199 replies to this topic

[tempelhof]

I would be thrilled if Aerosoft could bring some of Flight's game aspects to FSX as an addon. Something between African Airstrip Adventures (which is still on my things-to-buy list btw) and FSpassengers, but online with a career mode, multiplayer missions and such. Just think about the possibilities!

[LufthansaPilot]

Well the frames are very good indeed. I wonder whether there will be some programmers who will try to implement the FLIGHT engine into FSX to gain more fps.

[KarstenS]

Well the frames are very good indeed. I wonder whether there will be some programmers who will try to implement the FLIGHT engine into FSX to gain more fps.

I don't think that it is the engine alone. They now make some use of the GPU, but on the other hand a strict limitation of the Textures, no road traffic, no AI, but carefully planned textures and objects. This is no wizardry. In a way the changes that Lockheed Martin made were much bigger.

[newmanix]

That was a well said review Mathijs!

Your opinion mirrors my own!
http://airdailyx.blo...ression-of.html
D'Andre

[Hiflyer]

A slightly different perspective (From MvGibbage over at AVSim)

!

[altstiff]

Why do all the Avatars look like they are latent homosexuals?

[simmerhead]

I'm trying really hard to like it, but after two days I've lost interest. Not because it is all bad, but the gameplay is just a big soup of randomness and I feel no immersion. Maybe I'm too old to get how things work in the "Xbox-age"... It isn't a good simulator and it isn't a good game. It's not even jack of all trades.

[Mathijs Kok]

I believe that was a good, fair review. I do agree that we can not make a full judgement on Flight until we see more DLC from MGS.

More aircraft like the $15 Maule without working radios and autopilots? And without manuals to learn how to fly it? Only one model and a few fake repaints? 2d gauges? Are you waiting for DLC like that?

I'm not.

[alehead]

I agree Mathijs.

With respect to the avatar, this is not necessary to play the offline base package or demo. However, as soon as you want to add the PT-17 or any expansion pack, you will need an xbox live account. I have a Live!ID for technet and so on, you may understand how annoyed I was to have to expand it to an xbox live account and create the teenager on speed avatar.

Cool next time I log on to technet and the party sees my England football top, trilby wearing crackboy dancing around the online meeting screen!!!

You get assigned an avatar on xbox live, I believe whether you like it or not. As much as I believe that Flight is a simulator, it is not a simulator in the sense that many here and on other fora understand a simulator to be. It is definitely more than just a game.

My beef is with the awful clouds, a lack of real weather, bugs in the Stearman that should not have been missed in beta (temperature gauge readings, a strange shadowing of the 3d model against what represents clouds, I wish not to refer to those cotton wool balls in the skies as clouds.) and gameplay that will bore me within 48 hours. Oh, and the fact that my toe brake assignments on the Saitek rudder pedals are simply ignored.

All childhood diseases as us said in German. The question is whether they can be bothered to fix stuff I stead if hammering out premium DLC packages over the next months.

As it stands, I can have hours more fun in FSX, especially thanks to Aerosoft and the others. It is not about cost. It is about gameplay interest and longevity. A lot must come at the right price for Flight to be even a vaguely viable option as a replacement to FSX. Not that anyone stated at any point that Flight actually IS a replacement to FSX, more a complement.

Andrew

[pegase64]

Want hear something great about FLIGHT? I just heard from two nephews (13 and 15) they downloaded it and they loved it. I showed them FSX a few times and they never got it.

I don't completely agree with this ...

My grand-son is 6 years old. He plays very often with FSX, mostly from the outside, "I want to see the plane !" ...

