Microsoft Flight

[sungsam]

Not an insult, but aggression yes. Remind you the infinite wisdom of mine. Any way not a big deal.

 

Well, assume for e.g. the possibility of Microsoft had contracted some agreements with big OEM builders on delivering an OS to their new PC models. OEM builders had paid licensing for this. Development matters back at M$ delay the final product, market time window became to narrow bla bla bla ....

 

I don't know if it really happened like this! But we have witnessed this scenario to many times in software market. Then the tactics are continuous updates to face glitch/bug/performance etc as you also said.

 

For me Vista gave the impression of an unfinished work! Vista was unreasonably heavy like a not optimised engine, not to mention instability matters. The boosted performance, stability and minimal updates of W7 proves it to me.

 

I don't know.... that's the feeling I have about the story. I may be wrong.

Edited September 30, 2010 by sungsam

[Bearitall]

Not an insult, but aggression yes. Remind you the infinite wisdom of mine. Any way not a big deal.

 

Well, assume for e.g. the possibility of Microsoft had contracted some agreements with big OEM builders on delivering an OS to their new PC models. OEM builders had paid licensing for this. Development matters back at M$ delay the final product, market time window became to narrow bla bla bla ....

 

I don't know if it really happened like this! But we have witnessed this scenario to many times in software market. Then the tactics are continuous updates to face glitch/bug/performance etc as you also said.

 

For me Vista gave the impression of an unfinished work! Vista was unreasonably heavy like a not optimised engine, not to mention instability matters. The boosted performance, stability and minimal updates of W7 proves it to me.

 

I don't know.... that's the feeling I have about the story. I may be wrong.

 

Okay, glad you see I was not trying to insult you...

 

Like I said earlier Vista was to be a full Launch..with updates along the way, but the many failures of it...made MS turn a different direction..and stripped it down to scratch and then developed " Win7 " and in actual fact " Win7 " is a patch to " Vista " but enough of that..just glad to see MS come back to the Flight Sim Community...cheers...:thumbup:

[aaron886]

Wow, another rendered scene. Impressive. Just build it for console, don't even bother putting this on PC, Micro$oft.

[mikoyan]

ok;can you guys explain to me what is the fsx fiasco?

To me fsx is not that bad; it is an upgrade over flight simulator 2004; I can't run it smoothly on my computer; but the same happened to me when flight simulator 2004 was released.

[power5]

ok;can you guys explain to me what is the fsx fiasco?

To me fsx is not that bad; it is an upgrade over flight simulator 2004; I can't run it smoothly on my computer; but the same happened to me when flight simulator 2004 was released.

 

Most can not. Hence the fiasco.

 

I believe Win7 can have all its beauty turned off so it looks more like XP. From what I have read, win7 is much smarter than xp. It utilizes dormant ram to cache programs that you typically use at certain times. My computer is on all the time, so when I get home from work and fire up hulu or firefox as usual, win 7 has already anticipated that and cached it. So, it loads quicker. No idea how much faster of course but I do not care. I think I could survive without this feature, as my life is not so busy that I can not wait .5 sec longer for internet access. But just one of the things it does that xp does not. All FPS testing I have ever done shows more FPS in win7 with aero than vista and xp though.

 

Oh, and those 2 videos on flight site are worthless.

[Steel Jaw]

FSX is junk without quality payware add-ons, and those add-ons choke the fastest pcs.

[sungsam]

To me MSFS series are only for flight experiance until now. You can not generate a combat enviroment, etc. Others dont bother with that. Others consider this aspect higly important.

Edited October 1, 2010 by sungsam

[shu77]

To me MSFS series are only for flight experiance until now. You can not generate a combat enviroment, etc. Others dont bother with that. Others consider this aspect higly important.

 

I agree, until you can do something other than fly from a to b its essentially a bus driving sim with pretty planes

[Stretch]

Run the FSX missions, from beginner to expert, and tell me it's a bus-driving sim. A bus-driving sim where you can't see 200 feet in front of you, your bus has one engine out, a vacuum failure, and there's ice creeping onto everything.

[aaron886]

Run the FSX missions, from beginner to expert, and tell me it's a bus-driving sim. A bus-driving sim where you can't see 200 feet in front of you, your bus has one engine out, a vacuum failure, and there's ice creeping onto everything.

 

I got tired of the childishness after just a few. I felt like I was being herded around like a kid at his first day of school. Canned little "missions" in a flight simulator is the silliest thing... the point isn't to "do missions," it's to create your own experience using the simulator as a springboard. My favorite "mission" involved flying a helicopter through magical glowing hoops in the sky.

"Missions" are what you do in friggin Pokemon. Y'know what, how about they just call em "quests" in Microsoft Flight. Problem solved!

 

 

 

Here's my beef with MSFS/FSX as a simulator. (Missions are for games.) They didn't do the basics.

 

-The graphical engine is sloppy and hugely inefficient. (Ugly unless you have an amazing PC.)

-The network code is totally laughable.

-3rd party flight models are typically a joke, although the best payware developers can do some amazing things. (I point this largely at fast jets and aerobatic aircraft... it's not so much of a challenge to create an FM for an airliner.)

 

Mower's right by the way... the quality in FSX comes almost solely from the community.

[Grimes]

I kinda liked the missions built into FSX. I thought they were useful to try and push players to try something new within the game. For me, the FS series has always been difficult to grasp. I have no idea why anyone would want to fly from London to New York in real time within the game. I just can't figure that out. Generally speaking 80% of the time I spent in FSX was doing the built in missions or training. The other 20% was occasionally picking some part of the world and just flying around checking everything out. Sure some of the missions were abit on the silly side of things, I'd argue that most of them were geared toward the young teens demographic. Yet they did serve an overall purpose of showing what is built into the game.

