Flight for free

[solid]

Yes, because flying an aircraft while trying to shoot down another one is obviously so much more of a game than just trying to fly an aircraft.

They're all games, just because you don't blow something up doesn't mean it's a serious mature simulator. Real simulators have about 100x the system modelling even FSX is capable of and about 1/10th the graphics detail. You still don't catch on fire when you die though.

I know about "real simulators" amigo, I flew the real sky for 16 years...thanks anyway.

 

[cscboulder11]

PMDG has released their musings on Flight.

 

[jtanabodee]

Are there any possibility to turn Flight AppStore into an new Simmarket that freewares and payware can be sold through them?

 

[arno]

Are there any possibility to turn Flight AppStore into an new Simmarket that freewares and payware can be sold through them?

We don't know exactly until MS tells us . But if you read what PMDG and Orbx are saying now I think the payware community is not really interested and the signals now are that freeware might not be allowed at all.

 

[Tejal Bernardo]

I'm really worried, could be the last scenery I released it's why they took so drastic decision ? I feel like guilty

 

[jtanabodee]

Thanks Arno for your reply.
Let's see how far the new "Flight" can go without freeware and payware.
May be it has backward compatibility.

 

[lionheart]

I'm really worried, could be the last scenery I released it's why they took so drastic decision ? I feel like guilty

lololol..

I doubt it. I think its me! They freaked when they saw my electric plane and immediately decided to take out add-ons..

 

[amahran]

Well one thing is certain with Microsoft markets: When they sell DLC, they don't allow anyone to sell anything that might compete with them.

I could be wrong though, but I'm quite reliable in most cases (not really )

Though one thing I found funny was the ESRB rating on Flight's website
"Crude Humor and Mild Violence"

Come to think of it, what crude humor or violence can a game about flying planes around Hawaii possibly have?

 

[robystar]

The ESRB rating was probably translating the reaction of most of us in a subtle way.

 

[Heretic]

I've finally registered at the FlightGear forums yesterday. Could have been a (flightsim-)life altering decision.

 

[Computermensch]

Well, let me have a go at this.

First too bad you guys removed some of that stuff written at the time about MS Flight. It covered the SDK. Microsoft did hire developers to do a SDK. There were quotes from the adds to back that up. So those adds for SDK developers are in these forums in a closed thread.

My reason for writting at the time was to try and push for something good to happen. I mean - FS was always about the business BTS (behind the scenes), practially speaking not the algos - but the content.

I came out of a project going from FSX to "Prepar3D" (ESP 1.0). At the time somebody wanted us to find out, whether the content in FSX could i.e. be "replayed" using i.e. fraps and video-sync for static projections instead of projecting rendering using flight data (their reason was really to sell their own video-player engine).

But you can not do that - and I got it confirmed by MS. The content in FSX and ESP - even though the later can be commercially deployed, have only been licensed for FSX or ESP (Prepar3D).

So there you go. If we had continued talks we would probably have stumbled across this one ... what happened legally when FSX was put down and MS Flight - a new product came along?

No content anymore - at least for MS Flight? That bureaucrazy in FS was build over a long time.

Now imagine MS coming out to redo those deals for MS Flight? For a wider audience or that is potentially a bigger market? So how should the payment be to syndicators or makers of scenery's wrapped up inside that package? The syndicators would probably try to get a static royalty or a perhaps a better deal than on FSX. And you have the finansial cricis going on probably increasing the "need to bill you". And people are may be still greedy?

So when the software framework is done it's all suddenly about the business of content for everybody. May be even those companies coming out with statements about NDA's claiming they can not tell what happened?

Microsoft skipped MPEG4 for Windows and replaced it with VC9. And similar in other situations. I.e Windows 7 did not get support for Blu-ray for similar reasons. They are not taking dictates about the pricing.

All speculation on my side- but want to print it now, just in case. Just one of those things that hit my brain when I read those rumors about no SDK. It just doesn't add up.

So there you go ... just one kind of story about the business side and what could have happened. NDA's works both ways - and apparently they were trying to negotiate.

May be the some of lawyers made a mistake due to all the complexity - the huge quantity of licensed content in FSX.

May be "wider audience" means mr. and mrs. Smith playing pilots in those "Red Bull" like missions - which will probably extend to something more interesting for us. But hey, those newcomers have to "learn to fly" first.

