FS9/FS2004: As fake as it gets?

Good points all.
Indeed Microsoft had/has the money to have made an even better COF. What they
don't have is enough talent. FS is a very small part of Microsoft, and by no
means the sexy, high paying part. MS is always hiring, and yet never seems to
have enough developers to go around. Great developers don't grow on trees and
Microsoft has to compete for them as well as anyone else. Their Games Division
which is a very small part of MS (of which the FS team is a tiny island) has
been concentrating on XBox, which consequently is getting the lions share of the
budget. Quite frankly I believe MS keeps FS going just as a local Pizza Parlor
sponsors a local soccer team. Mostly PR and because some VP somewhere is
fighting for it. Sooner of later the bean counters are most likely going to win
and just do away with it. I hope not, but I wouldn't be surprised. One thing I
could see happening is FS moving over to XBox. That would remove a lot of
headaches of trying to support all of the different hardware configurations out
there.

Careful what you ask for you just might get it.

--
....Carl Frisk
Anger is a brief madness.
- Horace, 20 B.C.
http://www.carlfrisk.com


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:05:34 GMT, "Carl Frisk" wrote:

Thing is for $50 bucks FS9 gives
you IMO a really great realistic flying experience.

I have to agree with your statement here except that it provide a fairly
realistic experience but then I wonder about what FS should be. FS has
been around what 15 years? A long time anyway. There have been some good
general aviation sims compete with FS. Pro Pilot, Flight Unlimited and Fly
for example. All these sims took 1 to 2 years to develop from scratch and
they were able to do as good and in some areas better than FS. Now my
point is if those sims could be done in a couple of years from nothing
should not FS be much, much better than it is? MS has an established cycle
now of every two years coming out with an incremental upgrade. The same
time it takes to develop a new sim and all they do is an incremental
upgrade. Should not by now we have instruments that are as good as say,
the Reality XP line. Should not the long standing default aircraft look as
good as the PMDG aircraft, for example. Should not the aerodynamics
problems/errors that one reads about in the newsgroups be fixed by now?
Should not the ATC be at least as good as say, Radar Contact? Should not
there be a flight planner as nice as say, Flightsim Commander? Should not
the terrain elevations be at least as good as those provided by 3rd party
developers? These are questions I think about when I consider how long FS
has been on the market.

MS opened up the door for 3rd parties to come along and improve it.

Yes they do let some things out in their SDKs now and it is greatly
appreciated by many. However, I still remember for years and years the sim
community was asking MS for information about their aircraft and scenery
structure. MS steadfastly refused to release or say anything. It took
dedicated 3rd party programmers to figure out on their own how things
worked. It wasn't until I believe it was Pro Pilot came out and encouraged
3rd party developers by providing an open architecture that MS relented and
started releasing the SDKs. It seems it has been marketing pressures that
have brought about major changes, not the kindness of MS. IMO we probably
would still not have SDKs if it weren't for sims like Pro Pilot, Flight
Unlimited and Fly to provide competition and actually encourage 3rd party
development.

Well, I'm done.

Regards all
Jack

Hi abc and Carl,

Hmmmm....

Entirely reasonable questions, abc, and very possibly an accurate
scenario, Carl - it sure would be enlightening to hear any sort of
official/inside responses, but as that, understandably, won't happen, it's
"onwards and upwards". :-)

Regards,
John


"Carl Frisk" wrote in message
...
Good points all.
Indeed Microsoft had/has the money to have made an even better COF. What
they
don't have is enough talent. FS is a very small part of Microsoft, and by
no
means the sexy, high paying part. MS is always hiring, and yet never
seems to
have enough developers to go around. Great developers don't grow on trees
and
Microsoft has to compete for them as well as anyone else. Their Games
Division
which is a very small part of MS (of which the FS team is a tiny island)
has
been concentrating on XBox, which consequently is getting the lions share
of the
budget. Quite frankly I believe MS keeps FS going just as a local Pizza
Parlor
sponsors a local soccer team. Mostly PR and because some VP somewhere is
fighting for it. Sooner of later the bean counters are most likely going
to win
and just do away with it. I hope not, but I wouldn't be surprised. One
thing I
could see happening is FS moving over to XBox. That would remove a lot of
headaches of trying to support all of the different hardware
configurations out
there.

