Not impressed so far...

[Fsau 0]

I don't think Lockheed Martin has done much at least in the way of visuals, as it is not really a priority for a commercial trainer. Even if Flight incorporates DX10/11 and multi-core/GPU it will be a great improvement, third party devs will be able to add a lot more details and reality if the only thing they improved was the performance. I'm looking forward to it.

[mmann 72]

The key to finding happiness with Microsoft Flight (as in most things in life) will be to keep your expectations extremely low!If you let the Microsoft marketing hype (which hasn't even started yet) get your expectations too high, you are probably not going to be impressed with the product they release.Regards, Mike Mann

[dmaher 0]

Although Flight is relatively young in its development, you can get an idea on where it will be when its finished by taking a look at Lockheed Martin's Prepar3D.

Really, if you want to get an idea of what Prepar3D is, look at FSX...it's effectively an FSX-SP3.Despite the messaging, lots of indications are Flight is part of the Flight Simulator lineage.So I’d expect the jump to be along the lines of all the other sequels we’ve seen - certainly more than an 'SP3'.Nevertheless being a sequel it'll have a lot in common with its predecessors.And, that's much better that the alternative in my mind ;)

[dmaher 0]

Even if Flight incorporates DX10/11 and multi-core/GPU it will be a great improvement, third party devs will be able to add a lot more details and reality if the only thing they improved was the performance.

I agree, but to a point :smile:Still IMO, one thing we don’t actually need is more detail.FS9 had more stringent limits on vertex and pixel counts.FSX has more so left those limits to the discretion of developers...which is good and bad.It is very easy to choke FSX with all this detail…especially using add-on's in combination.My system can run a great aircraft or great scenery, but not both.So personally I’m hopeful Flight will run the existing level of detail well…but not necessarily more.

[ErichB 3,642]

An emphasis is given to virtual cockpits.

No problem with that. Thats how it should be. Its the most realistic perspective

[strider1 575]

Hi,Although Flight is relatively young in its development, you can get an idea on where it will be when its finished by taking a look at Lockheed Martin's Prepar3D. At $500.00 dollars, I'm not impressed. If looking at Lockheed's Prepar3D can give us some in-site on what's to come from Microsoft's Flight, I'd just as soon pass.Looks like an FSX update that may give us true Directx10/11 and multi CPU/GPU support.

I would be happy with Directx10/11 and multi CPU/GPU support !!! It's better then nothing at all !

[Chock 17,769]

Thing is, if you look at FSX, it says on the box that it requires either XP or Vista, which means there is basically now only one operating system that MS still support which FSX is theoretically compatible with in terms of how MS support it. And if you consider that MS have been quietly trying to sweep Vista under the rug ever since Windows 7 came out, and they are just about to bring out Windows 8, pretty soon that will mean FSX is in the position FS9 is already in, where it wasn't designed for any operating system that MS supports anymore.So if Flight is only a few GPU and CPU tweaks and basically very similar to FS (which would certainly be welcome), it would still have the advantage of being a program for which operating system support is likely to be current for probably the next ten years, and MS don't make money from operating systems they sold to us several years ago, so they'll certainly be keen on going that route and it will be one of the motivating factors for trying to cut the cord back to older versions of FS.Beyond all that, the other thing MS is trying to push, is a more entertaining aspect to the sim. They got halfway there with FSX and the mission system, which is very capable when third party developers use it to its fullest extent, as evidenced by products such as Wilco's Aviation and Miasion and Aerosoft's African Airstrip Adventures. If Flight is more geared to that kind of thing, there is no reason to be worried by gameplay aspects being injected into it, because frankly, the better mission stuff like those two I mentioned are really very good examples of how much better a flight sim can be made with some gameplay creative input. With a half decent airliner and perhaps the introduction of a series of linked career missions, even the hardcore heavy-metal simmers would welcome something like that, so I do hope Flight brings with it an FMC built into it and some better systems for any default airliners it has, because that could really push it along when coupled with some career mission stuff. At the very least, one thing we will have is updated navaids and airports, so that's one thing Flight will be better for having.Al

[Tierborn 188]

Thing is, if you look at FSX, it says on the box that it requires either XP or Vista, which means there is basically now only one operating system that MS still support which FSX is theoretically compatible with in terms of how MS support it. And if you consider that MS have been quietly trying to sweep Vista under the rug ever since Windows 7 came out, and they are just about to bring out Windows 8, pretty soon that will mean FSX is in the position FS9 is already in, where it wasn't designed for any operating system that MS supports anymore.So if Flight is only a few GPU and CPU tweaks and basically very similar to FS (which would certainly be welcome), it would still have the advantage of being a program for which operating system support is likely to be current for probably the next ten years, and MS don't make money from operating systems they sold to us several years ago, so they'll certainly be keen on going that route and it will be one of the motivating factors for trying to cut the cord back to older versions of FS.Beyond all that, the other thing MS is trying to push, is a more entertaining aspect to the sim. They got halfway there with FSX and the mission system, which is very capable when third party developers use it to its fullest extent, as evidenced by products such as Wilco's Aviation and Miasion and Aerosoft's African Airstrip Adventures. If Flight is more geared to that kind of thing, there is no reason to be worried by gameplay aspects being injected into it, because frankly, the better mission stuff like those two I mentioned are really very good examples of how much better a flight sim can be made with some gameplay creative input. With a half decent airliner and perhaps the introduction of a series of linked career missions, even the hardcore heavy-metal simmers would welcome something like that, so I do hope Flight brings with it an FMC built into it and some better systems for any default airliners it has, because that could really push it along when coupled with some career mission stuff. At the very least, one thing we will have is updated navaids and airports, so that's one thing Flight will be better for having.Al

sales figures I found show that MS did make money on its OS several years agoClient (Windows Operating System) - 2008Revenue: $16,865,000,000Operating Income: $13,052,000,000this represents 28% of its revenue and the largest operating income from its various divisions.

[Chock 17,769]

I never wrote they didn't make money from selling operating systems, I wrote that they don't make money from things they sold to us years ago. Nobody does, once they've sold it to you, that's it, they've had your money and won't get any more of your money from that product since you've already bought it. That is unless you count the interest they'd get if they simply invested what they had made, but that's effectively what they do when developing new stuff to sell us.Al

[Tierborn 188]

I never wrote they didn't make money from selling operating systems, I wrote that they don't make money from things they sold to us years ago. Nobody does, once they've sold it to you, that's it, they've had your money and won't get any more of your money from that product since you've already bought it. That is unless you count the interest they'd get if they simply invested what they had made, but that's effectively what they do when developing new stuff to sell us.Al

my misunderstanding . thanks for clarifying.