Microsoft revives flight sim by giving it away free Microsoft has said that it will be reviving its Flight Simulator franchise this spring with a free version of the game entitled simply Flight. Redmond is making the game available in a private beta at present, but plans to release it as a free download eventually. The game needs a minimum of 10GB of hard drive space, a dual- …
Sounds like fun but does anything in it go at mach 7.5 like that Orbiter Delta Glider effort (with the scramjets on at full blast)?
ISTR there wasn't much in FSX, apart from that Shuttle add on.
Train sims are positively exciting compared to that shipsim on Steam in which you can sail the Titanic. Trainz or trainsim 2011 makes a refreshing change from Portal 2 or (my favourite) Team Fortress 2.
Mines is the anorak with the Ian Allan book in the pocket.
Microsoft naming has caused me no end of timewasting due to miscommunications
This is primarily due to access. Access to what you say? no , "Access" the database program.
when you have to contend with user-speak via a helpdesk that knows less than the users , these messages become garbled!
Word's no better either
Just this morning I recieved a Job titled "Outlook problem" . What this turned out to be was notification of a entirely un-outlook-related problem that had arrived to the user via email.
The email even stated exactly what the problem was, but this useful info was lost on its journey to me by our "help"desk .
that wasnt microsoft's fault but i went into a bit of a rant there...
phew!
\rant over
"My Computer" and "My Documents" and the additional confusion caused by the folder name changing depending on how you look at it. Did no-one at Microsoft THINK that consistency is important, or that real, live people would need to talk about these names? There is a certain feeling of despair when you tell someone to "Look in your 'My Documents' " and they look at you as if you're mad; you just know that the conversation is going to be i) long; and ii) unsuccessful.
OK, that's my extension to your rant... except I didn't mention extensions, PLEASE don't mention extensions!
Not that I'm aware of, in either FS9 SP1 or FSX - you can happily collide with buildings, antennae, the scenery and other planes if that's your thing.
What they *did* do was disable "visible damage" by default, so if you crashed your aircraft it'd just come to a stop and the flight would reset.
However, they left the breakage models intact, so it can be switched on again by adding a line to the aircraft.ini of whatever plane it is that you want to see going to pieces.
I would have thought it would have been sensible for Microsoft to have spun off the FlightSimulator business into a separate company and see if it could survive on its own. If it couldn't then let it fail, but perhaps they did the numbers and found out it wasn't a viable business either way. By tying it to promoting MSN they can justify utilising their IPR to promote their pony.
Well this sounds as atrocious as I feared. There are plenty of gimmicky sims out there. What I love about FSX is its sheer attention to detail, and the way the physics engine is so mental that it's the only app I've ever run to max my CPUs. Buying and installing 25GB scenery packs at silly prices might seen odd, but it makes for a very impressive experience. FSX is so over-the-top (in a good way) that it has its own hard drive in my machine.
And who the hell uses a mouse to fly anything? Last time I tried that was Freelancer, and it was painful.
...but from what I've heard about it so far, I doubt it counts as a pure sim and so I probably wouldn't consider it an FS replacement. I know the lines are very grey, but to me it just sounds like a game, and a very limited one at that.
Worse, the Reg implies that it'll be a limited environment with a single plane, that you can pay to expand later. If that's the case, MS will have to lock it down to prevent a 3rd-party market from springing up and slurping their revenue. I can see that leading to lack of choice, if nothing else. Cynically, it's like the IBM PS/2 all over again - slamming the gate after the horse is long gone.
I might download it to give it a go. But I doubt it'll ever be a viable replacement for what we already have. Shame really - can you imagine FS with Crysis2-level graphics...?
then let me point you to Auran's excellent Trainz Railroad Simulator, which not only provides realistic train simulation but lets you design your own layouts, locomotives and rolling stock, as well as putting together your own trains. I've been using it for years, and it's without doubt the best train sim I've ever had, a lot better than Microsoft's offering IMO.
http://www.auran.com
I was a flight sim fan, until MS FS basically killed all of the alternatives then MS FS got canned and there has been very little since. (Ignoring the shoot them up games). Its a pity MS are coming back to the market, I would have preferred to see some new titles from enthusiasts who focus on the experience and not the gaming aspects.
Ah well. continue to wait.
"...Worse still, the game is designed to be played with a keyboard and mouse..."
If they would have made past versions truly playable with a keyboard and mouse the game may have 'taken off' more than it did. Reaction time to keyboard and mouse inputs were pitiful from the 90's through the noughties.
When I was learning to fly the school had an MS FS and Xplane setup. I had Xplane at home and it was quite challenging and I used it and Flightgear to practice circuits without the cost just to get the repetitive steps down pat. When I tired MS FS the first time I did a perfect takeoff, circuit and landing. Smooth as silk, I let go of the controls and declared it unrealistic because I would never have been that smooth in a real aircraft. Xplane was never so friendly but a far better training experience.
I've had MS Flight Sim since version 3.0, up to and including FSX. While X-Plane's flight model may be technically superior to FSX's on paper, I find it just doesn't hold up in reality.
Both flight models have their advantages and disadvantages, and it takes a competent designer to take full advantage of the sim. The default aircraft in both sims are quite poor at replicating their respective full flight envelopes, and you really need to go to third-party add-ons for more-realistic simulation. And the advantage MS Flight Sim has over X-Plane is that there are far more high-quality add-ons.
I tried a Hawker Hurricane add-on once, with realistic settings it was frighteningly unflyable (just about got it off the deck) so given my skill level I felt it fairly accurate....
Mind you I had trouble trying to fly the Spitfire under the bridge on my BBC Model B and as for the 747 Simulator.
"recieved" -> received. :-)!!!!
(Poor spelling and IT expertise seemed to be joined at the hip. I'm not sure why...)
The MS Train Sim - like, OMG!! The MS Train Sim actually cured my addiction to Sim programs. It defines boring. I bought about a dozen add-on packs to see if I could find anything not boring. Nope... Still boring.
If Microsoft thinks it can sell this game like other teenager-aimed games, is going to be a big mistake. I hope that's just one way to get it, and experienced simmers can get the whole package paying.
I'm not going to go through missions or the like to "unlock" airplaanes, nor I am going to sign in in Windows Live or whatever to fly or buy better planes and scenaries. And I guess many virtual pilots feel the same.
AFAIK you can fly it with a mouse or keyboard, but that's just for casual simmers - people that will soon get tired of the product anyway. The beauty of aviation is its challeging complexity. Remove it, and it's just boring, especially if you have no the real landscape and destination.
It's good X-Plane is improved, because if MS fails to deliver a better simulator than FSX, and delivers a teenage game, people will move.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
