I'm just saying that because of the extreme negativity we will never know for sure if one thing had anything to do with the other. Anyway, what is done is done, we move on with what we have.

 

Steve

The Grand Canyon.... sigh... what might have been!

Just imagine if you could increase the LOD Radius to like 10.5, and have Flight load faster...Then add a bunch of FSX tweaks we could add in FSX that we can't with Flight. Damn it would be awesome... FSX Scenery+Flight Scenery with Flight Deluxe Planes, and FSX converted 3rd Party Planes... Why am I imagining like crazy right now? I have no idea.

If only Ballmer had let FLIGHT keep talking to third party developers, developers, developers!

Unfortunately, I think Microsoft is done with Flight Simulators. In their eyes, Flight was a simulator like FSX, whereas we know that it was nothing of the sort. Unfortunately, Microsoft probably saw its horrible sales as a sign of the dying FS market (so they thought). They're too stupid to know that they created an entirely new genre of flying game for a community that didn't exist. That is, an achievement based experience in a boring light airplane flying around Hawaii collecting coins where only Microsoft DLC was allowed. It was neither a simulator nor a fighter game. It was a complete bore-fest that appealed to no one.

No one? If you read this forum you will see differently. You don't have the right to speak for everyone dude! Don't you have something more constructive to do? The sim/game is what you make of it. If you never leave the big island you have no idea! Not every one wants to blow stuff up! enough.

 

Steve

Unfortunately, I think Microsoft is done with Flight Simulators. In their eyes, Flight was a simulator like FSX, whereas we know that it was nothing of the sort. Unfortunately, Microsoft probably saw its horrible sales as a sign of the dying FS market (so they thought). They're too stupid to know that they created an entirely new genre of flying game for a community that didn't exist. That is, an achievement based experience in a boring light airplane flying around Hawaii collecting coins where only Microsoft DLC was allowed. It was neither a simulator nor a fighter game. It was a complete bore-fest that appealed to no one.

If you had any clue at what has been going on at MS you would know that Flight was just a victim of it's much deeper internal problems. But, you don't because you are just an uninformed troll.

If you had any clue at what has been going on at MS you would know that Flight was just a victim of it's much deeper internal problems. But, you don't because you are just an uninformed troll.

Wrong. Flight was purely a victim of poor sales. BTW. MS new CEO is coming from Nokia and his focus will be entirely on portable devices and no interest in gaming whatsoever.

Wrong. Flight was purely a victim of poor sales. BTW. MS new CEO is coming from Nokia and his focus will be entirely on portable devices and no interest in gaming whatsoever.

Poor sales of Flight was a minor issue  They cleaned house last year.

 

MS has taken a beating in the last three years. You Flight haters try to pose the idea that Flight caused the downfall of MS :lol:

 

So no ..I'm not WRONG.

MS new CEO is coming from Nokia and his focus will be entirely on portable devices and no interest in gaming whatsoever.

Stephen Elop (Nokia) is not likely going to be the guy taking over as CEO. His recruitment was to help Microsoft understand the mobile market because clearly Microsoft doesn't understand it. Microsoft's problems are also much deeper, it's not a "single" person that is responsible for the their long list of mistakes (Bill Gates was still VERY much involved in the "big picture" decision that have been made over the past decade or so). The executive branch at Microsoft is very much dysfunctional and it's going to take more than just a Ballmer replacement to turn the company around.

 

For us flight sim enthusiasts we would most likely want Robbie Bach to return to MS and take control (Robbie brought Xbox to MS and is currently with EA) ... however, I don't think Robbie is strong enough to remove those that are not good for Microsoft.

 

Steve Sinofsky is another choice, he's probably strong enough and smart enough to get Microsoft moving in a direction, the only problem is his direction could very well be wrong (as in more of the same Win8 philosophy) -- and Microsoft can't afford to be wrong any more.

 

The best candidate is probably Sir Jony Ive, he could bring some fresh injection of design and overall tech back to Microsoft. He's youngish and isn't a bean counter. He will understand Microsoft's strengths and weakness, and he is a perfectionist which is something Microsoft desperately needed, this 70% done and then release (fix later) approach they have to software is just not working - in fact it's a disastrous approach to long term software development. But is he strong enough to clean out the executive branch?

Stephen Elop (Nokia) is not likely going to be the guy taking over as CEO. His recruitment was to help Microsoft understand the mobile market because clearly Microsoft doesn't understand it. Microsoft's problems are also much deeper, it's not a "single" person that is responsible for the their long list of mistakes (Bill Gates was still VERY much involved in the "big picture" decision that have been made over the past decade or so). The executive branch at Microsoft is very much dysfunctional and it's going to take more than just a Ballmer replacement to turn the company around.

 

For us flight sim enthusiasts we would most likely want Robbie Bach to return to MS and take control (Robbie brought Xbox to MS and is currently with EA) ... however, I don't think Robbie is strong enough to remove those that are not good for Microsoft.

 

Steve Sinofsky is another choice, he's probably strong enough and smart enough to get Microsoft moving in a direction, the only problem is his direction could very well be wrong (as in more of the same Win8 philosophy) -- and Microsoft can't afford to be wrong any more.

 

The best candidate is probably Sir Jony Ive, he could bring some fresh injection of design and overall tech back to Microsoft. He's youngish and isn't a bean counter. He will understand Microsoft's strengths and weakness, and he is a perfectionist which is something Microsoft desperately needed, this 70% done and then release (fix later) approach they have to software is just not working - in fact it's a disastrous approach to long term software development. But is he strong enough to clean out the executive branch?