And may be "wider audience" means just "wider audience" and we as enthusiast were always supposed to go with Prepar3D. It's not like Prepar3D is only Lockheed - it's also Microsoft getting a buck - since they licensed FSX/ESP to Lockheed and may be the syndicated content deals as well followed along. Those deals were not made for Flight, right?

May be Microsoft is just working out it's new "flight for all" business. I.e. the fremium business model just sounds to me like the legacy "Illinois" or "Hawaii" demo - but without a time constraint. However, constrainted to just that flying around Hawaii. Smalll loads of scenery may be fits with "XBox live" kind of concepts on the mobile or ARM's. You can play anywhere - if you want.

Probably on a PC it will scale up - if content becomes available. BUT THAT'S UP TO THE SYNDICATORS NOW? Put it in the store.

So will it be a certification program like for Metro apps. Sure you need to have licensed stuff yourself for Microsoft to distribute it for you. It has to be legal, right? You need to own every piece of graphics or have the right to use it. I.e. if fsdevelopers could start up a public domain license or use LGPL or similar - it could may be work. Try and read the certifications requirements for upcoming Win8 Metro apps. Gives an idea.

So may be the tables turned and syndicators or scenery makers now have to put it online, take the standard pricing and may be partition their products to fit such a programme reseting pricing - and fullfill all legal, technical and business requirements in a deal. Microsoft as a sort of publishing company in this Windows live game service can be responsbile.

Another thing is the aircraft from ICON? Is that part of a new business model? ICON does ultra light. I.e. if you were to migrate from inexpensive flight to less expensive flight you would sure want to go with ultra light. So while MS generates interest for all towards the next ambition, i.e. ultra light flight, may be ICON will pay a buck for that? I.e. if they sell more planes? Or ICON can offer rebates based on your score in Flight and may be like wise for certificates. Just wondering about the "deal" with ICON - especially pushing the ultra light aircraft. I.e. I would rather fly a boeing or may be just for nostalgy the Cessna. But the Cessna just got downsized to an ultra light. Interesting "choice of business" for the game.

In the end may be it is just about getting perceived as an unrestricted "demo" out there - which in turn supports "thin" (small form) or thick" (PC) migrations towards extended game play ("content" extensions as you go). Not only technically with data but also extends business wise in terms of content including the deal side as well. Let's see what happens. It's all runtime and we'vr got dynamic binding. You can just push the decisions. It's just a project. If critics are right, we just change the stuff.

Anyone who deploys also submits to the game. Where will it go. Nobody knows.

You put out the basic package and the whole integrated experience of Windows Live or cloud also you to develop both the game and its business as you go. That's real cloud computing.

So everybody is holding their breath. In the old days somebody who call you and say - hey, we used to know each other, right? My airport gets in again, right? And this time - you know, because of the perceived broader market for the product, I want some deal upfront.

So everybody is holding their breath. Because it a new day. Variables not only in technicalities. But also the business. Nobody will get a buck upfront. They will have to sell their stuff in a professional context.

So for everybody out there. Let's hope to get that SDK and those cert requirements.

Then take a look at your stuff. Or somebody elses stuff? Can it be done - fixing the legal problems with FSX content if it where to be automatically mass distributed from one online service in the world?

Could we write a public domain or lgpl license (commercial potential), that people could start using to make what we all want possible. Make such license for part or elements (not planes or scenerys) part of the FS community. So there will be lots of legal addons for flight simulators.

Anyway - engineers were hired to do the SDK. So if the SDK, certification requirements (i.e. legality) does not come out - it some business problem that occured I think.

But I can't really see how. But the big news when the SDK comes out will be, that when you get syndicated with MS Flight you're not just an independent add-on - you're kind of part of the package. Just ads if you had been wrapped up inside the box and you're software was on the DVD. So no legal problems with graphics elements and claims.

If licensed reuse of i.e. graphics is any problem - and this is not about sharing us with Lockheed, I think yeah ... that was the reason for pullling the SDK.

But the patient. My hope is - not to be affected to much by this and also wait for the business model to evole for this new game in cloud. It's all new.

Eventually if it becomes too good - nobody would be talking Prepar3D as a point in the future but about "hacking" into MS Flight. That always happens. It happened with i.e. open source API's for Kinect. Now Kinect will be part of the PC experience in Windows 8.

 

[Mr.FaosFX]

Wow...I missed a lot while I was out on my move. I hope it works out for them but to be honest, when they kicked developers out they killed this title for sure.

I will download and try it out. Will I invest any more money into it...definitely not but that could change overtime.

I think that we should all forget Flight and just stick to what we do best. Making add ons with what we have and know it works.