Careful what you ask for you just might get it.

--
...Carl Frisk
Anger is a brief madness.
- Horace, 20 B.C.
http://www.carlfrisk.com


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:05:34 GMT, "Carl Frisk"
wrote:

Thing is for $50 bucks FS9 gives
you IMO a really great realistic flying experience.

I have to agree with your statement here except that it provide a fairly
realistic experience but then I wonder about what FS should be. FS has
been around what 15 years? A long time anyway. There have been some
good
general aviation sims compete with FS. Pro Pilot, Flight Unlimited and
Fly
for example. All these sims took 1 to 2 years to develop from scratch
and
they were able to do as good and in some areas better than FS. Now my
point is if those sims could be done in a couple of years from nothing
should not FS be much, much better than it is? MS has an established
cycle
now of every two years coming out with an incremental upgrade. The same
time it takes to develop a new sim and all they do is an incremental
upgrade. Should not by now we have instruments that are as good as say,
the Reality XP line. Should not the long standing default aircraft look
as
good as the PMDG aircraft, for example. Should not the aerodynamics
problems/errors that one reads about in the newsgroups be fixed by now?
Should not the ATC be at least as good as say, Radar Contact? Should
not
there be a flight planner as nice as say, Flightsim Commander? Should
not
the terrain elevations be at least as good as those provided by 3rd
party
developers? These are questions I think about when I consider how long
FS
has been on the market.

MS opened up the door for 3rd parties to come along and improve it.

Yes they do let some things out in their SDKs now and it is greatly
appreciated by many. However, I still remember for years and years the
sim
community was asking MS for information about their aircraft and scenery
structure. MS steadfastly refused to release or say anything. It took
dedicated 3rd party programmers to figure out on their own how things
worked. It wasn't until I believe it was Pro Pilot came out and
encouraged
3rd party developers by providing an open architecture that MS relented
and
started releasing the SDKs. It seems it has been marketing pressures
that
have brought about major changes, not the kindness of MS. IMO we
probably
would still not have SDKs if it weren't for sims like Pro Pilot, Flight
Unlimited and Fly to provide competition and actually encourage 3rd
party
development.

Well, I'm done.

Regards all
Jack

"Carl Frisk" wrote

Good points all.
Indeed Microsoft had/has the money to have made an even better COF.
What they don't have is enough talent. FS is a very small part of
Microsoft, and by no means the sexy, high paying part. MS is always
hiring, and yet never seems to have enough developers to go around.
Great developers don't grow on trees and Microsoft has to compete for
them as well as anyone else.

Microsoft is known for getting the developers it wants, sometimes paying
outrageous money just to keep them from working at other firms.

Their Games Division which is a very
small part of MS (of which the FS team is a tiny island) has been
concentrating on XBox, which consequently is getting the lions share
of the budget. Quite frankly I believe MS keeps FS going just as a
local Pizza Parlor sponsors a local soccer team. Mostly PR and
because some VP somewhere is fighting for it. Sooner of later the
bean counters are most likely going to win and just do away with it.
I hope not, but I wouldn't be surprised. One thing I could see
happening is FS moving over to XBox. That would remove a lot of
headaches of trying to support all of the different hardware
configurations out there.

Careful what you ask for you just might get it.

Microsoft's mode of operation to beat the competition down by flooding the
market with a minimally better product, or to impede the sales of competing
products, legally or illegally. Without Microsoft, the money would go to
competing/innovative firms like the former Looking Glass Studios. Without
Microsoft, the competition for our money would raise the bar.

The sheep would find a way to cope, probably better off.









