Flight for free

[Computermensch]

Some mocks ...

Some people have started coming down on Flight pretty hard. Most feels mocked by MS for having set expections during news feeds and online vids for flying. I'm just going to quote this translating from norwegian.

Watching these you understand these are just a few, because YouTube already opts to show similar videos mocking Flight. Taking this into account I think Microsoft should be careful about Flight where they go from here. A simulation or just a game this is not good for a marketing campaign getting the product in bad standing. So they should come forward and clear things up, i.e. stating "this is not going to be flying" or "this is not just a game" or "we plan this is going to become VR". To much in the dark. Hope fully in a few days it will clear up. Microsoft copied Apples kind of marketing with a lot of secrecy now - however that can also get you in bad standing. Microsoft was previously well-known for its open mind reaching out - what made it a big company.

Translated from Norwegian:
Ref: http://www.flightsim.no/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=630216


Exclusive insight from behind the scenes:

Microsoft Flight Behind the scenes (Part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vnDcGgYrBTc

Microsoft Flight Behind the scenes (Part 2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bl1-mKC7p9g


and another succeeding post correcting the first:


Nice video which really shows off Microsoft Flight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_rLhWzZZp8&feature=related

 

[Computermensch]

For users:
But getting over it ... no doubt the rendering is better than FSX, i.e.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeWwJg8g0r0&feature=BFa&list=UUKIgYhwT3UtwQvqfFWJsjrA&lf=plcp

A bit more movie like or diffused - or the colors are less bright.
I also read somewhere the multiscreen is still supported and flight controls as well. Seems like the algos for rendering are more effective. I.e. look at the cloud coverage. Much better.

Over time because of the rendering and probably the flight model - which is better or not? - I think we'll as users end up going with Flight.


For developing users:

I must admit I only bougt a few planes over time. I downloaded 100's of which many didn't work properly. So I stuck to a few defaults. And I got few extras very well made - freeware or not. 1-2 was freeware and a few buys. But it was pretty much the VC's that was troubled in freeware, especially concerning the DirectX 10 preview. Some other stuff like the estranged traffic addons with odd sync utils and so on. Because they were like hacks.

Anyway it takes resources to construct well for FS. So may be it's all good that MS will take over the job.

The problem is, if they decide not to do something you can not do anything but hack the software to get it in there. But thats how it was with FS also. I.e. the 3rd party none-certified DLL's.


For developing users prompting application developers:

Then we'll have to hack into it to customize. It will happen I am sure. Some are probably already working it out. The Windows 8 team learned its lesson and allowed access to changing ie the themes of Windows 8 start screen. Because they started hacking into the dll's - even rewriting them. Same stuff happened to Kinnect with the open source API's.

So why should history be repeated with MS Flight? The SDK came out in the old days because of the hacks.

If MS does not embrace customization at the begining of this new stuff they may risk have a situation where people - also novices as they develop into the sim - will want the unofficial extensions. Just as was the problem with FS. This is not a new thing. The addons for fs came as uncertified addons disturbing the platform and making it perform unreliably. Thats why MS should get the community organized. FS addons was not organized by MS - thats exactly what made FS unreliable. It will happen again.


For application developers:

Studios are a different thing. Especially the more popular studios well hooked into the FSX.

It's a bad move if we don't get well-organized thus reliable extensions to MS Flight. It can make the situation much worse than with FSX - i.e. like if FSX did not have the SDK or application framework - and was all hacked using FSUIPC instead for most extensions.

Hopefully, Microsoft will be proactive about this - and release a complete concept for extensions including the runtime framework, sdk and a certification path for deployment containers.

If not I guess "FSUIPC" or some open source API fit for 2012 will start popping up at some point. It happens to all software products these days. I.e. Google also needed API's - to control the automated pulls on the search engine.

This is software ...

Hopefully Microsoft do not want to reintroduce homemade SDK's or hacks into the runtime environment or have more unreliable open source around than was the case with FS9 and to some extent with FSX too. That's not a good thing ... but a weak thing.
They should be ambitous about making it reliable. Excluding is what eventually produced the unreliability in the legacy software. It's a real risk taking the history of FS that I know of into account.

If they want an unreliable product there should be no official SDK, no offical deployment for 3rd parties and so on. Just as was the case with FS - only changing a bit in the latest versions and almost coming through with the SDK in FSX.

If not its a bad decision with concerns for reliability.

It all depends. If do they everything for Flight themselves - like if there was no need for XBMC because Media Center had completely evolved. No worries. Great plan.

