![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
John,
As much as I'm sure I've antagonized you, I've always respected your quiet reserve in your beliefs. So I took a quick flight over LA and with just a quick look I have to agree with you. Seattle does seem to pack more eye candy than at least LA. I couldn't find the Convention Center for instance, though like I say I took a very quick look. I'll spend more time later checking out the comparative lack of eye candy in LA. However I am not surprised that the MS dev's may have spent more time on their default departure city, just as I believe they did on Chicago when it was home base. In FS2002 I was much more impressed with the Windy City than I ever was with Seattle. I always thought hey they all live or at least work here why can't Seattle be better than Chicago. In FS9 it looks like I got my way so I'm happy at least. However - The roads in the sim for Seattle are a laugh, same for my home base KPAE. I'm going to investigate 3rd party improvements and see if they are much better. VFR is really tough to do in any flight sim in any version compared to real life. I now realize I've compensated for the sim. I know where the few actual landmarks are for my local area and can fly VFR to all my local airports fairly easily now that I've found them. I just have to forget the real world when doing so. This brings back a memory of the last time I went up VFR and I had to rethink my visual cues vs. flight sim cues. So alas I too would like better scenery, roads and landmarks than MS provides. However I don't expect it from MS. In fact I would prefer to get it from a third party that already seems to be doing a better job than MS is or has a desire to. These groups seem to be doing just fine without MS and vice-versa. That said I'll say this. Microsoft didn't put any company out of business. The customers vote with their cash on who gets to keep playing the business game and who doesn't. Note the present tense. This game isn't over yet, it is simply evolving. It isn't about the best, or shoulda, coulda, woulda, it's about giving the customer what they want. The company that plays that game wins. And should win in my opinion. Linux is starting to interest me. I may cross over, after all I crossed over to GEOS then DOS then Windows from the mainframe world many years ago. I still think Windows is just now catching up to that methodology BTW. Just as I think Linux is starting to catch up to Windows, technologically that is. And in closing, If you were the head of a major software company and you started dropping inordinate amounts of resources into a tiny, minuscule cost center of the business that is already at market saturation and had no growth potential the stockholders would sue the socks off of you just before trying to get you removed and certified crazy. Think they would have any trouble finding a law firm? And why would they sue? Because you'd be wasting their investment and practicing poor stewardship of a company they own part of. Microsoft's business is the same as every other non-profit business - To Make Money. Not to make the best flight sim that money can develop. They make money by making the best selling software for the price. IMHO every CEO in the nation should have a plaque on his desk that reads, "Don't blame the competition, blame me." Bill Gates didn't point fingers at IBM, he smiled, shook their hands and took their business. IBM has never forgotten that lesson by the way. Right now there is plenty of VC money out there for anyone with a better mousetrap. Just grumbling right back at ya ![]() -- ....Carl Frisk Anger is a brief madness. - Horace, 20 B.C. http://www.carlfrisk.com "John Doe" wrote in message . .. I really like scenery in flight simulators for site seeing and exploration and have always wanted more, but FS9/FS2004's generated scenery is IMO the definition of "eye candy" the way others use the word. I guess Microsoft figured it was more efficient to include fake scenery than to increase the realness. I wonder if that is the result of some research on user preferences. Just grumbling. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fake Cockpit | Flubke | Military Aviation | 6 | June 16th 04 03:16 PM |
Nice Fake: Tanker refueling a tanker refueling a tanker :) | Jan Gelbrich | Military Aviation | 2 | April 23rd 04 09:12 PM |
Is this a fake or a joke? | Andrew Chaplin | Military Aviation | 0 | March 29th 04 12:04 PM |
Bush to return NASA to moon | Aerophotos | Military Aviation | 51 | December 9th 03 07:43 AM |
Blue Angels Video - Is it a Fake? | Ken Morano | Military Aviation | 4 | November 18th 03 10:14 PM |