FS9/FS2004: As fake as it gets?

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.