MS Flight CANCELLED.

The latest and discontinued 'Flight' Game from Microsoft -

Re: MS Flight CANCELLED.

Postby pete » Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:16 am

test
Think global. It's the world we live in
User avatar
pete
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 10295
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2001 2:01 am
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land

Re: MS Flight CANCELLED.

Postby jetprop » Wed Aug 01, 2012 1:38 pm

I remember the day MS (maybe even Bill Gates) dismissed the internet ... (He did learn quickly of his dumb error)


Hmmmmn... no, not quite. He did not dismiss internet as it was, he was sharp enough to recognize the potentiality of such a worldwide net and wanted to create an internet that was HIS. Personal. Constrained. Restricted. Bound only to him, M$ and their desires.

Who among you still remembers like I do the icon of "The Microsoft Network", on ALL the desktops of Win95? Ever asked yourself what it was and what was there for? It was a veritable Trojan Horse of the non viral kind. A Trojan Horse that was never welcomed in our citadels, fortunately.

A proper nightmare. Just think of an Internet ruled by M$... on which you can do whatever you want, bur only as long M$ agrees... and try not to puke.

M$'s hubris level back then redlined for the first, but sadly not the last time. And in fact, with the first and only patch the TCP-IP protocol was released (it was that or stand back and look at someone else doing it in their place) and everyone could connect to The Real Internet.


The Flight team should be commended for their attempts; they were doing their job with the same passion and excitement we had come to expect for developers. In the end, it was their upper management and MS Corporate that flat lined Flight, plain and simple.


No one here with a brain blames the coders and programmers of Flight. Coders and programmers can be blamed for FSX (but it was another team) which code is rubbish at best, not Flight. Coders and programmers of Flight did their best to keep in line with what was asked of them. They could not make available a feature if the higher ups told them in a non uncertain way not to include, and even if the perhaps wanted Flight to be something better, the eggheads above managed to mess it up BADLY, and now are coders and programmers that are laid off.

A little like; I am a road worker, the head engineer tells me to lay down a road pavement in a certain way, it is discovered then that that road pavement is not adequate to the task, and I am fired instead of the idiot who gave the order.

It happens all too often, and the sympathies go to those who were wronged, not the SOBs that caused the problem. Speaking for myself, I've never blamed the coders and programmers of Flight. When I've hurled written lightnings to M$, I've always directed them to the idiots on the top, apparently so eager and determined to mess it up again, and again, and again, and then another time too.

FSX code rubbish?
The code is just too far ahead for todays machines,the code is one of the most expansive,look at the stuff we can do with FSX now!Can that be done in X-plane or etc?
Image
User avatar
jetprop
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:03 am
Location: a chair infront of a monitor.

Re: MS Flight CANCELLED.

Postby Cusance » Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:19 pm

A sad perspective.
The failure of Flight is a very worrying event, because of what it tells us about MS.
It
Image
User avatar
Cusance
2nd Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:21 pm
Location: UK

Re: MS Flight CANCELLED.

Postby Strategic Retreat » Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:32 am

FSX code rubbish?


Yes.


The code is just too far ahead for todays machines,the code is one of the most expansive,look at the stuff we can do with FSX now!Can that be done in X-plane or etc?


Look, ALL you can say CAN'T change THE FACTS that FSX works fine enough NOW on VASTLY MORE powerful rigs than when it was born... but its NEVER CURED stability and compatibility problems that are STILL THERE in spite of the new hardware exist only BECAUSE its code is RUBBISH beyond any attempt of saving it.

Not to add that when you say that the code is "too far ahead" to me only seems a shameless excuse to justify the shoddy coding. A little like saying: "let's make a program that can be used only on SEVEN years from now hardware and THEN, to keep our asses out of danger, let's say our code is SO FINE and SO FAR AHEAD, it cannot be understood today nor maybe EVER by not enlightened people like us".

Let me guess, you don't find ANYTHING strange with the part among quotation marks written up above, do you?

Fact is: you like FSX? Use it freely. But try and make a favor to yourself and DO NOT BECOME BLIND TO THE FACTS.