So, I thought : " Flight is for him" ... well starting Flight , and he says " I want to see the planes ... "
So far, he looks at the hangar and : "It's only 3 planes " (I have Hawai extension)
then he chooses Icon and as usual fly from outside, after 5 minutes as usual, he wants to change and says :"Now, I would choose a big 747"
(in FSX, he likes to fly big jets or fast F18 )
"Sorry, we have not this article, sir !"
"OK, so I want have fun"
And as in FSX, he crashes the Icon ...
and surprise, after the usual jump, the game stops, flashing red alert, the gameplay of Flight ...
"Grand Pa, I can't cross the trees, buildings, and go fast on the ground !"
"Sorry, kid, there is no way in this game to "Ignore crashes and damages" , it's a simulator ! "
"It's not fun ... I prefer your old game "
And we have started again FSX

Pierre LFBE (sorry for this bad translation from a funny dialog in native french)

[Superpilotv2]

I had to use Wolfram Alpha to get that number!

By the way, an interesting review (warning, strong viewpoints) http://soldant.wordp...-flight-review/

That review really annoyed me. As being part of the AVSIM staff I feel personally attaced by the one who wrote that. Yes, we had some serious problems with some members almost going to Redmont an blowing everything FLIGHT related up! (well, that´s bit too drastic but this kind were the posts there.) That´s why Tom shut the Flight froum down till the 29th. So far everything is quite calm over there.

About flight I have to say that I tried it now 2 times and it slowly gets boring. You´ve only got these 2 slow planes (The grafic´s are nice) and your task is to fly from point a to point b to gain some points or anything else. That´s somehow logic but what to do with these "level" thing and these points? I just don´t see the idea behind this. If you could enable more planes with this I would really understand it but without it´s a bit lame.

And also the "Free Flight" mode (For god´s sake they left that in!) doesn´t really makes much fun cause everything which defines a GA flight (ATC, other planes, changing weather) isn´t there and it´s just veeery slow cuising over some static scenery. (Or do I just think it´s slow after I´m used to fly the NGX arround???)

The next downpoint is that I can´t really configure my stick with deadzones and so on. Thus the control isn´t that easy as it should be.

On th other side I appreciate this DLC and marked place thing (I know Mathjis won´t like to hear that cause if that will be the future, were will his job go?). It makes things quite clear and easy.
And FLIGHT still based on the "old" FSX engine (Or is the FSX core enginejust a bumped up FS2000 cause back then the introduced the acutal file structure?) and shows clearly how far that engine can be maxed out. The scenery looks far better than default FSX, so there´s a lot of potential still left.

That FLIGHT attracts a wider audience is confirmed: Since the 29th lots of new members have singned in the Avsim forums, most stating that the come though Flight to that. I remember one post of such an person how said that he had allways been interested in avation but FSX scanred him a bit with all what´s folloing with it. Then he gave Flight a try and after searching a bit more about the planes he cam along Asvim. That´s what i´m hoping for the future. Some new guys into that to let FSX grom and maybe (Hope will allways be allowed.) Microsoft might return with a loswer look on Flight.

But as long as they don´t come up with some serious content (ATC and so on) I don´t see a point for me to use it much.

[tempelhof]

I would be thrilled if Aerosoft could bring some of Flight's game aspects to FSX as an addon. Something between African Airstrip Adventures (which is still on my things-to-buy list btw) and FSpassengers, but online with a career mode, multiplayer missions and such. Just think about the possibilities!

Woohoo!! AAA 20% off today. Guess the Hawaii Adventure Pack has to wait another month or so...

[simmerhead]

That review really annoyed me. As being part of the AVSIM staff I feel personally attaced by the one who wrote that. Yes, we had some serious problems with some members almost going to Redmont an blowing everything FLIGHT related up! (well, that´s bit too drastic but this kind were the posts there.) That´s why Tom shut the Flight froum down till the 29th. So far everything is quite calm over there.

About flight I have to say that I tried it now 2 times and it slowly gets boring. You´ve only got these 2 slow planes (The grafic´s are nice) and your task is to fly from point a to point b to gain some points or anything else. That´s somehow logic but what to do with these "level" thing and these points? I just don´t see the idea behind this. If you could enable more planes with this I would really understand it but without it´s a bit lame.

And also the "Free Flight" mode (For god´s sake they left that in!) doesn´t really makes much fun cause everything which defines a GA flight (ATC, other planes, changing weather) isn´t there and it´s just veeery slow cuising over some static scenery. (Or do I just think it´s slow after I´m used to fly the NGX arround???)