[Python]

FSX is junk without quality payware add-ons, and those add-ons choke the fastest pcs.

 

I would agree with this. The only ingame feature's i use regularly are the missions, red bull air races and the F-18 which iv heavily moded, better hud, sound pack and clear glass so i can actually see where im flying now. There are some amazing addons about however which if FSX wasn't so broken in the first place would make FSX amazing!! unfortunately even my decent system wount run basic FSX to my satisfaction never mind FSX with REX and various photographic sceneries etc, shame really as i actually love FSX overall...

 

I agree, until you can do something other than fly from a to b its essentially a bus driving sim with pretty planes

 

Well some people like that, most of my FSX time is spent using FSRecorder to try and perfect my formation flying which is my main interest, trying to fly a 9 ship formation with the Skysim Hawk is quite a challenge and great fun. Failing that i would load up Javier Fernandez's amazing Freeware Nimitz and try to land on the damn thing, not always successful but again, always great fun. Not everybody want's to learn the ins and outs of radar and weapons operation etc all the time, when i crave that i shal go to DCS:A10 :) When i fancy a quick 20 min fun flight, Il jump into my F-16 on FSX and pull some G's...

 

I kinda liked the missions built into FSX. I thought they were useful to try and push players to try something new within the game.

 

I completely agree, while i found some of the helicopter missions infuriating (is it just me or are the heli flight models awfull in FSX??) i liked the missions alot in FSX, they improved my overall experience in the sim a great deal. Giving a general a tour of Edwards one minute, ans chasing Aliens ovber Area 51 in an F-18 the next was great fun for me and showed that FSX didnt take its self too seriously.... If microsoft flight Is FSX all over again but in working condition with better scenery and new missions i would be a happy chap.

[Steel Jaw]

Fired up FSX again. Here's what I have:

 

GEX

REX2

UTX

PMDG

FSDream airports

RC4

 

All needed to make FSX what it ought to be.

 

FPS on my system, 15 tops.

 

FSX is an EPIC FAILURE

[empeck]

FSX is an EPIC FAILURE

 

Yes, we know you don't like it. You've said it already few times in this thread only.

[coolts]

Atmosphere is what most flight Sims lack. Most devs come from either an aviation / technical background which is completely understandable in the industry, and can therefore model the aerodynamics and flight model given enough time and funds. The problem is, what do you do then? You have a great engine, great models, funky lighting, realistic airports, and all the guns.

 

Entertainment is another matter. It’s all about the stories you tell, and the entire videogames industry is going through immense and accelerated growing pains and only beginning to realise that it’s now bigger than Hollywood in terms of revenue but is still wearing short pants in terms of pacing, immersion and storytelling.

 

After I’ve flown a great sim or played a great game I am left with stories. How missions unfolded unexpectedly, how a seemingly innocuous enemy gave me the fight of my life, how I limped back to base on fumes after saving the day…….

 

If “Microsoft Flight” can catch some of that, then I will buy it. But it’s not easy. Wings did it, Wing Commander did it, Falcon did it, (eventually and in spite of itself), [insert fave Flight Sim here], hell, Civilization does it again and again. Letting you tell stories, making you part of it. The Sim devs need writers. Deus Ex, Bioshock, DCS: Why not?

 

It’s more than an engine and some planes. It’s sitting round the camp fire with friends and a beer.

 

Its lightning in a bottle and i want some! :D

Edited October 1, 2010 by coolts

[Steel Jaw]

Yes, we know you don't like it. You've said it already few times in this thread only.

 

What's your point?

 

Better yet, what's your opinion/

[empeck]

My point is that you are repeating the same thing over and over ;)

 

My opinion? I like FSX. It's true, I can't run it full sliders right, but I'm quite happy with it's performance.

 

Why I like it? Because it's the only simulator beside DCS that simulates an aircraft's systems and engines to the point that satisfy myself. I have few 3rd party aircrafts and fly them exclusively (A2A Accusimed planes, C-130, Superbug).

 

Because it's the best simulator out there to practise carrier take offs and landing. With freeware HTR it's one of the best helicopter simulations, right after Black Shark. And it's the best simulator I can make my own planes for it. :)

[PeterP]

:)

 

Mower understands only Black and White.

Why you answering with a Grey?! :D

Edited October 1, 2010 by PeterP

[aaron886]

...Superbug...

 

Just want to say one thing about that VRS Superbug... just because it's detailed, doesn't mean it's accurate. :noexpression:

[Python]

Just want to say one thing about that VRS Superbug... just because it's detailed, doesn't mean it's accurate. :noexpression:

 

I thought it was meant to be pretty accurate by FSX standards, is it not?? I have been itching to buy this one for a while now...

[aaron886]

I thought it was meant to be pretty accurate by FSX standards, is it not?? I have been itching to buy this one for a while now...

 

 

Sure, by FSX standards. The systems modeling is fairly nice. The flight model is a little lacking at the upper limits... I think the designers got the wrong idea of what high alpha capability means. :megalol:

 

Try a maximum deflection pull at 500 KIAS... you'll be facing the opposite direction in a half a second.

[empeck]

I know it's not 100% accurate. But try to find another F/A-18E to fly on my PC ;)

Edited October 2, 2010 by empeck

[aaron886]

I know it's not 100% accurate. But try to find another F/A-18E to fly on my PC ;)

 

I'd say you're right. Doesn't stop me from wanting more accuracy! :)

[sungsam]

I bet you already Know this, but just in case you don't, there is also this F18 development efford ... http://www.seveng-f18.com/

 

[empeck]

I know about Seven-G, I had 1.03 version. Can't wait for full release.