As about your question, yes, it can be done on X-plane etc. Actually on X-plane etc you can do MORE, and without searching for workarounds. Don't knock it down in the name of parochialism unless you've tried it first, or you'll only be exposing yourself to ridicule. :P
Last edited by Strategic Retreat on Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
There is no such a thing as overkill. Only unworthy targets.
Strategic Retreat
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:40 am

Re: MS Flight CANCELLED.

Postby jetprop » Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:04 am

FSX code rubbish?


Yes.


The code is just too far ahead for todays machines,the code is one of the most expansive,look at the stuff we can do with FSX now!Can that be done in X-plane or etc?


Look, ALL you can say CAN'T change THE FACTS that FSX works fine enough NOW on VASTLY MORE powerful rigs than when it was born... but its NEVER CURED stability and compatibility problems that are STILL THERE in spite of the new hardware exist only BECAUSE its code is RUBBISH beyond any attempt of saving it.

Not to add that when you say that the code is "too far ahead" to me only seems a shameless excuse to justify the shoddy coding. A little like saying: "let's make a program that can be used only on SEVEN years from now hardware and THEN, to keep our asses out of danger, let's say our code is SO FINE and SO FAR AHEAD, it cannot be understood today nor maybe EVER by not enlightened people like us".

Let me guess, you don't find ANYTHING strange with the part among quotation marks written up above, do you?

Fact is: you like FSX? Use it freely. But try and make a favor to yourself and DO NOT BECOME BLIND TO THE FACTS.

As about your question, yes, it can be done on X-plane etc. Actually on X-plane etc you can do MORE, and without searching for workarounds. Don't knock it down in the name of parochialism unless you've tried it first, or you'll only be exposing yourself to ridicule. :P

No need to get angry,god!
But FSX is stable on my machine,and its an acer so. :P

But I do not deny that FSX coding is well..unfinished.
But the base is good,look at software like A2A,PMDG,ORBX.
The thing is:FSX is expansive,new things are still being made even tough it's a relatively old sim!

And how on earth is all that stuff a 'workaround'?
It's just ingenious ways to make new stuff.

OH and also:name anything X-plane can do that FSX can't? ::) (except model waves,wich I'm not sure is in X-plane either)
Image
User avatar
jetprop
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:03 am
Location: a chair infront of a monitor.

Re: MS Flight CANCELLED.

Postby Xpand » Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:11 am

FSX's engine is perfect for its purpose. It's demise was the fact that it's very bad at using the multi-core systems. It only uses one of the cores at a time instead of using both. If you run it in a single core with the same power you'll see its true capabilities..
Last edited by Xpand on Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Xpand
1st Lieutenant
1st Lieutenant
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:55 pm

Re: MS Flight CANCELLED.

Postby Strategic Retreat » Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:31 am

No need to get angry,god!


Not angry. Testy maybe, but angry not really. ;)

And I'm not a god (yet). ;D


But FSX is stable on my machine,and its an acer so. :P


You're one of those lucky, then. Just read around and see for yourself how lucky you are. :)


But I do not deny that FSX coding is well..unfinished.


That's putting it REALLY mildly. :P



But the base is good,look at software like A2A,PMDG,ORBX.
The thing is:FSX is expansive,new things are still being made even tough it's a relatively old sim!


Big deal. FSX can be expanded. You make it sound like it's a first. Must I remember you that FS9 preceded it by count of YEARS. ::)


And how on earth is all that stuff a 'workaround'?


The answer to this question is in the next quote.


OH and also:name anything X-plane can do that FSX can't? ::) (except model waves,wich I'm not sure is in X-plane either)


Let's then take FSX NOT MODIFIED with outside fighter gun packs. Let's take two P-51D with WORKING GUNS for FSX. Let's connect on peer2peer WITH FSX and have a slugfest IN FSX'S SKIES. I challenge you, Sir. 8-)

Crap. We can't do it, can we? FSX STANDARD just... can't. :(

With X-plane STANDARD, on the other hand, you only need to install the peer2peer module and choose the planes and the place for the slugfest. :P ;D

Written above is a little known capability of X-plane (and I really do not understand why. Was X-plane something I had to advertise, I SURELY would emphasize this non shared by FS capability of it), almost an undocumented feature, but it's there for everyone to use. :)
Last edited by Strategic Retreat on Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
There is no such a thing as overkill. Only unworthy targets.
Strategic Retreat
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:40 am

Re: MS Flight CANCELLED.