If not. Look out for unreliability. That's why I scraped most unreliable 3rd party extensions for FSX. But a lot of folks just want those features. I.e. I don't have moving grass when on ground ...

 

[lionheart]

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...

Bill,

Doesnt an FSX plane run perfectly fine in P3D?


Bill O

 

[n4gix]

Doesnt an FSX plane run perfectly fine in P3D?

I do believe that's what I just said, Bill.

But (there's always a "but"), sloppy XML scripts will be flagged by Prepar3D. When the gauge is loading, an Error Box will popup and tell you precisely what the error is, and where in the script to find it.

Scripts that seem to work in FSX will sometimes be shown by Prepar3D to have some hidden formatting errors.

That's one of the chief things I use Prepar3D for to be honest. I use it to throughly validate my XML scripts so I can fix them immediately!

While any FSX plane should run flawlessly in Prepar3D, it is entirely possible that a plane built for Prepar3D might not work completely in FSX, if some of the new stuff for Prepar3D is included in the aircraft package.

 

[lionheart]

Ahh so... Roger that.


Thanks Bill. I knew nothing about this. Good to know.

 

[Heretic]

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

Will the dev version be continuously updated?

If so, it's kind of a good deal. At least way better than the $500.

 

[solid]

What the sim community and developers should start doing is looking for another Sim, two look promising right now, backing them up and start developing for them if an SDK is available......crying over spill milk is no good for anyone. Am an optimist, we'll see a new opportunity windows soon...I predict a great failure of Flight as a Game...Kids and full fledge gamers want Action!!! not fooling around with getting tokens, coins or laser beams while flying around in the same scenery all the time. M$ has indeed killed their Sims with this game, others will take their place.....

 

[lionheart]

What the sim community and developers should start doing is looking for another Sim, two look promising right now, backing them up and start developing for them if an SDK is available......crying over spill milk is no good for anyone. Am an optimist, we'll see a new opportunity windows soon...I predict a great failure of Flight as a Game...Kids and full fledge gamers want Action!!! not fooling around with getting tokens, coins or laser beams while flying around in the same scenery all the time. M$ has indeed killed their Sims with this game, others will take their place.....

Absolutely and couldnt agree more.

The sim community is massive. They will go where the best 'sims' are.


I myself am looking into a sim platform as well as several people.


I'll bet Mathijs at Aerosoft is wishing he had continued through with his sim. It would have now been a golden investment, if it were competitive with FSX now.


Bill

 

[Heretic]

The Aerosoft FS was a bold, but ultimately futile venture. The market may be big, but not big enough.
With all the add-ons (especially payware) out there, you're pretty much tied to a single simulator for a long time, because who wants to throw away hundreds or thousands of $$$ and start the investment cycle all over again in the first place? (See FS9.)
It would have been hard for Aerosoft to capture a viable market share by snagging away users from MSFS.

Provided the developers don't fuss around with the game engine too much, the only two future-proof options for any developer having to make a living from their add-ons are X-Plane and P3D.

X-Plane requires getting ones mind into a different philosophy though, as it does things differently to MSFS. It also has a smaller market compared to MSFS, but this could be subject to change.

P3D is costly, but builds on the MSFS philosophy and runs add-ons made for FSX. Depending on future popularity, one could, in theory, swat two flies with a single stroke and supply both the emerging P3D as well as the proven FSX market without the hassle of FS9 <-> FSX conversions.


If I was a payware dev, my focus would definately be set on P3D for long-term business planning.

 

[dmaher]

...I predict a great failure of as a Game...Kids and full fledge gamers want Action!!! not fooling around with getting tokens, coins or laser beams while flying around in the same scenery all the time.

I agree with you about what kids will think. I'd say it's no secret to MS too. These products get extensively focus tested. Those tests show exactly where they stand and what they can expect. They’ll do whatever’s practical (as in adjustments and changes) to make a well received product. We’ll see at RTM.

But, those game missions are just a veneer. We should look beyond them to see what the engine is really capable of. Anyone familiar with FSX and its SDK should see Flight definitely has major potential as a SIM. Looking back at the simplistic new-user-experience in FSX…you’d even see FSX is much like Flight.

The apparent melt-down of the NDA is very unfortunate. The NDA is meant to prevent exactly what we see at Avsim. We can debate about what’s likely…good and bad…and some may even be correct. But strictly, information protected by NDA is in flux. It’s protected information because it’s not settled information. News, the good and bad, has a short shelf-life. The NDA doesn’t put anyone outside MS in the loop – even if they are convinced they are. It doesn’t mean any troublesome rumors out there won’t come true…more that navigating the end of a project is MS’s job. It was suggested at the press-event that Flight would be released in six months. I ‘ve seen some bad games made awesome in less.