The next downpoint is that I can´t really configure my stick with deadzones and so on. Thus the control isn´t that easy as it should be.

On th other side I appreciate this DLC and marked place thing (I know Mathjis won´t like to hear that cause if that will be the future, were will his job go?). It makes things quite clear and easy.
And FLIGHT still based on the "old" FSX engine (Or is the FSX core enginejust a bumped up FS2000 cause back then the introduced the acutal file structure?) and shows clearly how far that engine can be maxed out. The scenery looks far better than default FSX, so there´s a lot of potential still left.

That FLIGHT attracts a wider audience is confirmed: Since the 29th lots of new members have singned in the Avsim forums, most stating that the come though Flight to that. I remember one post of such an person how said that he had allways been interested in avation but FSX scanred him a bit with all what´s folloing with it. Then he gave Flight a try and after searching a bit more about the planes he cam along Asvim. That´s what i´m hoping for the future. Some new guys into that to let FSX grom and maybe (Hope will allways be allowed.) Microsoft might return with a loswer look on Flight.

But as long as they don´t come up with some serious content (ATC and so on) I don´t see a point for me to use it much.

Big difference between Aerosoft and Microsoft. For one, Aerosoft don't target young kids. Secondly Aerosoft operate in a competitive market which drive product innovation and customer interaction. Microsoft is monopolizing their market.

[KarstenS]

About flight I have to say that I tried it now 2 times and it slowly gets boring. You´ve only got these 2 slow planes (The grafic´s are nice) and your task is to fly from point a to point b to gain some points or anything else. That´s somehow logic but what to do with these "level" thing and these points? I just don´t see the idea behind this. If you could enable more planes with this I would really understand it but without it´s a bit lame.

Well, on the one hand: With the free version you only get a very limited impression of Flight. The RV-6 and the Maule are much better planes.
In fact they are a far step from the default planes in FSX or X-Plane 10. They can even compete with some of the better Add-ons in these simulators. In fact the missions even contain a very good flying school. Neither FSX nor X-Plane 10 hae something similar. I am not talking about thew first two pretty dumb missions, but as an example a mission where you have to get the RV-6 up to fifteen thousand feet. And you poassenger gives the advise that you will have to change the mixture.
But you are right, the pooints and achievement awards are pretty pointless. The big problems: Without real weather and a limited area it starts to bore after some time. So I expect that after a few months they will sell less and less areas and planes.

[alainneedle1]

I have Flight and the Hawaiian pack, I still use FSX, I can tell you right now that Flight is not a complete sim for hardcore simmers. On the other hand I can't imagine Orbx (and other devs) spending over a year 1/2 working with MS just for Hawaii, I mean seriously....how many 3PD does it take to cover Hawaii with their sceneries, how many 3PD does it take to make all airports in Hawaii.....do you see where I'm going with this?? Everything is there, locked but there...

Here is (below) a modified post I made on Avsim's forum...

Quote:...Here is my 2 cents about Flight, not everybody is upset at MS and it's not everybody that don't like Flight.

I see two kind of peoples upset at MS....the hardcore simmers who were expecting MS to have everything in Flight and more as FSX does OUT OF THE BOX (can't blame them)........the others are the 3PD (some, not all of them) who were left behind by MS shutting them down and others who will not be able to make addons (freeware or payware) for Flight.

Do you know of a sim with regular or to come updates .....that's right, XP-10 and PreparD3...so if this is good for them can it be the same for Flight.

3PD developers (some of them) are surprised (and scared) to see how many peoples are buying, posting good and fair reviews and comments about Flight, can we blame them, FSX is their bread and butter so if Flight does take off assuming that MS implement (and they will trust me on this one) Flight with what we don't see yet, like AI, car traffic (I see roads in Flight), airliners (I see international airport in Flight) and bigger area, a lot more peoples may slowly drift into Flight, buy more content and neglect FSX (addons wise).

This is only my 2 cents on why some 3PD are scared of Flight....