Postby Strategic Retreat » Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:35 am

FSX's engine is perfect for its purpose. It's demise was the fact that it's very bad at using the multi-core systems. It only uses one of the cores at a time instead of using both. If you run it in a single core with the same power you'll see its true capabilities..


Where I live there's a way to describe that, and the closer polite translation in English is: Rubbish.

When a thing is unable do what was built for, it is rubbish.

When a thing is unable do what it is expected to do and cannot be repaired so it can, it is rubbish.

Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish... :P
Last edited by Strategic Retreat on Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
There is no such a thing as overkill. Only unworthy targets.
Strategic Retreat
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:40 am

Re: MS Flight CANCELLED.

Postby jetprop » Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:17 pm

I'm not denying anything FS9 has done!



Let's then take FSX NOT MODIFIED with outside fighter gun packs. Let's take two P-51D with WORKING GUNS for FSX. Let's connect on peer2peer WITH FSX and have a slugfest IN FSX'S SKIES. I challenge you, Sir.

Crap. We can't do it, can we? FSX STANDARD just... can't.

With X-plane STANDARD, on the other hand, you only need to install the peer2peer module and choose the planes and the place for the slugfest.


So you think it should all be done standard?
Well,then in that case FSX does indeed suck. ;D

But what I mean is:they are still inventing new things for FSX,standard FSX does suck but look at it's capabilities!
Damage and wear,weapons,great weather systems,random stuff(I mean stuff like in accu-sim planes),cockpit shaking,enviourment sounds,high detail,you name it!It's all been done and who knows what will come next!

And I still don't understand why some people can't run FSX,I do know for one that some people think that FSX only looks good at high settings...
Not true. :P

This isn't meant angry or anything,just saying. ::)
Image
User avatar
jetprop
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:03 am
Location: a chair infront of a monitor.

Re: MS Flight CANCELLED.

Postby JBaymore » Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:24 pm

.............I do know for one that some people think that FSX only looks good at high settings...


Why would anyone want to buy a product that "promises the world"... and then is not able to actually USE that capability.... because the product is made in such a way that most people cannot access those promoted features?

FS2004 loaded with freeware and payware to me looks WAY better than stock FSX at even high medium settings and has almost the same capabilities for the serious simmer.

best,

......................john
Image ImageIntel i7 960 quad 3.2G LGA 1366, Asus P6X58D Premium, 750W Corsair, 6 gig 1600 DDR3, Spinpoint 1TB 720
User avatar
JBaymore
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 10291
Joined: Sat May 24, 2003 9:15 am
Location: New Hampshire

Re: MS Flight CANCELLED.

Postby Xpand » Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:26 pm

..Rubbish...

Correction: Obsolete. The engine was built in the time where comercial multi-core computers were just starting to appear, so they couldn't have guessed how a recent multi-core system would work with the game. Many of the games/programs of the FSX development time period between 2004-2006 don't support multi-core systems as a whole, using only one of the cores.
Last edited by Xpand on Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Xpand
1st Lieutenant
1st Lieutenant
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:55 pm

Re: MS Flight CANCELLED.

Postby machineman9 » Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:39 pm

To be honest, I'm sure I heard that FSX was supposed to be capable of running something ridiculous like 256 cores. Apparently it could load that many segments of scenery and aircraft into that many threads and run it that way. Of course, it was just the theory if they ever made a processor with that many cores for the mainstream market.

But yeah, the FSX code is generally buggy. It can easily be toppled. Could Flight? Well, they'd have to add enough content to actually find out! The vanilla version of FSX was usually okay... But I found that it didn't like stacking addons. I get so many crashes to desktop for such minor things... Previously, just landing used to crash the game. Now I have to save very regularly to ensure my flight is not lost.

During the beta test of Flight, I only found a few minor problems (apparently lack of AI/ATC/etc wasn't a "problem" though it was regularly reported as one) and it seemed to be quite solid. I think the code should be released... I know FlightGear have done a lot of hard work, but I'd like to see them take up the challenge of renovating Flight.
Last edited by machineman9 on Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
machineman9
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 5255
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 9:05 am
Location: Nantwich, England

Re: MS Flight CANCELLED.