--
...Carl Frisk
Anger is a brief madness.
- Horace, 20 B.C.
http://www.carlfrisk.com


Path:
newssvr33.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm02.news.prodigy. com!newsmst01.news.prodig
y.com!prodigy.com!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofn ews.com!border2.nntp.ash.
giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.ne t!spamkiller.gnilink.net!
gnilink.net!nwrddc03.gnilink.net.POSTED!18ac844a!n ot-for-mail
Reply-To: "Carl Frisk"
From: "Carl Frisk"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
References:






Subject: FS9/FS2004: As fake as it gets?
Lines: 73
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 22:28:10 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.15.112.63
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: nwrddc03.gnilink.net 1080512890 4.15.112.63 (Sun, 28 Mar 2004
17:28:10 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 17:28:10 EST
Xref: newsmst01.news.prodigy.com rec.aviation.simulators:150916

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:05:34 GMT, "Carl Frisk"
wrote:

Thing is for $50 bucks FS9 gives
you IMO a really great realistic flying experience.

I have to agree with your statement here except that it provide a
fairly realistic experience but then I wonder about what FS should
be. FS has been around what 15 years? A long time anyway. There
have been some good general aviation sims compete with FS. Pro
Pilot, Flight Unlimited and Fly for example. All these sims took 1
to 2 years to develop from scratch and they were able to do as good
and in some areas better than FS. Now my point is if those sims
could be done in a couple of years from nothing should not FS be
much, much better than it is? MS has an established cycle now of
every two years coming out with an incremental upgrade. The same
time it takes to develop a new sim and all they do is an incremental
upgrade. Should not by now we have instruments that are as good as
say, the Reality XP line. Should not the long standing default
aircraft look as good as the PMDG aircraft, for example. Should not
the aerodynamics problems/errors that one reads about in the
newsgroups be fixed by now? Should not the ATC be at least as good as
say, Radar Contact? Should not there be a flight planner as nice as
say, Flightsim Commander? Should not the terrain elevations be at
least as good as those provided by 3rd party developers? These are
questions I think about when I consider how long FS has been on the
market.

MS opened up the door for 3rd parties to come along and improve it.

Yes they do let some things out in their SDKs now and it is greatly
appreciated by many. However, I still remember for years and years
the sim community was asking MS for information about their aircraft
and scenery structure. MS steadfastly refused to release or say
anything. It took dedicated 3rd party programmers to figure out on
their own how things worked. It wasn't until I believe it was Pro
Pilot came out and encouraged 3rd party developers by providing an
open architecture that MS relented and started releasing the SDKs.
It seems it has been marketing pressures that have brought about
major changes, not the kindness of MS. IMO we probably would still
not have SDKs if it weren't for sims like Pro Pilot, Flight Unlimited
and Fly to provide competition and actually encourage 3rd party
development.

Well, I'm done.

Regards all
Jack

"Carl Frisk" wrote

Being from Seattle I see lots of things missing and wrong with the
Seattle area in FS9.

Lots missing compared to which other city?

Doesn't take my enjoyment away 1 bit though.

Seattle looks better than other cities.

Just curious what city are you flying around?

Cities bigger than Seattle.

In Seattle, Washington. Besides the colorful cranes, the huge golf course,
and miscellaneous other stuff, there are football/soccer fields, baseball
fields, even what looks like basketball courts in the suburbs. The Seattle
Seahawks stadium is detailed. What might be the biggest difference is in
the city of Seattle where there are many crossroads clearly showing. I do
not see them in Dallas, Los Angeles, or San Francisco. The buildings in the
city of Seattle are placed in line with those streets. They even appear to
have courtyards drawn out in front of them. In other, bigger cities, the
buildings appear to be junked in at about a 45 degree angle to where
streets should be.

I also see lot's of things wrong in the Redmond area which is where FS
is made. The roads are off in both Seattle and Redmond.

There are no crossroads roads in other cities.

In case anyone wants a benchmark, this is my setup.
....Clean, full install of FS9/FS2004, no add-on scenery.
....Turn all scenery sliders to max, water is forced to about one half.
....Special effects is off.
....Fake (generated) scenery is off.









Thing is for
$50 bucks FS9 gives you IMO a really great realistic flying
experience. MS opened up the door for 3rd parties to come along and
improve it. And if you happen to be a programmer that includes you.

Your system is a little on lower mid range so most likely you aren't
rendering everything that a high-end system will. And I suspect you
will get better texture rendering from XP than you ever will from
Millennium.

What resolution is monitor running FS in?