Be patient peoples.....Prepar3D is making improvements on their sim, XP-10 is also improving their sim....what do you think MS is doing with Flight as we speak....yes you got it....improving it. ...........end of quote.

[Hiflyer]

I now seen the moon (not sure the moon phases are right though) but even though I am on max settings and clear skies I have not seen a single star. The night sky is just a solid black here.

As the beta forum is still up, this has been reported as a possible bug, though what actually seems to be happening is that faint stars are being swallowed in moon glow.

[KarstenS]

Be patient peoples.....Prepar3D is making improvements on their sim, XP-10 is also improving their sim....what do you think MS is doing with Flight as we speak....yes you got it....improving it.

I must6 admit: I don't think so. Most of these changes would mean changes in the Core of the Sim. If you look at their cost structure I am pretty certain that they have a totally different agenda: Sell content.
Don't forget: They didn't earn anything till now. They might add some game elements or change the mission structure, but I think changes for the core engine are right now mostly bug fixes. FIrst they have to demonstrate to Microsoft, that they can earn their keep, that their business model works. Everything else is secondary.
They have to hold their users in the game.

[Hiflyer]

I must6 admit: I don't think so. Most of these changes would mean changes in the Core of the Sim. If you look at their cost structure I am pretty certain that they have a totally different agenda: Sell content.
Don't forget: They didn't earn anything till now. They might add some game elements or change the mission structure, but I think changes for the core engine are right now mostly bug fixes. FIrst they have to demonstrate to Microsoft, that they can earn their keep, that their business model works. Everything else is secondary.
They have to hold their users in the game.

This kind of assumes the core is even finished (whatever that means, in this context) which is an open question.

For instance, is the XP10 core "finished?"

[alainneedle1]

This kind of assumes the core is even finished (whatever that means, in this context) which is an open question.

For instance, is the XP10 core "finished?"

+1, I don't know why peoples are not getting it.....sigh

@ Karsten, do you really think that MS deleted everything from FSX just to keep Hawaii.....seriously....why did I say all there but locked...think about it for a sec., they are implementing Flight as XP-10 is been implemented or any other platform, adding stuff and making sure what ever they will add will work as good as possible...again, exactly like XP-10 is doing.

just think about this for a sec., MS was working with 3PD developers before shutting them down so from there what were the 3PD developers working on...Hawaii only....naaaaaa....MS can do that by themself right, so they had to work on something else...other regions maybe?

They were talking with PMDG, what for....to make a big tube to fly around Hawaii only...again naaaaaaaa.

So if you take a step back and look at the whole situation, what does make sense to you knowing that big house 3PD like Orbx were involved with MS before been shut down.....Hawaii only?

Trust me on this one, MS did not shut down 3PD just because they had nothing better to do, the problem with 3PD developers is deeper.

Hawaii is just the starting point, I'm not saying that MS will have all kind of DLC including North America in the next month or two but are we not buying small part of the world as of now for FSX, Antartica just to take this one, or airport from 3PD.....I know FSX is the whole world....if you ask me I like the idea that I can buy only places where I like to fly....some peoples are flying over Orbx scenery only, as far as I know Orbx does not cover the entire world.....

As for my post # 94..... it's right on target.

[KarstenS]

This kind of assumes the core is even finished (whatever that means, in this context) which is an open question.

For instance, is the XP10 core "finished?"

XP 10 has a different background. It is more based on Linux traditions, or even in current commercial buisness programming models. It is quite normal that customers who urgently need a new feature skip a better testing. This is something that XP does with its beta versions.

But Flight has a different problem: They have to face Judgement by Microsoft! Ifg they don't pass the whole project might be dismantled pretty fast. It is obvious that they promised their management that they would achieve much better results in the Gamers market, so they have to prove, that they can sell (!) 6their product to them. Hardcore fans can't help them.

AI planes contradict the purpose of a net aware program that you can use together with friends. Long distance flights need additional infrastructure that that you can't charge so easily and if you add the missions that you have to develop to teach a normal guy how to handle a Heacy Metal plane...
And if the rumours are true and the next project is alaska road traffic doesn't get a high priority either.