Postby Xpand » Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:48 pm

I said it because many users reported that, when they tested the CPU charge while running FSX, only one of the cores was actually contributing to the performance while the other was practially at idle. This happened with me as well..
But the FSX engine is far from rubbish, I remember one of the guys from ORBX saying it had the best "far-horizon rendering engine" even today and a good multi tasking capability.
Xpand
1st Lieutenant
1st Lieutenant
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:55 pm

Re: MS Flight CANCELLED.

Postby Strategic Retreat » Fri Aug 03, 2012 5:58 pm

So you think it should all be done standard?


I seem to have forgot. Remember me please who was the one that dared the other to say what X-plane could do that FSX couldn't? :-?

Of course, I must add, NOWHERE at the same time I wrote that EVERYTHING must be included in the standard package either. Even if it would be awfully nice, I recognize it's a tall order, so I'm not one to request THAT.

Keep in mind in the end that I'm not preaching about the non use of FSX. I'm not telling you to stop using it because it's rubbish. That'd be fascist. If one want to use a given program, so be it... on his head the consequences of a poorly made choice.

I'm simply stating, reiterating and concluding... FSX's code IS rubbish. Full stop. Nothing more and nothing less.


Correction: Obsolete.


Nope.

You see, it's cyclical. I call it the Wheel of Rubbish. Sometimes, though rarely, it skips a generation, like in the case of FS9, but it's till pretty much cyclical. Follow me and you'll understand:

FS98's code was NOT rubbish. It was a great step forward if compared to FS95's rubbish code, yet FS95 (which was one and the same ad FS5.1, only FS95 worked in Windows... the TOTALITY of the GREAT job on the code of FS5.1 was to have it work natively under Win95... and badly, I might add... so it was a patch of sort... but one that was repackaged and resold AS A TOTALLY NEW VERSION... which says a lot about M$'s honesty if you stop to think about it) had at least the excuse it was the bridge generation. The generation that passed from DOS to Windows, and it was BOUND to have problems.

FS2K's code WAS rubbish. Full stop. Beyond any attempt to rescue it. It was BAD enough that a lot of people preferred to remain with FS98 (just like it would happen six years later, with FSX being rejected by the majority of the users for the old but better behaved FS9).

FS2002's code was NOT rubbish. It was what FS2K should have been and more. Notice please, it was THE ONLY release of FS that NEVER felt the need to receive a patch. Unprecedented and with no followers.

FS9's code was NOT rubbish... well, maybe slightly... at times I think FS9 is what FS2002 should have been from the start... yet even with that slight taint on its honor, it at least worked and still works without making too much of a fuss, after the patch.

It all ends up in FSX's code being rubbish. Beyond. Any. Dispute. Two patches and is still a MESS. QUITE LIKE FS2K, and maybe even worse.

And if someone asks about Flight, I'm going to take a plane and go to his home just for the pleasure to kick him in the jewels. ;D

More in depth, when I say FSX's code IS rubbish, I'm not talking about it being able or not to use more then a CPU core...

...I am talking about its THIRST of power at all levels to do things that OTHER softwares do with much less (like FS2K in its times, and remember, it's widely acknowledged that FS2k's code was rubbish)...

...I'm talking about the INSTABILITY that is its tallest banner (like FS2K in its times, and remember, it's widely acknowledged that FS2k's code was rubbish)...

...I'm talking about its COMPATIBILITY issues that still haunt every of its user (like FS2K in its times, and remember, it's widely acknowledged that FS2k's code was rubbish)...

...I'm talking, in the end about the fact that FS9 (the version of FS that FSX failed to replace, like its spiritual predecessor in rubbishness FS2K with FS98) is still being used by people that don't want to replace a working software with one that... guess what... is rubbish.

Sorry chaps. You may want to use it, and I am no one to tell you not to do it, you may even LIKE it, but still the hard fact is that even if you change its name with something more appealing, rubbish IS and REMAINS rubbish. Full stop. :P
Last edited by Strategic Retreat on Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
There is no such a thing as overkill. Only unworthy targets.
Strategic Retreat
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:40 am

Re: MS Flight CANCELLED.

