I held on to FS2004 until 2009. I love FSX and have invested in a Jetline computer, as well as add-ons from Aerosoft, Fly Tampa, Blueprint, ImagineSim, Latin VFR, HiFISim, PMDG, FeelThere, QualityWings, CaptainSim and Level-D. I love the way FSX works, and I see myself enjoying it for at least five years. It will take a while to transition to Flight. It is nice to see future development. I've been using FS since 1989, and I've enjoyed being so loyal to this hobby.Luis KMIA

When I see the new video and I remember the things Ive read about what MS wanted to doI become even more convinced that FS11 is a polished version of FSX probable (hopefully)with things like cloud shadows (and apparently things like suns rays through clouds)and then it will simply add a 'marketplace' with direct access to all the third party developersthat have contracted with MS.Microsoft (I believe) wants a cut of the 3rd party business and they can expand these developers market reach.It seems good to me. Everyone will benefit and no longer will I have to try and explain to mybrother that the reason he doesnt like FSX is becasue you have to add stuff to it and tweak it...I'll just say "Purchase and install items 3456, 3457 and 982" or whatever.

When I see the new video and I remember the things Ive read about what MS wanted to doI become even more convinced that FS11 is a polished version of FSX probable (hopefully)with things like cloud shadows (and apparently things like suns rays through clouds)

I've looked at video #2 a bit (the one with the sun rays) and it actually looks like it transitions from either video or a render into the Flight engine once the plan passes overhead. It doesn't seem to me as though the really pretty clouds are in-engine. I hope so, but it's hard to make assumptions based on these tiny video snippets.Anyway, back on topic, I think that the newer version not looking better than the older version + add-ons is a pretty common refrain, but in this case we've had a long gap in development. I was expecting a bit more of a "wow", but it's still probably early in development.Bottom line for me: If Flight offers substantive performance improvements and good potential compatibility with Orbx, than it's a win-win for me. I don't necessarily want "wow" unless hardware can support it.

OK, so what if they fixed this and added a few things, maybe alpha fading, ATC, and multiplayer enhancements, and kept the FSX compatibility..Would you spend another $80 to upgrade? I would :(

If it's a significant improvement, sure, after it became worth the time, money and effort to 'upgrade'. One of the points I was making was there is no guarantee that when you have a mature and effective product that subsequent releases will be worth the time, money and effort. The TW2004 analogy was intended to show that. Since TW2004 is SO SO effective at being what it really is, a golf simulator w/ very adequate graphics, it takes a lot to improve on it. If Flight can be at least as good a total package as FSX+ is, then yes there will be an impetus to upgrade. FSX+ is so so rich right now, with the robust 3rd party support, that it will truly take something of a major upgrade to nudge people away. Streaming high resolution satellite imagery with an integrated 3D objects piece could be enough, provided the rest of the simulation was at least as good as FSX+ currently is. Hopefully FS will not migrate, in an attempt to appeal to the less die-hard among us, to a less open platform. That is kind of what TW2004 did--better course graphics, but goofier animations, and other gimmickry that added nothing to the 'golf simulation' perspective. Finally, in 2010, EA abandoned it outright on the PC, and went straight for their intended console market. To this day TW2004 remains the best possible golf simulator for PC.I'm glad to see they are re-kindling development of FS and hopefully it will be a worthy upgrade. That all depends on the direction they are aiming in terms of marketing.

I think the only thing (I know this is not a little thing)that could distinguish MS Flight from FSX+ will be streaming high-def scenery as it will have to significantly exceed the likes of what ORBX FTX, GEX and the other fine products bring.

Question is, how much are you willing to pay for all that above? Your talking a few hundred $$ in add-ons there, and most of them only cover small area's and not the entire world. How much do you really think your dream product would end of costing if they did include all of that?

If it's a significant improvement, sure, after it became worth the time, money and effort to 'upgrade'.  One of the points I was making was there is no guarantee that when you have a mature and effective product that subsequent releases will be worth the time, money and effort.  The TW2004 analogy was intended to show that.  Since TW2004 is SO SO effective at being what it really is, a golf simulator w/ very adequate graphics, it takes a lot to improve on it.  If Flight can be at least as good a total package as FSX+ is, then yes there will be an impetus to upgrade.  FSX+ is so so rich right now, with the robust 3rd party support, that it will truly take something of a major upgrade to nudge people away. Streaming high resolution satellite imagery with an integrated 3D objects piece could be enough, provided the rest of the simulation was at least as good as FSX+ currently is.  Hopefully FS will not migrate, in an attempt to appeal to the less die-hard among us, to a less open platform.  That is kind of what TW2004 did--better course graphics, but goofier animations, and other gimmickry that added nothing to the 'golf simulation' perspective.  Finally, in 2010, EA abandoned it outright on the PC, and went straight for their intended console market.  To this day TW2004 remains the best possible golf simulator for PC.I'm glad to see they are re-kindling development of FS and hopefully it will be a worthy upgrade.  That all depends on the direction they are aiming in terms of marketing.