[KarstenS]

@ Karsten, do you really think that MS deleted everything from FSX just to keep Hawaii.....seriously....why did I say all there but locked...think about it for a sec., they are implementing Flight as XP-10 is been implemented or any other platform, adding stuff and making sure what ever they will add will work as good as possible...again, exactly like XP-10 is doing.

just think about this for a sec., MS was working with 3PD developers before shutting them down so from there what were the 3PD developers working on...Hawaii only....naaaaaa....MS can do that by themself right, so they had to work on something else...other regions maybe?

You know the most expensive thing in Software development? Testing! A feature that is locked hasn't been tested and a feature that hasn't been tested has to be considered unusable. In fact if the code is locked I would even dare to guess that it isn't even part of the compiled code.Such code is deleted by the optimizers. Everything that goes beyond the current Flight were only parts of XML resources and so on that are not compiled or optimized.
I think the main reason for the 3PD chaos has a simple reason there isn't one group but in fact the crew of Flight has members with a game perspective and a simmers group. In the beginning they probably hoped that they could sell 3PD content. But when they recognized how many Add ons the 3PD developers really sold they had to realize that they wouldn't be able to reach the numbers that they promised to Microsoft, when they got their budget.
So the gamers group took charge.

You have to see what flight really is! It is a TINY project, that reused an old code base, to test a new business model.
Look at the marketing that is behind Flight: Nothing! This shows that Flight isn't a strategic product. Instead it is one of many small scale products that were able to get a budget for a purpose.
But these projects have to prove that they reached at least parts of their goals. If they can demonstrate their usefulness they could reach more or less anything. But they have to prove that their concept works.It won't be necessary that they really earn the money that Microsoft put into Flight,but they will have to prove that the mission packs earn money, that they reach the normal consumer market, and that they establish a community. They really have the problem that they don't have an X-Box 360 version. In this market with gold members they would be in a much better position.

[alainneedle1]

Karsten, what I am trying to say is that MS started with FSX, they are implementing Flight and will release other area, small part at the time, where do you think they got their idea from...about walking around the plane....where did you see that before...

Some 3PD developers may have not like the idea of been told where part (area) and what to make for Flight....this is a part of the problem beside big publishing houses like Aerosoft, the way MS is doing business now is not attractive to them.

I agree with what you posted here...
You have to see what flight really is! It is a TINY project, that reused an old code base, to test a new business model.

[mjrhealth]

It wont work for a number of reasons. adamant flight sim enthuiest are not going to wait around 2 years to fly in ther part of the world, without external addon from other developers our choices will be very limited and far between, the current economy is causing people to think before they spend, if this doesnt make money quick it will die. We have al being waiting for something between XP10 and FSX but is just never came, I love FSX as it is, if they had just spent time redoing the engine I am sure we would of all leaped in and brought the full product. I only buy simulators, Trains 2012, Silent hunter, but really only spend time in FSX. And to top it all off, I am tired of having to create accounts to use something, I have no faith in the internet, I have being around long enough to know there is no such thihing as internet security, it is a Myth, its the reason why I havnt bought railworks 3, i dont want an account with steam.

[Hiflyer]

Adamant flight Sim enthusiasts are such a tiny niche that if they really are determined to self segregate themselves from the discussion, they will probably not even be missed.

[mjrhealth]

I was just reading an article in a magazine abt a game company that relesed a game that everyone was waiting on, but it was a failure, uncomplete, jsu a bad game, the game compaly finally relented and said they had released it as it was becasue they needed the cash and where hoping that the gamers would pay for it so they could finish it later, I do hope that MS havnt taken that path. Kids today want to shoot things and blow things up, they have little patients on learning how to play the game never mind flying a plane. I guess we wil just have to wait and see.

[tempelhof]

Kids today want to shoot things and blow things up, they have little patients on learning how to play the game never mind flying a plane.

I would not necessarily think that Flight is intended for kids only. There may be many adult people out there who might be interested in aviation but have never taken the plunge with a full-fledged flight sim.