--
...Carl Frisk
Anger is a brief madness.
- Horace, 20 B.C.
http://www.carlfrisk.com


"John Doe" wrote in message
...
"quilljar" wrote

Sorry John Doe,
But I think that Microsoft, although obscenely rich, is too easy a
target, rather like 'The Government'.

It is like government.

If there was more money to be made by producing a sim which had
everybody's underpants and tooth fillings show up as well as each
brick in the Taj Mahal,

There is an interstate highway around my big city which is barely
recognizable/followable in FS9/FS2004. It looks like a dirt road at
best. The rest is desolation, except for a few low detail buildings.

You must have some very big tooth fillings.

I am sure they would produce it.
At the moment, outside the military, there aren't the computers
around that can handle FS9 even at its present state.

I remember when my monitor displayed 16 colors and I complained about
games requiring 256. In fact, my system was way substandard. After a
few upgrades, I ran Multi-Player Battletech online at about 2 frames
per second. It's really tough trying to hit a target when you cannot
tell its heading. But it was fun anyway.

By about the time you are being slid into the crematorium I
daresay something approaching your desires will be on the workbench
in Seattle :-)

But making scenery much more detailed isn't my argument. I wrote
"Seattle looks much better than most other cities I have seen in
FS9/FS2004". My frame rates are about 15 FPS over Seattle with all
scenery sliders maxed, except no fake scenery generated.

My system:
...K7T Turbo2 mainboard
...Athlon XP 2400+ (2 GHz) CPU, thanks to BIOS upgrade from MSI
...512 MB, 133 MHz RAM
...NVIDIA GeForce3 video card, faster than low end GeForce4
...Windows Millennium

John Doe,
All I asked for was what city/cities your flying in so I can go see for
myself. Prior to FS9 I always thought Chicago was the most accurate by far. It
would still probably be the default airport if Mayor Daly hadn't performed his
midnight magic.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/033103_ns_meigs.html
--
....Carl Frisk
Anger is a brief madness.
- Horace, 20 B.C.
http://www.carlfrisk.com


"John Doe" wrote in message
...
"Carl Frisk" wrote

Being from Seattle I see lots of things missing and wrong with the
Seattle area in FS9.

Lots missing compared to which other city?

Doesn't take my enjoyment away 1 bit though.

Seattle looks better than other cities.

Just curious what city are you flying around?

Cities bigger than Seattle.

In Seattle, Washington. Besides the colorful cranes, the huge golf course,
and miscellaneous other stuff, there are football/soccer fields, baseball
fields, even what looks like basketball courts in the suburbs. The Seattle
Seahawks stadium is detailed. What might be the biggest difference is in
the city of Seattle where there are many crossroads clearly showing. I do
not see them in Dallas, Los Angeles, or San Francisco. The buildings in the
city of Seattle are placed in line with those streets. They even appear to
have courtyards drawn out in front of them. In other, bigger cities, the
buildings appear to be junked in at about a 45 degree angle to where
streets should be.

I also see lot's of things wrong in the Redmond area which is where FS
is made. The roads are off in both Seattle and Redmond.

There are no crossroads roads in other cities.

In case anyone wants a benchmark, this is my setup.
...Clean, full install of FS9/FS2004, no add-on scenery.
...Turn all scenery sliders to max, water is forced to about one half.
...Special effects is off.
...Fake (generated) scenery is off.









Thing is for
$50 bucks FS9 gives you IMO a really great realistic flying
experience. MS opened up the door for 3rd parties to come along and
improve it. And if you happen to be a programmer that includes you.

Your system is a little on lower mid range so most likely you aren't
rendering everything that a high-end system will. And I suspect you
will get better texture rendering from XP than you ever will from
Millennium.

What resolution is monitor running FS in?

--
...Carl Frisk
Anger is a brief madness.
- Horace, 20 B.C.
http://www.carlfrisk.com


"John Doe" wrote in message
...
"quilljar" wrote

Sorry John Doe,
But I think that Microsoft, although obscenely rich, is too easy a
target, rather like 'The Government'.

It is like government.

If there was more money to be made by producing a sim which had
everybody's underpants and tooth fillings show up as well as each
brick in the Taj Mahal,

There is an interstate highway around my big city which is barely
recognizable/followable in FS9/FS2004. It looks like a dirt road at
best. The rest is desolation, except for a few low detail buildings.

