MS Flightsim staff canned

[Orbiter]

well dont forget that Orbiter is an space sim not a simple flight sim .personally i would like to travel same other galaxy too.

 

[simonpro]

If you did I highly doubt you would like it for very long.

I don't like any FS games, so you're probably right.

And video card power growth is speeding up not slowing down!

Which is why I conciensiously object to buying new computers.

 

[Moonwalker]

Which is why I conciensiously object to buying new computers.

That may be the reason why you think that Orbiter looks kinda bad, which actually does not at all on a fast machine (using antialiasing 8x and some more different settings) and with the right stuff installed. It looks way better than any other up-to-date simulation like SSM2007 and even than X-Plane and FSX from orbit.

 

[cjp]

I still think dismantling the MSFS development team is an act of destruction.

Without access to the source code, people can probably still improve the current MSFS version a lot with add-ons, but that's only up to a certain point. The same is true for Orbiter BTW: if there were never going to be a next Orbiter release, we would be stuck forever with hacks like the (Orulex) landscape being simulated as a vessel, with all related inefficiencies, and inabilities e.g. to use modern shading effects.

I wonder whether Orbiter will in the future be able to be a better flight simulator than MSFS. There is no reason why a spaceflight simulator can't be an excellent flight simulator: it's more a matter of development priorities than of development capabilities.

I still remember FS 4. I still remember trying to make safe landings while I didn't have a joystick (in the end I succeeded). I think the largest improvement ever in FS history is between FS 4 and FS 5, because in those days processors just started to be fast enough to do texture mapping. After that, you got hardware accelerated graphics, but somehow FS 5 was already quite good.

 

[simonpro]

That may be the reason why you think that Orbiter looks kinda bad, which actually does not at all on a fast machine (using antialiasing 8x and some more different settings) and with the right stuff installed. It looks way better than any other up-to-date simulation like SSM2007 and even than X-Plane and FSX from orbit.

I doubt it, I have one of the most powerful home computers available sitting on the desk in my office. And orbiter still looks kinda bad

 

[Urwumpe]

I doubt it, I have one of the most powerful home computers available sitting on the desk in my office. And orbiter still looks kinda bad

Combine Orbiter with some recent technologies possible with DirectX9 or better OpenGL drivers and you get something which would make even FSX look primitive. And that with rather modest hardware, as long as it is newer than 2005. The main reason which keeps orbiter back is the DirextX7 interface. Even the on-board GPU of the Vaio of my girlfriend can do better graphics than orbiter uses.


-----Post Added-----

I wonder whether Orbiter will in the future be able to be a better flight simulator than MSFS. There is no reason why a spaceflight simulator can't be an excellent flight simulator: it's more a matter of development priorities than of development capabilities.

Well, it should be easily possible to create a generic vessel module which uses JSBSim input files, like Flightgear does. But why should we? Currently orbiter can already do something FSX and flightgear are both bad it: High-performance aircraft. We are used to operate at the limits of the possible. A SR-71 could behave more realistic with Orbiters more generic API, than possible with FSX.

Of course the problem are the development priorities... if we would create a framework to write such vessels (aerodynamic code generators, class libraries), I see no reason not to do so... just see kev33s aircraft, which had become very impressive over time, with him learning writing C++ modules.

 

[Erupter]

Combine Orbiter with some recent technologies possible with DirectX9 or better OpenGL drivers and you get something which would make even FSX look primitive. And that with rather modest hardware, as long as it is newer than 2005. The main reason which keeps orbiter back is the DirextX7 interface. Even the on-board GPU of the Vaio of my girlfriend can do better graphics than orbiter uses.

Then why bash every development idea in the range of new graphics engine...
There are tons of people here clinging hard to the root of graphical badness like it were some kind of honour martirism...

I wonder whether Orbiter will in the future be able to be a better flight simulator than MSFS. There is no reason why a spaceflight simulator can't be an excellent flight simulator: it's more a matter of development priorities than of development capabilities.

That's one of the things i miss a lot.
Haveing all those "flying" vessels (shuttle, xr-n, etc) i miss all the realism touches of flying in an atmosphere.
Turbulence, winds, gusts, mist, clouds, rain, storms...

 

[Urwumpe]

Then why bash every development idea in the range of new graphics engine...
There are tons of people here clinging hard to the root of graphical badness like it were some kind of honour martirism...

Because the visual representation is not all. Play Dwarf Fortress and you will see what I mean: A good game needs no DirectX10 graphics, but you need a concept at all. Many modern games would also be as good as today when rendered with a first generation Geforce. They would not look as good, but the game stays.

Orbiter needs no visual improvements, it works well like it is. But that is no reason that we can't find use for them.

 

[Moonwalker]

I doubt it, I have one of the most powerful home computers available sitting on the desk in my office. And orbiter still looks kinda bad

Well, in my point of view it still looks phantastic. At least there is nothing which looks better if we talk about watching the earth from space, not FSX, not X-Plane and not even Space Shuttle Mission 2007

[ame="http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=xS5HYznzw-k"]YouTube - 'Apollo 11: Remastered' - An Orbiter Film[/ame]


-----Post Added-----

I wonder whether Orbiter will in the future be able to be a better flight simulator than MSFS.

Uh. I doubt, very doubt it. Orbiter needs to change significantly and we'd need some professional designers and coders who work on it many hours each day for years. Orbiter would need a real atmospheric model, including wind, clouds, rain, fog and so on (also, the atmosphere gets way too dark too early if you climb up, and the curvature of the horizon is visible too early too). Orbiter also needs a new or significantly updated physics model for atmospheric flight. At the moment it's still far away from being a realistical atmospheric flight simulator. It's rather static.