 

[Heretic]

I ‘ve seen some bad games made awesome in less.

Which ones?

I've read quite a few gaming magazines in my life to know that, in 99% of the cases, a lackluster game isn't going to be any better on release day.

 

[lionheart]

You cant call a sim a game when its based on reality. Once you walk away from realism, you are in game land.

With a fishing game, you are really in a boat, you have to really snare fish, and you have water, boats, etc. That is a sim. If you start adding hand grenades, lazer plasma rifles, atomic particle imaging with one light year distance, find the fish with coins in their mouths that make sha-shing or DING sounds, and you have to do jiggle rap dancing on the boats or hover things or what ever else there is that is right in the minds of 7 year olds, is no longer a FISHING SIM, its a fun game for minds that dont live in reality.....!

Whats funny was that MS didnt even want their sims in flight schools. FS9 and FSX (cough) were AWESOME for teaching kids. Making it unaffordable to have 25 games in a class was a pitty. If Bill Gates were still in charge, I can see that never have happening as he is out there trying to invest in the kids already in schools...

I feel myself getting into a rant here. Must keep calm.

The only thing that comes to mind is 'Guilligans Island'. Stranded. lol....


P3D is very expensive. Bottom line. We need a sim in the $40 to $60 USD range so that most all people can afford it. And an affordable version for students/classes, etc, as like XP10 are doing.

Thats my humble input.

 

[dmaher]

Which ones?

I've read quite a few gaming magazines in my life to know that, in 99% of the cases, a lackluster game isn't going to be any better on release day.

You won’t fix a bad game by trying to throw gameplay at it...I think we'd agree there.

But FS isn't a bad game....
...it already has a ton of gameplay and replay value.
Flight isn't going to live or die on new coin collecting missions.
Their best missions will need to be a lot more authentic...and challenging.
I asume (like FSX) missions aren't the entire game...just the structured part(?)
Most of the sandbox style gameplay is what we like.
They have six months...

 

[jtanabodee]

I started to think about this. Why not two versions of FLIGHT?.

One is for game console and gamer, no fussy about realism. Get to the game like gamer wants. Download the addon by the game as easy as you can find in app store.

Another one, stick with the same strategy. The realism and addon. Leave it just only Hawii. No need for the whole world airports. I thik most people usually fly only one region only. To have nothing is easier for developers to do. MS can sell SDK and if it is not too expensive, I think it is acceptable.

Both versions are not compatible. The scenery and aircrafts from sim version cannot use with gamer version.

Microsoft will get both groups of customer. Wider market it would be. Very huge of fan will get along with. Flight sim community will be as happy as kids and gamers.

Microsoft will get more sell from the game itself and app store.

I'm not a programmer so I don't know that two versions is possible or too difficult to do. Please discuss more.

 

[n4gix]

The apparent melt-down of the NDA is very unfortunate. The NDA is meant to prevent exactly what we see at Avsim. We can debate about what’s likely…good and bad…and some may even be correct. But strictly, information protected by NDA is in flux. It’s protected information because it’s not settled information.

Now here's another thought. Suppose for a moment that what most beta testers have isn't even feature complete.

IOW, suppose there are actually two sets of beta testers, where only certain, carefully vetted parties have access to the full content...

Note I'm not saying that is the case, only that it could be!

 

[Heretic]

P3D is very expensive. Bottom line. We need a sim in the $40 to $60 USD range so that most all people can afford it. And an affordable version for students/classes, etc, as like XP10 are doing.

For the n-th time: FlightGear.

From a "welcome" e-mail I got:

Trotzdem ist der Sim gerade in Wissenschaft und Forschung beliebt: die TU AAchen benuzt ihn, wie diverse Unis in den USA, Europa und Asien; die EADS kennt diesen und empfiehlt ihn für gewisse Aufgabenstellungen an ihre Studenten und ein europaweites Forschungsprojekt "MyCopter" benutzt ihn wohl auch- siehe Bild--> http://www.tagblatt.de/Home/nachrichten ... 50513.html

Rough translation: FG is used by universities in Europe, Asia and the US and even EADS recommends it for certain tasks for its trainees.

Viele anderer Entwickler sind ebenfalls in der Luft- und Raumfahrt tätig, wir haben ein paar Beruspiloten und natürlich einige Hobbypiloten als Entwickler an Bord. Viele davon sind studiert, und können daher recht gut zum Projekt beitragen.