You must have some very big tooth fillings.

I am sure they would produce it.
At the moment, outside the military, there aren't the computers
around that can handle FS9 even at its present state.

I remember when my monitor displayed 16 colors and I complained about
games requiring 256. In fact, my system was way substandard. After a
few upgrades, I ran Multi-Player Battletech online at about 2 frames
per second. It's really tough trying to hit a target when you cannot
tell its heading. But it was fun anyway.

By about the time you are being slid into the crematorium I
daresay something approaching your desires will be on the workbench
in Seattle :-)

But making scenery much more detailed isn't my argument. I wrote
"Seattle looks much better than most other cities I have seen in
FS9/FS2004". My frame rates are about 15 FPS over Seattle with all
scenery sliders maxed, except no fake scenery generated.

My system:
...K7T Turbo2 mainboard
...Athlon XP 2400+ (2 GHz) CPU, thanks to BIOS upgrade from MSI
...512 MB, 133 MHz RAM
...NVIDIA GeForce3 video card, faster than low end GeForce4
...Windows Millennium

Up, up and away

It is entirely conjecture on my part. Just a business model that makes sense to
me. I don't know any of the FS people at MS. Everytime I was over in Gameland
I was too busy with the XBox folks to even think of looking for the FS people.
I did on my last visit see a giant FS box in an office but it turned out to be
an XBox guy who was avidly into sims. He said the FS folks were three buildings
away. It was raining so hard that day that by the time I could have gotten a
shuttle and popped over and back it would have consumed 2 hours at least. I
regret not doing it now that I look back on it.

Disclaimer: Since I've worked for Microsoft many times and in many capacities
in the past I've signed many Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure statements.
I've heard no rumors whatsoever about where FS might be going. It's all my own
opinion about what might happen.

--
....Carl Frisk
Anger is a brief madness.
- Horace, 20 B.C.
http://www.carlfrisk.com


"John Ward" wrote in message
u...
Hi abc and Carl,

Hmmmm....

Entirely reasonable questions, abc, and very possibly an accurate
scenario, Carl - it sure would be enlightening to hear any sort of
official/inside responses, but as that, understandably, won't happen, it's
"onwards and upwards". :-)

Regards,
John


"Carl Frisk" wrote in message
...
Good points all.
Indeed Microsoft had/has the money to have made an even better COF. What
they
don't have is enough talent. FS is a very small part of Microsoft, and by
no
means the sexy, high paying part. MS is always hiring, and yet never
seems to
have enough developers to go around. Great developers don't grow on trees
and
Microsoft has to compete for them as well as anyone else. Their Games
Division
which is a very small part of MS (of which the FS team is a tiny island)
has
been concentrating on XBox, which consequently is getting the lions share
of the
budget. Quite frankly I believe MS keeps FS going just as a local Pizza
Parlor
sponsors a local soccer team. Mostly PR and because some VP somewhere is
fighting for it. Sooner of later the bean counters are most likely going
to win
and just do away with it. I hope not, but I wouldn't be surprised. One
thing I
could see happening is FS moving over to XBox. That would remove a lot of
headaches of trying to support all of the different hardware
configurations out
there.

Careful what you ask for you just might get it.

--
...Carl Frisk
Anger is a brief madness.
- Horace, 20 B.C.
http://www.carlfrisk.com


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:05:34 GMT, "Carl Frisk"
wrote:

Thing is for $50 bucks FS9 gives
you IMO a really great realistic flying experience.

I have to agree with your statement here except that it provide a fairly
realistic experience but then I wonder about what FS should be. FS has
been around what 15 years? A long time anyway. There have been some
good
general aviation sims compete with FS. Pro Pilot, Flight Unlimited and
Fly
for example. All these sims took 1 to 2 years to develop from scratch
and
they were able to do as good and in some areas better than FS. Now my
point is if those sims could be done in a couple of years from nothing
should not FS be much, much better than it is? MS has an established
cycle
now of every two years coming out with an incremental upgrade. The same
time it takes to develop a new sim and all they do is an incremental
upgrade. Should not by now we have instruments that are as good as say,
the Reality XP line. Should not the long standing default aircraft look
as
good as the PMDG aircraft, for example. Should not the aerodynamics
problems/errors that one reads about in the newsgroups be fixed by now?
Should not the ATC be at least as good as say, Radar Contact? Should
not
there be a flight planner as nice as say, Flightsim Commander? Should
not
the terrain elevations be at least as good as those provided by 3rd
party
developers? These are questions I think about when I consider how long
FS
has been on the market.