I don't say Orbiter can't become what MSFS is today. But without a lot of money and rather capable coders and designers, forget about it immediately

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

[Moderator note] All Orbiter (graphics/horizon) related talk from this topic continued in this thread

----

So this page contains interesting links to some forums where MS Flightsimulator developer staff explained things:
http://www.futuregpu.org/2009/01/end-of-era-aces-studio-and-flight-sim.html

The users 'P-12C' and 'Gibbage' are confirmed to be Microsoft staff, and explained some stuff on this page (halfway)
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=8794&page=8

Here's the blog of one of the (ex-) MS FS11 developers:
http://paul-flightsimguy.spaces.live.com/default.aspx

It must be very sad for these developers, they had a wonderful job working on FS.. I hope for him he gets this new job he is talking about (strangely enough at Microsoft).

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7874937.stm

 

[RisingFury]

I don't like any FS games, so you're probably right.

Not even Age of Empires II?! :O

AoE2 ranks among the top ten games of all time.


-----Post Added-----


Whoops...

Read MS instead of FS.

 

[Brassbud]

Shocked

I just read this news today, and I must say it's sobering. MSFS was the very first experience I had with computers and videogames as a child in the 80s. The Flight Sim community was the first place I ever made a forum post, and there is probably no single program I've spent more time with than MSFS, even including Word and IE!

I haven't used FS9 and FSX as much as earlier versions, and my sim of choice the last few years has usually been Orbiter. Still, to think it's over is a shock, though one I've feared with more and more developers closing recently.

I wish all the former team luck in their next endevors, and I sincerely hope MS will sell the IP and codebase to someone willing to do it justice.

 

[FordPrefect]

Bummer!

From avsim.com

The Facts Emerge - The future of MS Flight Simulation

Posted: Sunday, February 8, 2009 - 20:01
There has been a lot of speculation, rumor and simple guesses as to what Microsoft is going to do with the Flight Simulator “enterprise”. Through a number of sources, some of whom are former ACES members, we have been able to get to the bottom of where our hobby is heading, at least as far as Microsoft is concerned. Our sources will remain anonymous, for obvious reasons. Here are the hard, cold, and very disappointing facts:

FACT: Microsoft Flight Simulator for the PC is dead. There are no plans to continue the FS series in a form that we would recognize. The wholesale dispatch of the ACES team speaks volumes to this.

FACT: ESP is dead. Boeing, Raytheon and presumably Northrop Grumman (ESP’s first adopters) received notification that the ESP franchise is done and that, in effect, they are on their own. We have seen some discussion putting hope in the emergence of ESP as the next "engine" for flight simulator. That is not going to happen.

FACT: Some developers in our hobby approached Microsoft to purchase the MSFX code. Microsoft rebuffed that offer in total. We presume that this is because having the FSX code out there would “diffuse” their future intent and model for a flight simulator “replacement”.

What is Microsoft’s future intent as regards flight simulation? Simple really… Create a flight simulation system for Windows Live, and sell applications for it much like Apple does for their IPhone / Ipod family. Third party developers will have to submit their applications, as do Apple developers, for approval by MS and they in turn would earn a percentage from the sales of those applications. Vendors that we have talked to are extremely upset about this. It also brings back memories of the infamous Papa Tango attempts to hijack freeware.

Imagine for a moment a “live” simulator that has as its core a “Flight Unlimited” like virtual world. You can fly around a very small part of the world in the default system, but to add to your simulation world, you have to purchase the additional scenery from MS. You want more than a 172, a Baron, or a 737? Simple, purchase it via the Live system.

Imagine for a moment the availability of liveries that would be made available. Without approval by the airlines, you can imagine the lack of variety in the “live” modeled aircraft. Under the present arrangement, freeware is seen as free advertising for the United’s, American’s, Lufthansa’s and others of the world. Insert the dollar into the equation, and it is reasonable to expect that our current arrangement with carriers would evaporate. Would MS consider providing freeware via its live system? Don’t hold your breath – too many liability concerns, copyright infringement risks, product support and management issues to take on for free.

What about VATSIM, IVAO and the plethora of other peripheral attractions that we now benefit from? Imagine paying to connect to VATSIM for an hour or two of supervised flight. Spend some time thinking about the ramifications of this, and it only gets scarier.

We have a simple new reality to face up to; Microsoft has changed their business model as regards the flight simulation genre and we are seeing the first steps of that new model taking hold. We can assume that a “live” version will entail online subscription costs per month or year, and additional add-on’s will cost us.

 

[Hielor]

From avsim.com

Looks like FSX is the last version we'll be seeing. No one's going to use that new model. Hopefully, when they release it and they realize that it's crap after no one uses it, they'll wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[Anariaq]

Well to the guys talking about the payware addons for FS that could move to X-Plane... Forget it. The good thing about FS even though Im a X-Planer. Its that M$ never updated FS in a 3 month interval and ruins Tons! of work just because Austin thought that changing all value of flight is the best for the users. But not for thouse that do Payware. They have to change ALL the planes just to support the changes Austin dos... meaning in the end even with the prize of 100$ pr plane is no more profitable in the long run.

Anariaq... that feels sorry for thouse guys that is doing Payware for X-Plane

( sorry for the rant )