[KarstenS]

Karsten, what I am trying to say is that MS started with FSX, they are implementing Flight and will release other area, small part at the time, where do you think they got their idea from...about walking around the plane....where did you see that before...

Oh, in several games. I think the first time i saw it, was a game on the old Amiga...Although it wasn't a game that I would describe as a Flight Simulator But exactly this is the point. Why do people always believe that they will have to go this way, since it was a part of FSX. I think I know exactly why theya always say that Flight is not Flight Simulator 11. It is a new program with its own purposes. And one of the main purposes is: don't loose the normal customers. But if they go directly to the big jets they are in serious trouble, They would need a better weather engine ATC big airports, ground maps for interconnecting country side and so on, missions to introduce and use these features. It is a major headache. It doesn't make sense. It gets pretty expensive but no normal customer would pay you for it.
There are a lot of things that have to be improved, The game play itself as an example. At the moment you gain points and awards without any purpose. Something like a a career mode would be a possibili6ty, where you have to pay for damages to the plane, for fule, and so on, while you can earn money and reputation with Jobs, prices and so on.
If the next location is really Alaska I would expect things like a wildfire and you have to drop water in the correct locations and so on. Mail services to remote locations.
If we would want to talk about Jets I would say something like a CRJ-200 makes more sense in flight than a 747, although they would have to simplify the FMC.
But If you look at the P51 they probably see that they are in trouble: Hardcore flight simmers are ready to pay these prices, but many gamers won't! But if they loose the gamers their whole project foundation is doomed. They need a concept where people might win planes while most people simply buy the new plane and its missions.
This is the real challenge they have to beat. If I look how they dropped 3rd developers like a hot potato I think that they numbers they used in their project definition were above the money that all 3rd party developers together earn.
Flight has to demonstrate that they can earn money. So they have to sell a lot of Add-ons, otherwise the life expectancy of Flight will be pretty limited.There are always a lot of other projects that want the budget, that is bound by Flight. I wouldn't be surprised if their Flight is free price might become a major roadblock.
It would have been much easier inside the X-Box envi5ronment, where even they time people use Flight might be considered an advantage, as long as they are gold members
IMHO Flight in itself is a good game, but the main problem is the same as it was with FSX: Does Microsoft see this project as a good game? It was no real problem as long as it was an eye pece of the CEO. The Flight Simulator was never a big financial success but the real trouble for a civilian Flight Simulator is the budget distribution that more or less is a gigantic pool full of sharks. IMHO it isn't a question of when do they add big jets and major airports, but : does Microsoft Flight has a crew of more than five people in 2 years?

[KAPTEJNLN]

OK now i would set a few words together about what i mean..


Well i must say microsoft Flight is a no go for me aswell.. I dislike spending money on a closed world like what they give us now, and as european i like to have the option to fly around here and not only in the US and futher more have to pay for a single plane or region just to upgrade.. I know i got the AeroflyFS by Ikarus.. but it was because it is a new flightsimulator, and in my opinion it is a better sim then flight if you like chalenges in flyeing the plane whit a more realistic flight dynamic like X-plane.. and seems to be a mix of stability from FSX controls and X-plane about aerodynamic.. so in that way i would say if you like a sim whitout navigations aids and so AeroflyFS is better choise as a closed world simulator.. but stil not much to do compaired to the missions in flight i would think cant say as i havent payed for things to flight..

I can see in a perspective as company creating a more wide game that might give more and diferent costumers, and of cause they hope it could give a bigger part of money, but loosing 1 part of costumers and get a new part could result in the same level of costumers or more, but a balance would be better as they said it was supposed to be for old simmers and new i just want to know where that have been gone about old simmers, as they said things would changse and it would be the same as before...


Like another i also get´s iritated by microsoft Live i haven´t had anything els then problems in several games, so im also not fan of all that registration as at the moment i mean we have reached a to high level of passwords as then you use 1 but then there is limits.

