|
Post by stansdds on Mar 2, 2012 6:15:21 GMT -5
Well I'll be darned! Thanks for including an in-cockpit GPS. Those of us who fly in modern times really appreciate not having to rely on a pop-up window for the GPS. I find that the GPS-500 that was in FS9 (and works just fine in FSX) is adequate for GPS based navigation.
|
|
jan
DC-6B
props are us.....
Posts: 212
|
Post by jan on Mar 2, 2012 17:59:48 GMT -5
Wow it is going to be a great plane, but will you make one for MS Flight ;D
|
|
|
Post by mjahn on Mar 3, 2012 6:06:10 GMT -5
Good joke, Jan. In December 2010 I was asked in an online interview: - How do you see the future of Flight Simulation?
And my reply was: I am watching it with interest? I hope to God MS Flight will allow developers to contribute. If not then somebody should have their heads seen to.
|
|
|
Post by capflyer on Mar 3, 2012 18:19:41 GMT -5
Well, according to Jason (the EP) Flight will be opening up to external development in the future. One of the deals with F-2-P design is that you generally release before it's 100% fully developed and then make your final development "as you go" and base it on what people actually want and are purchasing. I think that MS is following that design philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by mjahn on Mar 4, 2012 2:06:30 GMT -5
What Joshua (=Jason?) said: Yeah we believe that for the first year or two at least, this is something we’ve got to manage and understand and own ourselves. We need a more managed ecosystem to reach the kind of customer that we’re targeting now.
It was one of the more difficult decisions to take with the franchise but we think to appeal to millions of people we had to take a different approach. And one of the consequences of that approach was it’s going to be a much more significant effort to reintroduce that more extensible system. So I won’t say never. But it was outside the focus around the initial product and launch to try to do everything.
I think had we tried to do everything, had we tried to be as extensible as ever while also building a brand new experience I think it would’ve just been a recipe for failure. So let’s get a good experience out there, validate it and respond to what customers want. That gives us the time to understand really where the need and the desire is and then we can extend the product as we go. "First year or two at least" ... as if it wasn't clear already what "the customers" want. How loud does one have to shout? And supposing there would be "that more extensible system" what would inevitably come up is the royalties question or whatever the term is -- how much MS would have to pay Airbus for an Airbus model and Lufthansa for a Lufthansa livery. Who wants to fly dreary no-name stuff? It'd all be in the hands of lawyers then ... not something to look forward to. It's a dilemma. What we need is a standalone version and an SDK, and Add-Ons from non-MS servers. FS11, in other words. (Dream on.) [Reason for editing: thinking about it.]
|
|
jan
DC-6B
props are us.....
Posts: 212
|
Post by jan on Mar 4, 2012 5:49:56 GMT -5
There you have a point, personally i don't think that mass people are really interrested in a game with non shooting flying and the rest is interrested in a real simulator. I for instance love the low level flying in it, it looks pretty good and is not so hard on my computer. I do like to fly VFR on it but the pricing of the expansion packs is going to be too high if you want the whole world(twenty bucks for the islands alone ) But i also do like FSX for that with some addons. The addons for FSX are more value for mony (i do use FSPS booster for FSX to work and it works) The other thing is FSX hasn't crashed on my desktop before, but maybe i was lucky. They really should head to the simulator direction as they used to then you could have a winner i think.... my regards, Jan
|
|
|
Post by stansdds on Mar 4, 2012 8:29:14 GMT -5
Back to the topic, the BT-67 is looking great!
|
|
jan
DC-6B
props are us.....
Posts: 212
|
Post by jan on Mar 4, 2012 14:03:22 GMT -5
You are right about both, i still look forward to the day we can fly this bird. It looks better than the other one that is available(i don't know who made it), that one was loaded once and soon disposed to the round archive. And we know that when Manfred build a plane it is pretty darn good they always make it too the main hangar.....
My regards, Jan
|
|
|
Post by capflyer on Mar 4, 2012 14:47:19 GMT -5
What Joshua (=Jason?) said... "First year or two at least" ... as if it wasn't clear already what "the customers" want. How loud does one have to shout? And supposing there would be "that more extensible system" what would inevitably come up is the royalties question or whatever the term is -- how much MS would have to pay Airbus for an Airbus model and Lufthansa for a Lufthansa livery. Who wants to fly dreary no-name stuff? It'd all be in the hands of lawyers then ... not something to look forward to. It's a dilemma. What we need is a standalone version and an SDK, and Add-Ons from non-MS servers. FS11, in other words. (Dream on.) [Reason for editing: thinking about it.]Sorry, you're right, Joshua. (sorry bad with names). Also, the "customers" you're talking about are the vast minority of even the current FS9 and FSX user base. They are trying to expand that base to more and more people in addition to developing in a new way. Additionally, royalties aren't a major factor. As long as the liveries are free, you don't owe royalties on them. Even if they are paid, the royalties for FS are well established as are the licensing procedures. As for the aircraft, if you look at the current payware developers, who are certainly high profile and haven't avoided the scrutiny of the real builders, as long as no proprietary information (i.e. things not available to the public for download or viewing) is used in the development of the model, then no royalties are owed. This would not change just because it's Microsoft and trial law in both the US and Europe supports that. The issue is and remains that they are releasing a "base" program without much of what it can do even in use. As they develop and flesh out the system, they will activate more and more of it and once they're comfortable they've got a good platform, they will look to re-open to external (third party) development. This isn't to say that there won't be internal (third party) development in the meantime either.
|
|
|
Post by ashaman on Mar 8, 2012 22:21:30 GMT -5
I am watching it with interest? I hope to God MS Flight will allow developers to contribute. If not then somebody should have their heads seen to.
You know what they say. A poor madman is a crazy and potentially harmful being, while a rich madman is merely a jolly eccentric... who can pay his/her way out of a head examination. Personally, I've laid my wager that Flight won't see its second birthday alive. Luckily for us, we do have redundancies, backups and escape routes.
|
|
|
Post by darrenvox on Mar 10, 2012 20:34:30 GMT -5
Sorry for the bump but that looks awesome, can't wait to see it released
|
|
|
Post by mjahn on May 20, 2012 8:15:52 GMT -5
Current state, but obviously not ready yet. Externally, we have been experimenting with the ski animation, and they look and behave like they should now (although they do not belong on the Fantasma obviously). Also a refined propdisk. Internally, lots of small detail as seen in person on C-GAWI, including fully functional GNS 430/530 combo (see previous pages), spare seat etc. All placards legible. Many additional paints and paintkit in preparation, too.
|
|
|
Post by trebor716 on May 20, 2012 13:31:49 GMT -5
that VC looks so real!
|
|
|
Post by romeo33delta on May 20, 2012 16:03:35 GMT -5
Pretty ... just plane pretty (pun intended)! Thanks for the h/u!
|
|
|
Post by bushpounder on May 25, 2012 18:15:23 GMT -5
That looks beautiful! I can't wait for this one!! (but I guess I'll have to!! ) Don
|
|