice, and I'm still celebrating.

I don't think they will be so gracious to give us the software we'd like in exchange.

As I said,I am not going to say anything.

But what I am going to say is:
My FSX runs on medium-low(for some) FPS but it looks great,and I have an acer PC.

That is all I am going to say in this topic because otherwise this will go on for ages.

Steve M wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 5:44pm:


No! Anything BUT that!

Ode to Flight's demise:

Flight, oh Flight...

May your wretched soul NEVER find any kind of rest nor peace, you ill-conceived, inbred, bloated, plagued, piece of organic waste in form of a PC software...

May you be reborn in the form of a pig, Flight, only to be slaughtered as one. And then may your flesh be found being infected by mad cow plague and immediately incinerated in a blast furnace...

May then you be reborn as a beetle, Flight, and may the thing you want to do BEFORE reproducing and as soon you finally learn to fly, in your first flight in fact, is to cross a motorway on which someone comes by barreling on a nicked, full throttle Bugatti Veyron SS... the impact with its windscreen hurts and harms you A LOT, but you're still alive and fully cognizant that the force of the impact makes you ricochet into the path of a landing airplane... and especially of one of its hungry, hungry turbines that sucks you into its high pressure stages where you are introduced to a new definition of pain before being incinerated...

May you then and for the last time ever be reborn a dolphin, Flight, and end up, last of that species before a worldwide ban is put into act, as SUSHI...

...and together with you, the idiots that wanted to create you. FLIGHT.

...

It does transpire just a little my unbound, visceral hatred for Flight, in the words above, doesn't it?

Keep It Simple wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 3:56pm:


Agree with nothing you say.

Interest in aviation is huge globally.
FS was the longest running PC entertainment in history and with no drop in following.

The problem is that MS was the holder of the license. They think short term (year end figures)

It doesn't by ANY means mean that the interest in simulated flight on a computer devise has gone away. It is here and it is big. It just isn't being met properly by any company right now. Lockheed Martin own the license now. They are not a softare company but at least they have the bucks to follow it for fun without being anal about a mil here and there.

Let's just see what happens. .......... & as a side point we are busier than we have ever been. More downloads and page views per day than ever. I suspect the rest of the FS world is the same. I look at it every day and think 'WOW!!'

Keep It Simple wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 6:48pm:

I think he means that there is still interest so new sims will still be made,by who,noone knows,X-plane maybe?

Keep It Simple wrote on Aug 25^th, 2012 at 2:17pm:


Well, there's always FlightGear, to say.

It has suffered greatly for the inattention of the mainstream users up until now, and if it MUST become the anti-X-plane, to generate competition and keep everyone on their toes, better someone begins to understand its working and get some add-on for it out.

Keep It Simple wrote on Aug 25^th, 2012 at 2:17pm:


The issue has EVERYTHING to do with the public's interest in BUYING flight simulations.  MONEY.   That is what drives the production of such new software (unless it is a government military kind of program).

To invest in this, an investor/company has to see the PAYBACK.  If the R.O.I. is not there........ why do it?

We are involved for the "love" of the hobby.  Programmers write code for their paychecks.  Programmers are hired by companys and given a paychek to make money for the company that hired them.  Which projects the programmers get to wrk on is decided by the marketing people by which offering will make the most money for the given paychecks given out.

Simple.

best,

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

BRAVO!!! Well put Strategic!! Very well put!!! I couldn't agree more!!