So all in all im off... i stay whit FSX and X-plane.. but thats just my opinion as a interested simulator CPT.. and use it as an alternative when not able to become a real pilot

Best regards LN

[Hiflyer]

I would not necessarily think that Flight is intended for kids only. There may be many adult people out there who might be interested in aviation but have never taken the plunge with a full-fledged flight sim.

Another forum is receiving a flood of new people drawn in by FLIGHT! and they are certainly not all children!

Somewhere in the furor, its also been determined that an Easter egg hidden in one of the webisodes may indeed be a preview to another scenery. Kodiak island in Alaska! http://forum.avsim.n...et/page__st__25

If this turns out to be true, it may be yet one more nail in the coffin of the argument that the Sim is not meant to grow.

[Peter Lürkens]

After dealing a couple of hours with MS Flight, I must say, that I'm not impressed anymore, as I was from some of the screenies they showed during the development. Comparing the graphics with my brushed up FSX at this time, there is nothing what might not be achieved by proper tuning and a couple of available and moderately expensive 3DP add-ons. Indeed, it seems to me that in a number of aspects visual quality is even inferior to a well-setup FSX: Fuzzy landscape appearance, poor cloud images, and FPS noticeably go down at higher quality levels (but stay very uniform!).

The only thing where I think they did a really good job, is that the software runs with steady performance right out-of-the box, no tuning, no tweaking necessary (or even possible). This is the open-door for "just-wanna-play"-folks. How many hours have I spent, to get to smooth running setup in FSX? I don't dare to think over it. In that sense I think that there are larger changes under the hood, than suggested by the FSX-like appearance at many places. Eventually I think that are the well-known (and legacy) databases which produce this impression.

There is a lot of guessing on what MS may have in mind and what MSF might become in some time from now. The only thing what I would reasonably expect, is MS primary goal is making money from a so far underperforming product range. Until know, the biggest part of the cake used to be at the PC sellers and then at the add-on makers, which presumably had a much better return on investment as MS themselve. I remember vaguely a statement of one of MS officers in that direction about two years ago. So the real innovation in that product seems to be the change in the business model, which puts MS at the first place in the revenue stream, and under full control.

In that view, the game-ish appearance and the bound to MS Live makes a lot of sense to me: Bigger target group, full control. In addition, the restriction to the small area of Hawaii is clever trick to populate the virtual world much more densely as if the participants are scattered all around the world, which can help to make it more attractive ("pilot's 2nd life").

However, as many others, I believe that MS didn't hit the sweet spot, at which the product could carry over the "serious" virtual pilot, as well as those looking for some distraction only. For the traditional simmer, it has not enough coverage (in almost all aspects), and for the easy-going, its probably not worth to invest relevant amounts of money. MS may still capitalize on their legacy assets, selling region by region, plane by plane, but I believe that many of us would stick to the older releases, rather than paying large amounts for something that we once already had, whith a not so clear added value from the new product.

my 2c, Peter

[Lamb]

I was a beta tester for MS Flight. I have to confess not a very good one as I quickly became bored with it and stopped using it. By quickly, I mean within a day or two.

It is very pretty to look at and very smooth running but the whole thing appears to have no depth to it. As many have said here before it is most definitely a game, with a very short learning curve. Great if you want to get some instant gratification and look at the nice scenery, but if it is some serious flying that you want, then it is not for you.

Frame rates are great, even on a mediocre PC, but there seems to be very little to do except circuits in the limited space available. We may see new scenery areas for sale as add-ons in the future, but what if you want to fly long haul? will you have to spend a small fortune buying your departure point, you landing point and everything in between? will you even be able to fly between two points that are in scenery sets that are unconnected? Too many questions and no answers, but on the face of it Flight seems restrictive, (perhaps in its ability to support third party additions as well as its airspace), and frankly dull.

Personally I think MS would have been better rebuilding FSX to take full advantage of modern chips and graphics cards spread the load and improve on what they have already got. It worries me that Flight will not be as popular as the FS series for the reasons already posted here and will be canned as a result, with nothing to replace it.

FSX looks like it will have to satisfy those who take this hobby seriously for some years to come. In my opinion MS have made several error of judgement with Flight, and we may all pay the price of their attempt to make more money out of their product.