 

Thanks for the lineup rundown. One can only hope Microsoft get's back on the right track and the long shot reboot to our platform of choice.

Microsoft get's back on the right track

 

This will be when MS understands that desktop computing and mobile computing are NOT the same ... two very different designs and development paths.

 

There is still MUCH innovation to come for both platforms and some real decisions about "compatibility" need to be addressed because it's holding MS back. Apple have a huge advantage because when they release a new OS, they will sacrifice some compatibility if it gets in the way of innovation. It's very common for Apple applications (both mobile and desktop) to require updates when an new OS is released ... this is VERY liberating for Apple.

 

For example, if MS built a new OS (Win9) that was 50-60% faster than Win7 or Win8 but sacrificed compatibility where FS9 wouldn't run on it but FSX would and we'd see our fps increase from 30 fps to 45 fps ... how many would buy Win9? I'm not saying this is possible (but I do think it is), but what if ... a massive increase in performance is to some degree a sellable feature. Or what if Win9 included DX12 that could be a wrapper around DX9c? What if the OS now has a fully built in PhysicX.dll that is core to the OS that could leverage CUDA or OpenCL ... make GPUs work as CPUs to some degree.

 

Or how about a visual recognition system that encompasses voice also? Combine face and visual patterns along with voice patterns ... voice alone is just not going to be an efficient work process, it's clunky, especially when it comes to error correction (which happens A LOT in voice recognition). But combine voice and visual recognition -- understanding body expressions, hand movements, vicinity etc. etc. We also have 3D position information which is now pretty common for computing devices (cameras/scanners) ... bring all this technology together and you can have a computer that really understands "context" - this type of technology is perfectly suited to multi-core CPU systems - Intel, your back in business.

 

There is STILL so much that can be done on the innovation front that wasn't done. Instead, MS choose the path market leverage and it failed. MS got consumed by the need to make more and more money thru leverage, they never really took a risk because they couldn't see the potential revenue from doing so. Innovation needs to work and not just be "something different", Win8 and Win8.1 is just "something different", it's not innovation.

 

Rob.

 

 

The best candidate is probably Sir Jony Ive, he could bring some fresh injection of design and overall tech back to Microsoft. He's youngish and isn't a bean counter. He will understand Microsoft's strengths and weakness, and he is a perfectionist which is something Microsoft desperately needed, this 70% done and then release (fix later) approach they have to software is just not working - in fact it's a disastrous approach to long term software development. But is he strong enough to clean out the executive branch?

 

 

 

Apple have a huge advantage because when they release a new OS, they will sacrifice some compatibility if it gets in the way of innovation. It's very common for Apple applications (both mobile and desktop) to require updates when an new OS is released ... this is VERY liberating for Apple.

 

I don't think Sir Ive would be a very good choice at all. Primarily because he has little or no experience with the enterprise side of the business, which is where most of Microsoft's profit comes from. The qualities you mention are ones that Microsoft needs at the top, but I think someone else would be better for it (plus, if Sir Ive left Apple, Apple would be in very, very big trouble). Maybe if Microsoft was split in two where one side could focus on the consumer market, and the other could focus on the enterprise, but I don't see them changing the path that Ballmer has laid out this fast. At this point Microsoft is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The enterprise market likes maintaining backwards compatibility and not having to test a new OS update every year or two. They also like the many years of support MS provides and the general openness with new product plans. On the other hand, Apple's constant breaking of backwards compatibility (and focus on secrecy) is the complete opposite of what the enterprise market needs. However, it does allow Apple to move forward very fast (same for Google and FaceBook).

 

 

What if the OS now has a fully built in PhysicX.dll that is core to the OS that could leverage CUDA or OpenCL ... make GPUs work as CPUs to some degree.

 

They already added DirectCompute to DX11 which allows one to use the GPU the same way as CUDA or OpenCL do. It is also compatible with Vista onwards, and DX10 and DX11 GPUs.

 

 

There is STILL so much that can be done on the innovation front that wasn't done. Instead, MS choose the path market leverage and it failed. MS got consumed by the need to make more and more money thru leverage, they never really took a risk because they couldn't see the potential revenue from doing so. Innovation needs to work and not just be "something different", Win8 and Win8.1 is just "something different", it's not innovation.

 

This is definitely one of the largest problems at Microsoft. Their attitude towards new products doomed most of them to never see the light of day. One of the best ideas I've seen mentioned would be to allow the Office team to bring Office to whatever platform they could or want to, rather than using it as a cudgel to force people onto Windows. Freeing the Office team, for example, would let them properly port it over to iOS and Android tablets, thereby keeping Office relevant. It would also force the Windows team to step up their game too. As it stands now, people are finding that there are alternatives, and that neither Windows nor Office are required. A very dangerous situation for Microsoft.

 

 

I don't think Sir Ive would be a very good choice at all. Primarily because he has little or no experience with the enterprise side of the business,

 

Agree, but I think he's smart enough to understand what he needs to leave alone vs. what he needs to change now.  The OS enterprise path should not be the same as the consumer OS path or the mobile OS path ... they all have enough differences and key requirements that warrant unique paths.

 

 

 

They already added DirectCompute to DX11

 

True, but that's a door, not really fully integrated part of the OS (the OS itself - at least at the consumer level) and the physics code isn't there ... I can't help but think if Microsoft got on the ball sooner, there wouldn't be an OpenCL or CUDA. They would have worked with ATI/NVidia and come up with a more encompassing solution.

 

I agree with your diagnostics of Office, but I'm thinking bigger on the innovation scale.

Unfortunately I don't think Microsoft will get a CEO that good to kill the Metro interface and resurrect Flight Simulator...