-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Thoughts about MSFS 11
- Thread starter Major_Spittle
- Start date
P
Pultacatt
Guest
Ian with all due respect to your reply that isn't figures. I would be interested in seeing overall figures over all not just dev shops such as Aerosoft and the likes.
I understand where you are coming from, I agree with your statements and I do appreciate that the civil market is stronger than the Military but as I say its is not as big a margin as one would expect.
I understand where you are coming from, I agree with your statements and I do appreciate that the civil market is stronger than the Military but as I say its is not as big a margin as one would expect.
You're not going to get figures. Any developers/publishers who have told me figures have done so in confidence, so I'm not going to go around repeating them in public without express permission to do so. Some of them frequent this place, so if they want to, I'm sure they'll say so themselves.
You can believe me or not, it's up to you. The information I posted above supports my statement and is publicly available. If you ask RAZBAM or Iris, though, you still won't get figures, but you might get a contradictory response regarding selling more military add-ons! :d
Edited to add: simMarket, specifically, is not a development house. They sell large numbers of add-ons from a range of sources. I'm still slightly worried about the number of sales of "Farmer Simulator", though! I specifically included Aerosoft's box sales because they sell boxed products for a number of developers "out of house" such as RealAir, PMDG and similar. None of the other non-specialist stores I visited provided "best seller" lists.
Ian P.
You can believe me or not, it's up to you. The information I posted above supports my statement and is publicly available. If you ask RAZBAM or Iris, though, you still won't get figures, but you might get a contradictory response regarding selling more military add-ons! :d
Edited to add: simMarket, specifically, is not a development house. They sell large numbers of add-ons from a range of sources. I'm still slightly worried about the number of sales of "Farmer Simulator", though! I specifically included Aerosoft's box sales because they sell boxed products for a number of developers "out of house" such as RealAir, PMDG and similar. None of the other non-specialist stores I visited provided "best seller" lists.
Ian P.
Driving a slow moving combine harvester, to me, sounds about as boring as flying a Boeing 747, on autopilot, over a featureless ocean for 10 hours... yet look at the high sales of the PMDG 747. :d
GT182
Charter Member
I'm wondering if it's possible. If I recall correctly FS8 or 9 has the Mt. Kilauea volcano in Hawaii erupting in the sim. So that is showable, but putting it out fire could be another story.
You could do firefighting within the sim easily, using the mission engine... I wonder whether the water ballast feature from gliders could be incorporated into a powered aircraft, out of interest?
Anyway. You set up a fire effect on the ground (which has already been done), fly a suitable aircraft through a box overhead that location and if an event (dropping "releasable objects" or possibly releasing water ballast) takes place within that box, end the fire effect and replace it with a steam effect and a new ground texture.
That must be possible. Anyone want a go?
Ian P.
Anyway. You set up a fire effect on the ground (which has already been done), fly a suitable aircraft through a box overhead that location and if an event (dropping "releasable objects" or possibly releasing water ballast) takes place within that box, end the fire effect and replace it with a steam effect and a new ground texture.
That must be possible. Anyone want a go?
Ian P.
Bjoern
worst developer ever
Or flying a B-2 945645609 miles to the target and back. Or flying a F-16 an uneventful hour to the target area, doing an uneventful CAP for half an hour and flying back to base an hour.
E
EgoR64
Guest
Hi Ian,
This would be correct, you could use some area rectangles around the huge blaze, toss some proximity triggers in and some counters to indicate how many times ye dropped your water load. Good fun.
Oh yea that reminds me add the ability to have AI drop payloads, is fun just to hang out and watch AI in action.
Cheers....
This would be correct, you could use some area rectangles around the huge blaze, toss some proximity triggers in and some counters to indicate how many times ye dropped your water load. Good fun.
Oh yea that reminds me add the ability to have AI drop payloads, is fun just to hang out and watch AI in action.
Cheers....
Or flying a B-2 945645609 miles to the target and back. Or flying a F-16 an uneventful hour to the target area, doing an uneventful CAP for half an hour and flying back to base an hour.
There is a use for it! I agree.
I see it that people are using the platform (FS) to learn everything about flying a Boeing 747 to flying an F-16 (wether for fun or actual student).
FS, in my humble opinion is evolving so fast that Aces cant keep up and certainly Devs cant keep up. Most of the Dev community has disappeared or stayed in FS9. There are still not alot of people working in FSX yet. THere are far more then there were last year though which is good to see. But freeware models have almost halted hold for perhaps 5 people or groups in the world.
The more professional, elaborate, and powerful the system (and smoothness of its performance) the more the buyers of the platform. The more it offers, the more will buy it. Bottom line.
I wonder what FS will be like in 10 years...
Bill
Prowler1111
Charter Member 2011
Or flying a B-2 945645609 miles to the target and back. Or flying a F-16 an uneventful hour to the target area, doing an uneventful CAP for half an hour and flying back to base an hour.
Well(and really sorry for the shameless plug)you can do that right now with our A-6 package...like 2 to 3 hrs hunting down "scuds"(we´ll change that to real scuds launchers) and watching around in the desert....
Prowler
Naah, that was the RAF with a Vulcan - and they still managed to miss the runway at Port Stanley... :d
Ian P.
N
ncleobis
Guest
I think it is fairly obvious as why we want to use MSFS for military ops and not any other flight sim! I'm in a virtual sqn with other guys that already posted here, and the truth is that, yes, we do managed to get some great stuff going, the SAM's (still in development), AAR, Electronic warfare AI aircraft, landable carriers online, etc, but as said before by riptide, all thanks to our brilliant programer that can do miracles within FSX.
What we lack is a proper action/consequense engine in FS, I mean, a proper weapon system, even if nothing compared to falcon4.0, of course.
