With Flight deamed a failure, does this mean that FSDT will support FS9 longer?

[nickac1092]

I read what some forum post said about Flight.  What a let down.  Does this mean FSDT will support FS9 users for a year or more?

[virtuali]

We don't believe that MS Flight will be a failure, but regardless of the outcome, it doesn't change much for FS9 support, because if MS Flight will "fail" for the hard-core users that decided to stick with FS9 waiting for Flight, they'll either finally switch to FSX or P3D, some will switch to X-Plane maybe, but I don't see FS9 growing, it can only go down further.

In any case, one should really define "failure" first, if it will sell a couple of million copies, exposing 3rd party developers to a new market we couldn't dreamed of reaching before, for us it will be a success.

[ubersu]

>>In any case, one should really define "failure" first, if it will sell a couple of million copies, exposing 3rd party developers to a new market we couldn't dreamed of reaching before, for us it will be a success.<<

Judging from comments from other devs, it will only do so if you are willing to completely change your business and distribution model and take a much smaller percentage of the income...

DJ

[virtuali]

Judging from comments from other devs, it will only do so if you are willing to completely change your business and distribution model and take a much smaller percentage of the income...

Not really "change", but simply add another distribution channel for a different platform. And besides, distribution is never free: sites like Simflight and any other flight sim sales portal always take a percentage of the sale, Esellerate does it too, no developer ever take 100% of a sale.

X-Plane author Austin Meyers said in an interview he made more *money* (nor just more sales) from the 7.99$ X-Plane on iPhone (with Apple taking 30% of that), than the computer version, which costs significantly more...it's all boils down to exposure.

The only possible "failure" for MS Flight, would be if it will fail to create an Appstore-like marketplace with lots of new users that never cared for flight sims before, that's the main goal MS has set for it.

[newmanix]

So that's why they shut down ACES? MS just wants a piece of the money... Fight looks like nice graphics but it also looks more like a videogame than FSX. IDK we will see when we wll see.But I am prepaired to stick with FS9 for the longer haul if Flight is a failure.

[virtuali]

So that's why they shut down ACES?

To make investors happy during the financial crisis of 2008-2009

I am prepaired to stick with FS9 for the longer haul if Flight is a failure.

The most logical choice would be, of course, either switching to FSX or Prepar3D.

FS9 has no future, because it doesn't use well current hardware, up to the point that with a very fast system and products optimized in the right way, FSX it's faster than FS9, and this is only going to become more and more apparent with further hardware generations.

[Frank Lindberg]

FSX is NOT faster than FS9...nonsense   

[virtuali]

FSX is NOT faster than FS9...nonsense   

You obviously haven't read my post carefully. FSX IT'S faster, on a fast multicore system AND with properly optimized product, not FS9 portovers, clearly demonstrated here:

http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=4899.msg45498#msg45498

As you can see, a scenery that was born for FS9 using FS9 techniques for the most part ( Zurich ) it's much faster on FS9, and since this is how most of the sceneries are made, users are mislead thinking FS9 is faster, but with KLAX, which is tailored on FSX, FSX it's faster even if FS9 doesn't have bump mapping and has much less textures resolution.

There are many methods that were perfectly fine in FS9 which are very slow when used in FSX, while FSX doesn't really seem to care how much stuff you put in, provided it's MADE for it, and not just compiled with the FSX SDK, but designed for it right from the start.

The more the hardware become powerful, the more this difference will become obvious, that's why FS9 is doomed, and even more so now, that for many FS9 users the jump to MS Flight doesn't seem so attractive anymore.

[nickac1092]

Well Il stick with FS9 and FSX than.  I will be getting the Dell XPS8300 for FSX and transfer all my scnery and stuff over.  Does this mean i get free upgrades to FSDT scenery for FSX?  Just wondering...  I have KORD, JFK, KFLL, KLAS, KDFW, PHNL, and zurich.  Is it possible i could get all those free if i already have the FS9 version?  I will still be switching over to FSX anyways...  Maybe in the next 1-2 years.

[virtuali]

Is it possible i could get all those free if i already have the FS9 version?  I will still be switching over to FSX anyways...  

Sure you can, is explained all over our website, for example here:

http://www.fsdreamteam.com/products_jfk.html

The product is sold as 2 Products in One. This means, by buying one version, you will automatically get the other for free, since activation and serial codes are shared between FSX and FS9.

[Michael2]

I think it very unlikey Flight will succeed in a way that benefits 3rd party developers.  MS hasn't exactly encouraged third parties to participate thus far and it seems there is some doubt there will even be an SDK.  Furthermore, they have changed the franchise into a kind of arcade game.  The market MS is targeting will not be interested in the kind of airports FSDT makes.  There are no airliners, apparently no traffic or ATC and it seems very unlikely there will ever be detailed, realisitc airliners made by 3rd parties.

[newmanix]

I think it very unlikey Flight will succeed in a way that benefits 3rd party developers.  MS hasn't exactly encouraged third parties to participate thus far and it seems there is some doubt there will even be an SDK.  Furthermore, they have changed the franchise into a kind of arcade game.  The market MS is targeting will not be interested in the kind of airports FSDT makes.  There are no airliners, apparently no traffic or ATC and it seems very unlikely there will ever be detailed, realisitc airliners made by 3rd parties.

You are right and wrong. FSDT, Fly Tampa, and Aerosoft have signed NDA's with Microsoft regarding Flight. I get the feeling all 3rd party developers are not going to be onboard for the long haul. Besides, I am not okay with Microsoft Flight dominating the market place. Are we effectly saying places like Simmarket and aerosoft may be driven out of business by not having the right to directly sell products? More and more I am aganst Flight. Its a video game not a flight simulator. Anyone see the comments from the beta testors?: http://airdailyx.blogspot.com/2012/01/microsoft-flight-beta-demo.html

[FAlonso22]

FSX is NOT faster than FS9...nonsense   

You obviously haven't read my post carefully. FSX IT'S faster, on a fast multicore system AND with properly optimized product, not FS9 portovers, clearly demonstrated here:

http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=4899.msg45498#msg45498

Can you set the ai traffic to 100% and post again the images please? I dunno in italy, but in spain the airports have aircrafts in the gates....

[virtuali]

Can you set the ai traffic to 100% and post again the images please? I dunno in italy, but in spain the airports have aircrafts in the gates....

That would be the most wrong way to do a correct comparison, because the whole point of that was to test with something we know exactly how it's made so, clearly, the scenery only, which we both made.

If we added traffic, with many models we don't have any idea how they were made, we would never see the difference due to two different types of scenery. Quite obviously, the whole point of the test was to point out that, if *every* addon (traffic products included) could be optimized for FSX as KLAX, the FSX engine is quite capable of very good performances.

[Dimon]

Can you set the ai traffic to 100% and post again the images please? I dunno in italy, but in spain the airports have aircrafts in the gates....

If we added traffic, with many models we don't have any idea how they were made, we would never see the difference due to two different types of scenery. Quite obviously, the whole point of the test was to point out that, if *every* addon (traffic products included) could be optimized for FSX as KLAX, the FSX engine is quite capable of very good performances.

Yes, AI Traffic is the part that FSX engine hates the most for some reason. However, for some folks (like myself) No AI Traffic = No Flight Sim.

That's why Oliver Pabst absolutely correctly stated that STILL there is a large market for FS2004 Super-Hubs.