This has commercial failure written all over it, I hate to be negative but that is what it looks like.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

 

[hairyspin]

Move along people, nothing happening here. Go back to your lives.

'Religious' considerations apart, this is just business. MS apparently want a slice of any additions to Flight, whoever might make them and they are entitled to build the thing that way if they please.

It's still a free market. Should an SDK eventually appear we can decide to join their business model if we want - or not. The only people who must reckon with this business decision are Microsoft themselves. It's ironic really, this might extend sales of FSX for years to come and prolong FS9's useful life!

There's a lot of sudden interest in Prepar3D too, but correct me if I'm wrong - isn't L-M licenced by MS to use the code for non-entertainment purposes? So however they might like to develop for the public flightsim market (us) they are constrained to keep to the military, training and educational sectors. MS's lawyers will play hardball if L-M break their licence terms.

From their home page:-

Training meets reality with Lockheed Martin’s Prepar3D® simulation software. Private pilots, commercial organizations, militaries and academia rely on Prepar3D for immersive, experiential learning.

 

[n4gix]

Two points:

1. MS will need an SDK even if only for their own in-house modelers/gauge programmers/scenery designers, etc.
2. John Nichol of L-M has made it crystal clear that "everyone" is welcome to purchase a license. L-M is not in the business of monitoring the client's ethics or their moral decisions.

 

[lionheart]

My thoughts are this. I do not think alot of people are going to pay $500.00 USD for a sim for just playing around flying (a hobby), though I am sure some will be able to afford it, most will not.

It is great though that P3D is there. Awesome.

 

[n4gix]

My thoughts are this. I do not think alot of people are going to pay $500.00 USD for a sim for just playing around flying

That "anyone" includes those who only license the $10/mo dev version.

 

[dmaher]

My thoughts are this. I do not think alot of people are going to pay $500.00 USD for a sim for just playing around flying (a hobby), though I am sure some will be able to afford it, most will not.

It is great though that P3D is there. Awesome.

Lionheart, I think you're right. I can't even afford P3D myself for the foreseeable future.
The P3D market will be considerably smaller IMO – more engaged but smaller.
That will translate to even smaller development budgets for add-ons - if you hope to recover what you invest.
And that’s no small feat in FSX’s larger market.

 

[lionheart]

Lionheart, I think you're right. I can't even afford P3D myself for the foreseeable future.
The P3D market will be considerably smaller IMO – more engaged but smaller.
That will translate to even smaller development budgets for add-ons - if you hope to recover what you invest.
And that’s no small feat in FSX’s larger market.

Absolutely. You 'could' do it, but you would have to off-set your costs, raising them up 10X or more; instead of $40.00 USD for a model, it would need to be $1,000.00 USD for a model to get back your investment and I doubt people will do this, I doubt you would even get your money back, as the total number of sims would be so much smaller in comparison.


Not good.

It works with high numbers.

 

[Computermensch]

Web services are a different thing and the business models are still very new and rather unknown expect for revenue on adds. The freemium business model for building initial interest has also come into play - may be in the light of adds revenue.

However, for games or similar, buying adds seem like the way to go. It worked well for docomo that made up the initial pricing when mobile took of in Japan at the begining of this century while Europe stock on the "WAP" spec. Prices in Japan was like a monthly subscription for new content. However in the games its static - you buy i.e. a license to use a scenery and pay once. But the similar thing is, the price has to be low while you go for more selling. The games "app store" is an international market or has the most broad potential.

So how many publishers or syndicators of digital content for one game can there be when digital distribution is inherent to deployment in IT services? Just one point of service, right? So that challenges the whole value chain. However, one way to go could be if some previous distributors will take on the challenge of packaging studio content for distribution.

I still prefer buying professional quality for FSX - we all tried downloading the freeware - I'm thinking aricraft or scenerys now. Some free scenerys are known for having a high quality - i.e. scenery Denmark that is an organized project with several developers on it. The real challange for these developers will be how to share revenue or credit when publishing through the service point. If its just freeware no problem I guess. In terms of certification or software being allowed to be distributed many of those freeware projects are already concerned with original content because of their size - and many developers among them are graphics artists as well - and lately they have also been concerned with professional packaging i.e. deployment - for instance going to msi - although the deployment container may be a bit different in the Windows Live Games concept.

I think Microsoft should be more open towards the development community instead of allowing rumors based of gut feeling to build up right now. But they will come forward in a few days I am sure.