Back to the 1st part of the post...why we do choose to use fsx when we have other combat sims, as falcon 4.0 (the ultimate combat sim in my opinion), lock on, etc,etc....all these are great but they only have a few aircraft to fly, a limited area, limited modding capabilities...I mean, in FSX we can choose select an aircraft and simulate its real world missions, maybe it's an F-105 and we fly in thailand laos and vietnam and after we're done we have the ability to choose another aircraft and go to another part of the globe.
The thing with FS is that you have realistic navs, globe, aircraft systems, weather, stable online engine, etc,etc...it just gives you total freedom to easiy create scenarios, aircraft, etc,etc...all to recreate the real world as close as possible and NO OTHER combat sim can do that....they all are very limited when it comes to these kind of things...
To finnish my rambling, I would love to see some form of combat capabilites in FSXI even if as a separate addon, a bit like acceleration...
And please, please...don't come with the PC stuff...or that military users are a minority...I'm sure glider pilots are also a minority and yet, they did get an improved engine and utilities for them to use....which I think is great...just don't forget the other minorities...
What we lack is a proper action/consequense engine in FS, I mean, a proper weapon system, even if nothing compared to falcon4.0, of course.
Back to the 1st part of the post...why we do choose to use fsx when we have other combat sims, as falcon 4.0 (the ultimate combat sim in my opinion), lock on, etc,etc....all these are great but they only have a few aircraft to fly, a limited area, limited modding capabilities...I mean, in FSX we can choose select an aircraft and simulate its real world missions, maybe it's an F-105 and we fly in thailand laos and vietnam and after we're done we have the ability to choose another aircraft and go to another part of the globe.
The thing with FS is that you have realistic navs, globe, aircraft systems, weather, stable online engine, etc,etc...it just gives you total freedom to easiy create scenarios, aircraft, etc,etc...all to recreate the real world as close as possible and NO OTHER combat sim can do that....they all are very limited when it comes to these kind of things...
To finnish my rambling, I would love to see some form of combat capabilites in FSXI even if as a separate addon, a bit like acceleration...
And please, please...don't come with the PC stuff...or that military users are a minority...I'm sure glider pilots are also a minority and yet, they did get an improved engine and utilities for them to use....which I think is great...just don't forget the other minorities...
N
ncleobis
Guest
I thought someone would pick on that :d
Why shouldn't we come with the "PC stuff"? It's a PC sim! Microsoft haven't managed to turn it into an Xbox title yet!:d
Ian P.
(Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know.)
(Edit: Oh dear. My 200th Post-Crash post was a
Funny you mention this Ian... The first releases of the Beta of FSX (I can talk about this now) had on the bootup screen a regular joystick and a X-Box control console.
It was obvious that FSX was designed originally to be used (a version of it) in X-Box. The photo menu system of selecting planes was similar to racing games in X-Box.
If X-Box could link a Keyboard into it as well as the regular joystick, then its the same as any other PC except that its going to be for flying 'only' and not capable of doing anything else, (like checking emails, etc).
But......... (huge but here), if X-Box could run FSX with full sliders, have the keyboard 'and' joystick running (must have the keyboard) then I would buy it in a new york second! No ifs ands or buts.. I would get it fast. I have wanted to see/fly FSX with full sliders and see what its like and never have.
Bill
oh man.... Sitting here thinking about X-Box.. What if MS did a special X-Box just for FSX / FS11.... Complete with joystick, headset capability for multi-player, keyboard... Optional X-Box rudder pedals.
Might be an interesting marketing possibility for the X-Box group. Being able to run FSX at full sliders, not having to add things to your own personal computer, etc.. (GC's that are practically prototypes, new drivers, new OS systems, etc)... All simply put into its own box and runs proper right out of the box...!
hmmmmmmmmm.....
Bill
Might be an interesting marketing possibility for the X-Box group. Being able to run FSX at full sliders, not having to add things to your own personal computer, etc.. (GC's that are practically prototypes, new drivers, new OS systems, etc)... All simply put into its own box and runs proper right out of the box...!
hmmmmmmmmm.....
Bill
Lionheart said:
FSX has been released as part of Games for Windows program. AFAIK all GfW games have to support Xbox360 gamepad. It's a GfW system requirement.
FSx for Xbox = no community addons. I don't think it's the best idea
Take a look at Unreal Tournament 3 game. PC version is available with game editor, maps and addons made with this editor doesn't work on Xbox360 at all (but they work on PS3
).Besides, my PC isn't the best one available right now, but is more powerful than Xbox360
only one problem with that lionheart....microsoft hasnt even got the xbox working properly yet. red ring of death anyone? the damn thing overheats. OVERHEATS. they couldnt just put another little fan in there? whats so hard about it? its in their bloodline to release before all bugs have been worked out. they just cant bring themselves to release a product that delivers what they promise. i think they ought to just finish something before they wet themselves with excitement and release it anyway
Bjoern
worst developer ever
Sounds...umm...really exciting...err...I think I'll enlist right now!
(SCNR)
I think the current record holder is said B-2 with a round trip from the USA to Serbia and back.
Until you can create the self-sustainable games programmer, I'm afraid that's the way things are.
Being a publisher isn't about greediness, it's about pumping money into something with an unpredictable outcome. I can understand if publishers want to see a finished product someday, since it's their money going down the drain. If a developer can't keep up with the schedule, solely because he wants to implement thousands of new features into his new baby, you'll get a half-arsed, but feature-rich piece of software. You're lucky if you can delay the release a bit to patch up the worst holes, but in the end you and your publisher would be better way off with one feature and a lot of bugs less.
I think the most of the problems with bugs in the gaming industry is badly working communication between publishers and developers and a lack of realistic goals from both sides.