TW2008 not TW2004 .. and the reason EA went less "sim" on Tiger Woods Online (2010 PC installment) was because the "true" sim didnt have mass appeal and sales were declining year over year.  Everything I read, showed that FS9 and FSX had similar sales numbers.  MS isnt dealing with a situation where they need to try a different sales model to counter declining sales in the FS franchise.  SO, they might add addition feature to appeal to an even greater market slice, I dont anticipate that they would depart to far from what has been a successful franchise.  

TW2008 not TW2004 .. and the reason EA went less "sim" on Tiger Woods Online (2010 PC installment) was because the "true" sim didnt have mass appeal and sales were declining year over year.  Everything I read, showed that FS9 and FSX had similar sales numbers.  MS isnt dealing with a situation where they need to try a different sales model to counter declining sales in the FS franchise.  SO, they might add addition feature to appeal to an even greater market slice, I dont anticipate that they would depart to far from what has been a successful franchise.  

TW2004 was the best release IMO and many other hard core users. All nuance was spot on for avid golf simmers of which I surely have been. I installed TW2008 because it was touted to be worthy and in it were overdone player responses, goofier looking animations, other nonsensical features, a perfect dynamic camera was altered and in doing so was ruined, more gimmickry designed to try to draw in younger users in a hopefully larger market but to the true simmer, TW2008 and all the rest fell well short. You make some good points re FS, however I would in no way assume MS will put together the optimal set of features that will appeal greatly to the hard core enthusiast, which is who I am speaking to. I think there is a greater likelihood that it could arguably devolve into something more rigid as a trade off for more plug n play to appeal to the masses over the enthusiast. Just listen to the final comment made by the narrator in the MS Flight video: "How easy was that . . . that's why it's so fun". If they can both dumb it down and significantly add to what the enthusiast is looking for, that's would be great. I'm sure they are looking at the big financial picture and it remains to be seem exactly what Flight will be.

The trouble is, where computer games with mass appeal are concerned, making them easy doesn't generally equate to fun, unless one happens to think Hello Kitty World is the pinnacle of gaming challenges.'How easy was that? that's why it's so fun' is certainly true with the wind in your hair when flying a real aeroplane, but sat at a computer desk with scenery which doesn't look anywhere near as flashy as the forthcoming Brink FPS or whatever, in a plane that is easy to fly but which doesn't drop bombs or have machine guns on it, has about as much chance of having mass appeal to a gaming market as a paint drying simulator. I don't think you exactly need to have your finger on the pulse of the gaming youth to determine that most of them would think 'a plane game', even one where they stand a chance of getting it off the deck in one piece, only to find the object of the game is to put it back on the deck again in one piece, will seem tedious beyond compare. It'd be in the game shop bargain bins before the first day's sales returns were in.And one only has to look at the trend for hard core simmers demanding ever-more complex aircraft add-ons such as PMDG and iFly's 737NGs to see that for potential customers who won't take anywhere near as much persuading to buy MS Flight, 'how easy was that?' is unlikely to be what they want either. I bought the Golden Age Simulations Boeing Stearman add-on because I like that kind of aeroplane, but I'm willing to bet that I'm in a minority among simmers in having actually coughed up money for it, so the one in MS Flight will almost inevitably be a total hangar queen for most buyers.If they want to go for mass appeal, they should stick an Me-262 in there and have a promo video of it strafing the crap out of the hangar that Boeing Stearman is parked in whilst the female instructor desperately takes 'flight' running for cover - and tragically doesn't make it. There's a chance the gaming kids would think that looks 'so fun'.Al

If they want to go for mass appeal, they should stick an Me-262 in there and have a promo video of it strafing the crap out of the hangar that Boeing Stearman is parked in whilst the female instructor desperately takes 'flight' running for cover - and tragically doesn't make it. There's a chance the gaming kids would think that looks 'so fun'.Al

Perhaps this scenario will transpire in Microsoft Flight Webisode 3.

I can see it now, directed in a Leni Riefenstahl 'Triumph of the Will stylee', the 262 zips off into the sunset as we hear Hanna Reitsch chirpily commenting: 'war das wie einfach? that's why it's so Spaß'Al

I can see it now, directed in a Leni Riefenstahl 'Triumph of the Will stylee', the 262 zips off into the sunset as we hear Hanna Reitsch chirpily commenting: 'war das wie einfach? that's why it's so Spaß'Al

The video would not be any more informative (or less for that matter) than the previous offerings from Microsoft, but it would certainly be more entertaining.

Well, joking aside, if anyone remembers that questionnaire they put out a good while ago with questions along the lines of:'Do you want to fly around popping balloons to get power ups, like Sonic the Hedgehog in an F-111?'Answer either...A YesB Yes very much indeedC Oh yes indeedyD Yup!(or words to that effect) then I wouldn't put anything past them.Al