I think it will be ok - and we're all invited on this. The other stuff does not resemble Microsoft - but being scared )

Anyway, considering Prepar3D stuff would be a nice move. Again the business model is great for industrial syndication. It's variable. You pay a very low subscription per month and get access.

The move with Lockheed separated the concerns of the business. Prepar3D will try and open the market towards immersive experiences for avaition professionals and the aviation industry. FSX and previous FS packages were used unlicensed. Some cleaning up to do. And there is nothing like Prepar3D. It's an incredible offer for the industry. Microsoft never manage to open that market. So let's hope Lockheed wil help them discover the potential. There are just about too and many in the business including pilots knows about FS and its value.

With MS Flight its about opening the market towards consumers.

FS was somewhat in between. I.e. I had to add a component for flight data using the SDK in ESP (FSX). It should be there natively for professional use in Prepar3D - so we donøt have to extend the infrastructure, but can focus on writing and configuration of applications.

>>MS will need an SDK even if only for their own in-house modelers/gauge programmers/scenery designers, etc.
Sure.

>>There's a lot of sudden interest in Prepar3D too, but correct me if I'm wrong - isn't L-M licenced by MS to use the code for non-entertainment purposes? So however they might like to develop for the public flightsim market (us) they are constrained to keep to the military, training and educational sectors. MS's lawyers will play hardball if L-M break their licence terms.

It was about open the market towards the aviation industry. Lockheed is already in that market. Lockheed licensed the code base and probably content (i.e. sceneries because those deals are contained inside ESP 1.0?) and some of the developers too I guess. Microsoft receives revenue from Lockheed probably based on sales? It will take time to get it going.

As somebody else wrote the developer license is just 10$/month. When I developed in 2010 for ESP we had to get an MSDN subscription or dev license and pay like 600$ to just download ESP 1.0. And we had too - so we did.

Concerning the license for production use Lockheed halfed the price. Isn't it almost down to $500? With MS the ESP 1.0 license was around $1000.
And the major airline company in Europe we worked for considered that a bargain. The project was around 1.2 million us dollars. Because somebody had spend most of the money of doing the animations themselves i.e. using an Apple render farm there were almost no money left - and what they made were low quality and static compared to the dynamic rendering engine in ESP or FSX. I.e. all the effects could be achieved by configurations and virtualization. So an incredible offer of supreme high value for the aviation industry.

That's also why I don't understand the fuss about Prepar3D or not in this community? It's a nobrainer. You already got the skills. Lockheed is offering a partner program. The catch is it is about doing projects with the aviation industry. BUT THATS FUN. Real use. Real flying. Real requirements. Real money - not just a 1$ download. More like starting around $100.000 if cheap. Not for the software but partipating in working out the quality of the solution. In that case its like system or solution development. In case of Prepar3D it's just a platform of choice. The best stuff in Prepar3D (or for that matter FSX/ESP) is that it is not only the dynamic or virtual rendering of interactions between objects in the environment - but also the multiscreen feature. I hooked up 18 screens using graphics expansion (matrox) to one workstation! Immersive professional avaition experience in Prepar3D. No problem.

Sure hope MS Flight can do that to. Or we can sell immersive consumer experiences using Prepar3D for consumers willing to pay a bit more - i.e. using stick's, throttles, projects etc. meaning ready to invest more anyway. Then lets build a cheaper solution for them.

Why not have some "flying level" in between "MS Flight" (novice/gamers/for fun) and ICON A5 Ultra light (ambitious for real flying - but priced for mr and mrs smith)? That could be a kit halfing the price of coming into ultra light flight - and best of all the maintenance cost is down to zero. You don't have to fly hours to keep your certificate.

We should work as a "studio" to apply our skills in an organized way beyond just meeting up in forums. Think about what happened to the open source development of for instance XBMC. Let's organize a bit more and take full use.

More pocket money may be in fair sharing - but also working more with how the solutions should be packaged. That's already what most of us do. Changing the product quality to what is should have been in different applications, i.e. when flying around Denmark to take that case I know. Also many of those simmers discuss hardware configurations, photorealism and other equipment. And everybody wants a home cockpit.

I wrote that too in the "now removed pages" about MS Flight. The center role is being the pilot. So is it fun to fly "red bull" like activities? Is it fun to fly rescue missions. May be - if it's close to realistic. So that's the primary concern of many coming into this sort of "game" or simulation experience really. I want broad horisontal view and less vertical - or something like a real canopy. May be immersive using VR. I want the sticks and controls. May be MFD with buttons around. I want a home cockpit. I want actuators. I want complete photrealism. I'll buy the hardware I need to run it.