Roughly: Many FG-developers are employed in the aerospace business, others are commercial or hobby pilots. Many have a university degree and thus the ideal set of skills to contribute.


This does not mean that you can't contribute though. Any small improvement is an improvement.


BUT: I very much doubt that FG poses a viable payware market.
Who doesn't want to pay for the base sim is unlikely to be willing to pay for add-ons.

You won’t fix a bad game by trying to throw gameplay at it...I think we'd agree there.

But FS isn't a bad game....
...it already has a ton of gameplay and replay value.
Flight isn't going to live or die on new coin collecting missions.
Their best missions will need to be a lot more authentic...and challenging.
I asume (like FSX) missions aren't the entire game...just the structured part(?)
Most of the sandbox style gameplay is what we like.
They have six months...

I don't have any doubts that Flight! will include a "sandbox" (free flight) mode (it most probably already does), but it will be limited geographically to Hawaii, until more regions are released.

And basically revamping and extending a whole game in six months is not going to happen.

 

[robystar]

Why not two versions of FLIGHT?.

Hi,

You take the words out of my mouth (so to speak).
And since this thread once more turns out to be speculative, well:
I cannot believe that MS would not come up (at a price of course) with something better than they show us right now.
I read somewhere there was no ATC in Flight and only GA aircraft. Why would they do such a thing if they already have it in FSX?
So, somewhere, we are still missing out on some things, as well as maybe being completely wrong as what their final intentions are (besides earning money).
Therefore I keep up my hopes to have something worthwhile to buy from MS in say 2-3 years from now that improves on my FSX experience in that it will still enable me to merge my own (call it phantasy or adaptable to your own wishes, or retro or future) world with the real world.
And in the meantime, there is still so much to find out in FSX that I probably wil be annoyed that, by that time, they already have something better than what I have been working on.

 

[mgh]

Now here's another thought. Suppose for a moment that what most beta testers have isn't even feature complete.

IOW, suppose there are actually two sets of beta testers, where only certain, carefully vetted parties have access to the full content...

Note I'm not saying that is the case, only that it could be!

Or it might be that once Flight is released and the store opened, there may be a significant amount of feature and content available to download initially with more to follow?

EDIT

I re-read the recent press release!

Those looking to deepen their experience can purchase and download additional content that adds new aircraft, regions and customization options.

MS Press Release - FLIGHT - 01/04/2012

 

[dmaher]

And basically revamping and extending a whole game in six months is not going to happen.

True, but I think we have different expectations here.

I think the missions shouldn’t concern us…unless you intend to play them. The structured part of the game is for beginners (as in FSX). They have a bit of time yet to perfect missions. And generally missions happen late in a schedule; designers need all the parts working to implement them. BTW I don’t see users that play missions becoming DLC buyers; that is unless missions are epically engaging. Changes of that are slim to none There are just too many other awesome games out there that deliver. Essentially these users will ride for free.

I think for us the issues with Flight are only about policy. It seems the new policies will be very different than before…naturally we’re all concerned about that. But with good policy Flight can be an excellent hardcore platform. It just takes enthusiastic people to build its hardcore-content (just like FSX). They have a bit of time yet…and I just hope the Flight team is in a position (and able) to craft a good arrangement. It doesn’t matter to me what content Flight ships with; I likely won’t use it; and I’ll instead use the best content I can find.
We’ve all heard answers to the policy questions below…and they’re not favorable. Still we haven’t really heard MS’s direct and final answers. I’m just trying to be agnostic about this I don’t see MS profiting from Flight without getting the policy right…it’s not about my own self-interest.

• How do you add content?
• Who gets access to the SDK?
• Is the SDK protected by NDA?
• Who gets to build content?
• Are there restrictions on distributing content?
• Will content be scrutinized by MS and how strictly?
• Who manages add-on support and community?
• Who controls retail choices and disputes?
• How are FSX-pay-ware licenses acknowledged in Flight? (i.e. version updates)
• How are add-on SP’s handled?
• How are 3PD-royalties made equitable as MS no longer charges for the base platform?

They’ve shifted $10’s of millions in costs onto what may yet be a small market buying DLC built at a tiny to zero margin.

 

[dmaher]

Two versions of Flight (let’s say Standard and Pro) would solve a lot.
Funny, it is actually also the first posted comment on MS's own internal development blog.
It could allow for a bit of a departure from MS's wider Live strategy without forcing those in charge to lose face.
I think the two versions would complement each other, giving beginners that did catch the bug an upgrade path.
There really are many ways MS can see new revenue from 3PD...they're all worth considering.