Microsoft Lays Off Entire Flight Sim Team 162
Dutch Gun writes "Microsoft has just laid off the entire Flight Simulator development team. This continues a long-running trend of terminating or severing relationships with game development studios, such as the Bungie split, FASA, or the closure of Ensemble Studios. While one would presume that core Xbox development is not currently in jeopardy after Microsoft spent up to a billion dollars to pay for Xbox 360 repairs and salvage its reputation with gamers, does this signal a reversal from Microsoft's recent focus on internal game development? And what are its plans for Flight Simulator, a twenty-seven-year product with an extremely loyal user-base and a multitude of externally developed add-ons?"
Who frigging knows? (Score:5, Interesting)
I prefer X-Plane (Score:5, Interesting)
Hopefully they'll spend their spare time contributing to X-Plane -- a much better simulator if actual flight simulation is important to you. I was very disappointed to learn that the helis in MS Flight Sim are actually just fixed-wing aircraft with unrealistically large flaps and other such hacks. X-Plane uses a much more realistic flight physics engine. And since I fly RC helis, I have to say that MS's sim always felt strange, not like a giant RC heli at all.
Google Earth (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Who frigging knows? (Score:1, Interesting)
MSFS sold far more than most people realize. It's no WoW, but few things are. You don't need to sell 7 million copies to turn a profit.
Re:I prefer X-Plane (Score:2, Interesting)
Hopefully they'll spend their spare time contributing to X-Plane
Are you serious? Contribute to a competing commercial product!? So that they'd have tougher competition if they get to continue working on MSFS. If they want to continue working on related stuff, they'll apply for jobs at companies developing third-party addons for MSFS.
I take it that you're disappointed with the simulation of helicopters - I'm quite disappointed with the simulation of advanced fly-by-wire aircraft. The 777 is fine since the system in the real thing is coded to behave very much like hydraulics in order to be familiar for pilots. However, the more advanced Airbus systems really suck compared to the real thing even though they're made by third-parties that put in an enormous effort compared to what MS puts in in the included aircraft. Obviously, I've never flown the real aircraft but I've heard enough from real pilots on aviation forums that have assisted the simulator community with developing their own (free) aircraft (which - unfortunately but obviously - also suck due to the limitations in MSFS). The inclusion of an Airbus (an A321) in MSFS by MS for the first time (in FS X) did little to improve the development of fly-by-wire systems (it - like all included aircraft - obviously is complete garbage compared to the hideously expensive third-party aircraft). It is of course possible that it isn't worth putting much development effort into that niche since not that many simulator fans fly Airbus (judging from the simulator forums, at least - I don't know about the sales figures). Maybe that group of fans will grow now with the A380, though, since more people might want to fly it simply because it's the biggest :)
As far as the physics engine is concerned, the principles behind it haven't AFAIK changed since version 1.0 - it uses a lot of tables instead of performing physics calculations and the only improvements have been to increase the table sizes with each new release so that the interpolations are less extreme.
Re:I prefer X-Plane (Score:3, Interesting)
LOMAC. Lock-On Modern Air Combat
Drink one glass of your favorite 80 proof adult beverage, turn off the lights and fire up LOMAC and you will have a hard time discerning it from reality (at least with respect to visuals.)
The combat is also absolutely amazing.
Pick it up for under $20 in the bargain bin - it's worth it.
MSFS was the original PC compatibility test (Score:4, Interesting)
For the first 2-3 years of PC history, the original Microsoft Flight Simulator was _the_ PC compatibility test:
If a machine could run MSFC, then it would also run retty much every other PcDos application on the market.
The first stumble came in 1984 with the PCAT, since the 6 MHz 286 cpu in this box meant that all the carefully tuned sw timing loops ran too fast and the simulator ran about twice as fast as it should.
Terje
Re:Not surprising (Score:3, Interesting)
The hijackers didn't care about takeoffs or landings and instead cared only about the flying. It's what raised suspicions at The Airmen in Norman, OK and caused them to contact the FBI.
If they could have only been put in contact with the CIA who knew that bin Laden was planning an attack using airliners, 9/11 could possibly have been prevented. But that's a completely different thread... (see also the August 6 2001 PDB)