When that's done - and I get bored with flying around - then may be I'll fly a rescue mission.

So thats it. Precedence order:

"Realistic flying first - that's the fun thing". I was a novice once and what made we go FS was the optiions for realism. Nothing else. Missions has always been around including other games. But I could not get realism elsewhere in multiple dimensions: sky, photography, aircraft, handling, traffic and so on.

Second comes "I just want to fly - but flying is not fun, so I want to play a game instead". If so I just start up an existing flying game. There are hundreds. I left them to play FS.

If MS Flight become one of those then may be the guys recruited for new FS was not interested themselves in flying. The strange thing is that MS is promising MS Flight as a cheaper alternative to real flight. But it's just a boring game now? I saw those trailer videos - looks really boring to me.

I had a guy come to my apartment recently. His a skiier, cycler and likes experiences. Experiences sell today. People here have started giving experiences for christmas now fed up with materials. Well he looked at my setup with several screens including MFDs - a scrap prototype setup for my upcoming home cockpit - and said, hey I really want to try that once. He had always though of going into flight sim. When people see those prototype cockpits they know it is possible and not that expensive.

Also take a look at the flight shows and peoples eager to jump into those home made simulators that have started to show using i.e 3 projectors. You can buy projectors for like nothing today. The price of 3 smart phones. And you can scale. Just start with one. A home cokcpit strategy. I really want those actuators for lifting )

If I had an xbox there and just showed him the software and game play. Never mind.

Flying is not about arcade. But experience - including physical experience.

But lets see. Microsoft now claims flying interests start with playing a game including flying and the pilot role. I say not. I say flying interests starts with interests in flying and imagining you can have that at home. What you can potentially do or have changes over time. In 1981 Micropose Flight Smiluator on an x8086 - just looking like a PC was a cockpit to me. Todays standards or state-of-the-art home flying are different. A new MS Flight appealling to the imagination of potential flyers have to capture this magination by state-of-the-art - something including a path to evolve that home cockpit.

That the portrait.

Not a guy having fun sitting in front of the PC or XBox with a joypad in his hands. He has to be uniformed with the flying experience - physically.

It's all about virtual reality. That's the fun. You can become it. Take on the suit.

It's not about chasing flags on the screen. People thinking like that probably thought - "hey, I think flying is boring. That's probably why we have not marketed it broadly yet or made it easier to have the VR experience. Well, I think its boring. I think everything is boring - only funny thing in life is getting paid. And my executives sure think like this already. This is leadership. I only work or do stuff for money. Now let's earn a buck and make this a funny game. Let's make it funny chasing flags or having graphics beams coming up from the ground. I don't have a clue whether this is fun flying - but it looks funny now. Bring me the cash. If I get fired no worries - I already got a new a job. Hey, I used to work for Microsoft international ... now let the games begin ... deal cards, please, show me the hand. 30% probability is nice -It's going to be the new Super Mario ... merry new year 2012, let's go".

Never mind realism. Lets make it look really weird? Lets make it look you're just a gamer and not flying.

Well, I'm still optismistic: Game developers are surfing those waves of expectations for the new MS Flight. Can it succeed FSX as a better consumer experience for flying. Did they do a new flying experience (consumer) or were they thinking cash and super mario instead? Did the team bulding mesh up?

So I am not trying to be prejudice about this - just sketching the ups and downs before curtain falls. Let's hear what MS will say after CES2012. I don't think they will be talking too much development there - but let's see. Probably some media person within the game industry will pop the question.

And they sure should open the beta to be more public or open towards the fs community - if they intend to fix for flying experience. Because what kind of beta are they running? Is beta for a game with a short life cycle? Or for a VR game like FS with a long life cycle? Is it a shortlived consumer product? Or long term VR platform use?

If they worry about the quantity of feedback they can just classify "open" feedback and then screen it, if they have the time. I.e. based on number of comments (interest) for open beta feedback. One way to handle the logistics there.

 

[n4gix]

If you already make and sell an FSX aircraft, why NOT make it available for Prepar3D customers?

It would be silly to create something that would only work in Prepar3D, unless it was a "contracted project" for an existing commercial end user (such as RedBird for example).

As for the monthly dev license, I already spend more than that for my Netflix DVD/Streaming package, from which I earn nothing at all, nor do I actually watch all that many movies. I'm seriously thinking of cancelling it altogether...