Postby jetprop » Sat Aug 04, 2012 2:54 pm

So you think it should all be done standard?


I seem to have forgot. Remember me please who was the one that dared the other to say what X-plane could do that FSX couldn't? :-?

Of course, I must add, NOWHERE at the same time I wrote that EVERYTHING must be included in the standard package either. Even if it would be awfully nice, I recognize it's a tall order, so I'm not one to request THAT.

Keep in mind in the end that I'm not preaching about the non use of FSX. I'm not telling you to stop using it because it's rubbish. That'd be fascist. If one want to use a given program, so be it... on his head the consequences of a poorly made choice.

I'm simply stating, reiterating and concluding... FSX's code IS rubbish. Full stop. Nothing more and nothing less.


Correction: Obsolete.


Nope.

You see, it's cyclical. I call it the Wheel of Rubbish. Sometimes, though rarely, it skips a generation, like in the case of FS9, but it's till pretty much cyclical. Follow me and you'll understand:

FS98's code was NOT rubbish. It was a great step forward if compared to FS95's rubbish code, yet FS95 (which was one and the same ad FS5.1, only FS95 worked in Windows... the TOTALITY of the GREAT job on the code of FS5.1 was to have it work natively under Win95... and badly, I might add... so it was a patch of sort... but one that was repackaged and resold AS A TOTALLY NEW VERSION... which says a lot about M$'s honesty if you stop to think about it) had at least the excuse it was the bridge generation. The generation that passed from DOS to Windows, and it was BOUND to have problems.

FS2K's code WAS rubbish. Full stop. Beyond any attempt to rescue it. It was BAD enough that a lot of people preferred to remain with FS98 (just like it would happen six years later, with FSX being rejected by the majority of the users for the old but better behaved FS9).

FS2002's code was NOT rubbish. It was what FS2K should have been and more. Notice please, it was THE ONLY release of FS that NEVER felt the need to receive a patch. Unprecedented and with no followers.

FS9's code was NOT rubbish... well, maybe slightly... at times I think FS9 is what FS2002 should have been from the start... yet even with that slight taint on its honor, it at least worked and still works without making too much of a fuss, after the patch.

It all ends up in FSX's code being rubbish. Beyond. Any. Dispute. Two patches and is still a MESS. QUITE LIKE FS2K, and maybe even worse.

And if someone asks about Flight, I'm going to take a plane and go to his home just for the pleasure to kick him in the jewels. ;D

More in depth, when I say FSX's code IS rubbish, I'm not talking about it being able or not to use more then a CPU core...

...I am talking about its THIRST of power at all levels to do things that OTHER softwares do with much less (like FS2K in its times, and remember, it's widely acknowledged that FS2k's code was rubbish)...

...I'm talking about the INSTABILITY that is its tallest banner (like FS2K in its times, and remember, it's widely acknowledged that FS2k's code was rubbish)...

...I'm talking about its COMPATIBILITY issues that still haunt every of its user (like FS2K in its times, and remember, it's widely acknowledged that FS2k's code was rubbish)...

...I'm talking, in the end about the fact that FS9 (the version of FS that FSX failed to replace, like its spiritual predecessor in rubbishness FS2K with FS98) is still being used by people that don't want to replace a working software with one that... guess what... is rubbish.

Sorry chaps. You may want to use it, and I am no one to tell you not to do it, you may even LIKE it, but still the hard fact is that even if you change its name with something more appealing, rubbish IS and REMAINS rubbish. Full stop. :P

Well.
You say you aren't wanting to push someone into not using FSX while everywhere in your post you say that FSX is rubbish.

I am not going on about how FSX code isn't rubbish  because otherwise this discusion is going to go on forever and we don't want to get offtopic do we? ;D

But this is what I see:
FSX is for those who have the patience to tweak it and hone it to perfection,its a jewel then.

FS9 is for people who want a straight out sim,wich doens't need tweaking but still looks good but not amazing.
If you do tweak FS9 it does get amazing,sometimes near FSX quality.

This is all I am saying.

Oh and if someone DOES say flight is perfect then I will join you on the visit. ;D
Image
User avatar
jetprop
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:03 am
Location: a chair infront of a monitor.

PreviousNext

Return to Microsoft 'Flight'

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 251 guests