MS opened up the door for 3rd parties to come along and improve it.

Yes they do let some things out in their SDKs now and it is greatly
appreciated by many. However, I still remember for years and years the
sim
community was asking MS for information about their aircraft and scenery
structure. MS steadfastly refused to release or say anything. It took
dedicated 3rd party programmers to figure out on their own how things
worked. It wasn't until I believe it was Pro Pilot came out and
encouraged
3rd party developers by providing an open architecture that MS relented
and
started releasing the SDKs. It seems it has been marketing pressures
that
have brought about major changes, not the kindness of MS. IMO we
probably
would still not have SDKs if it weren't for sims like Pro Pilot, Flight
Unlimited and Fly to provide competition and actually encourage 3rd
party
development.

Well, I'm done.

Regards all
Jack

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.

"Carl Frisk" wrote

John,
As much as I'm sure I've antagonized you, I've always respected your
quiet reserve in your beliefs.

Thanks. Anything short of all capital letters, actually.

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,

After choosing one.

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.

I think it is a trend. Redmond/Seattle is now center of the universe as it
is known to Microsoft.

snip
That said I'll say this. Microsoft didn't put any company out of
business.

Microsoft destroyed Netscape by pushing Navigator off of personal
computers. You can read the Findings of Fact on Microsoft for some juicy
details on how Microsoft did that and many other similar things. Microsoft
tries very hard to either kill or avoid competition.

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.

You had good reason to cross over, and now you are stuck, believe it or
not. The game ended years ago, about when windows ran on over 90% of iNtel
based PCs. There are phenomenons known as "network effects" and "a positive
feedback loop" which are well discussed in the big antitrust trial district
court and appeals court decisions. You might find them useful reading.

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.

As of September, 2002, Bill Gates owned roughly 1.2 billion Microsoft
shares, Steve Ballmer held 470,968,074 Microsoft shares. I cannot find the
data, but I would guess that the total shares owned by company
managers/employees is at least 30%.

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.

Microsoft would rather not compete, and it has the power to force other
companies out of business, which it does in fact do.

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.

The best reminder of that so far was when Microsoft refused to ship windows
to IBM unless IBM's PCs would include Microsoft Works instead of IBM's own
Lotus Smartsuite. Microsoft uses its monopolies to keep competition away.

Right now there is plenty of VC money out there for anyone with a
better mousetrap.

Not according to the United States District and Appeals courts.









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.

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
vastly increasing the development time and cost,

What part of $50,000,000,000 don't you understand?

WARNING: BASIC ECONOMICS LESSON FOLLOWS

Just because they can afford to do it doesn't mean they will. The fact of
the matter is, the vast majority of the FS customer base DOES NOT CARE about
having the exact buildings in their exact locations. Outside of their
immediate area, it's not likely they're going to know what every single
house looks like anyway, so why bother? Certainly, they have the capability
to do it--but the potential increase in sales doesn't offset the expense.
Consider, too, the additional processing power that would be required for
all of this. Few people have systems that can handle FS9 as it is; what do
you think they'll do when every single house, blade of grass, and stalk of
corn is modelled?

Finally, remember too that there are quite a few who don't give a damn about
the eye candy--they just want the physics of flying modelled as
realistically as possible and as long as they can read the gauges they don't
care how detailed the rest of the graphics are.

--
Kurt Weber

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:54:38 -0500, "Kurt Weber"
proclaimed:

Finally, remember too that there are quite a few who don't give a damn about
the eye candy--they just want the physics of flying modelled as
realistically as possible and as long as they can read the gauges they don't
care how detailed the rest of the graphics are.

What he said!!!!!!!!!!!!!