[Hiflyer]

Doing my homework, I have been all over the web and peeking into many websites. What strikes me more and more is how the current attitude towards flight in the hardcore community parallels and echos that same community reaction to FSX.

The same "I love my fs9 stuff no reason to switch" "its so much more limited than Fs9" "MS dropped the ball here, the greedy buggers!" "Aircraft are laughable compared to my beloved (place name of third party here) etc.

I think all the people who say that are perfectly entitled to their heartfelt opinions. I disagree for various reasons, but who the heck am I?

I just wonder if years from now we will all be just as unhappy with FSNEXT, and just as reluctant to give up our lovely FLIGHT! which will of course at that time be all things good in a Sim.

http://xplane10.word...d-3d-discovery/

[AaronMyers]

I can't see any parallels between the movement from FS9 to FSX and FSX to Flight. They aren't the same thing in any way, shape or form. Apples and oranges as they say. Flight is not a full featured flight simulator and does not model the world in it's entirety. In fact, barely in partial, so I can't see one as a replacement to the other. In the best of light, Flight is in addition to FSX because it is not the same type of product, and as such can't be a replacement for it.

[tempelhof]

I have a different theory:

To me, it seems that those people complaining about Flight's limitations are generally those who fly the heavies/IFR/SIDs'n'STARs Vatsim folks. On the other hand, the VFR/GA/Bush pilots seem to be quite pleased with Flight.

Am I correct with this assessment?

[simmerhead]

I have a different theory:

To me, it seems that those people complaining about Flight's limitations are generally those who fly the heavies/IFR/SIDs'n'STARs Vatsim folks. On the other hand, the VFR/GA/Bush pilots seem to be quite pleased with Flight.

Am I correct with this assessment?

I don't know, but I'm a GA flyer and not into heavy jets or VATSIM, and Flight wasn't for me. I even liked some of the FSX missions.

[Hiflyer]

Somebody else had mentioned a similar theory, and it seems logical as well.

I had to dig into archives at sites for reviews specifically done in 2006 (bit of digging) but the comments and the outrage was there. A lot of it about frame-rates, but just as many that are almost word for word the same things we are hearing now.

[Peter Lürkens]

I have a different theory:

To me, it seems that those people complaining about Flight's limitations are generally those who fly the heavies/IFR/SIDs'n'STARs Vatsim folks. On the other hand, the VFR/GA/Bush pilots seem to be quite pleased with Flight.

Am I correct with this assessment?

Not correct: GA, gliders, and vintage.

Indeed, I was an early adopter of FSX (by unexpeceted X-mas gift), and initially disappointed as well. However, the obvious difference is that it showed out-of-the-box the potential (yes, the orignal textures were bad) for a much better visual experience than FS9, and it came with a comprehensive SDK, promising rich support by add-on-devs. Yet, it took another year to arrive at the final performance possibilities (by SP2) and me a new PC and two more years to find out how to set it up best. The latter looks better with MSF for sure, but the rest does not.
Don't take me wrong: The easy-to-use engine of MSF combined with the content and API of FSX would have been the ultimate package for us, but likely not for the profit of MS.

[KarstenS]

Am I correct with this assessment?

Yes and no. That users of the heavies don't get satisfied by flight is logical, but I must admit that my opinion drops from day to day.
While I normally prefer smaller planes, I am not really interested in Hawai and the weather is a huge weakness.
While there are multiple missions they get boring after a short while.

[AaronMyers]

I fly a lot of small planes as well. In fact I probably own more small planes than big jets (although I own both), but people tend to draw parallels when it suits them regardless. Enjoy it if that's what you like, I have no issue with that, but treating the two platforms as peers is a big misnomer if you ask me. They serve two completely different purposes and cater to two completely different demographics.

[Mathijs Kok]

Yes, but if you check those files you see they often have the ACES trademark at the top and clearly are from a previous version of FS. We even found some that were in the original FSX and were removed in SP1. FS has a long history of having not used files in the build. So I would not get your hopes up.