Perhaps it will be like flying in Orbx territory and when you'r out of it you fly into default Flight like in FSX?That's why I was asking if Flight Hawaii was default, if it is nobody will need add-ons and if Hawaii is like a store add-ons (free with Flight purchase) modular release does make sense.Either way it can't be both.

Hawaii is obviously default, this speculation of it being something more is just flattery for the Flight dev team, I expect even more improvement in the default scenery than what we are seeing in these early screenshots.You really think Hawaii looks so good that you wouldn't buy add-ons? Did you think the same thing when you saw FSX screenshots for the first time? The visual improvement over FS9 is comparable after all. Sure Flight looks as good or better than FSX with add-ons but so it should, it's the next generation. Just imagine what third parties will be able to do with an improved engine, new effects and systems, I guarantee add-ons will improve Flight just as much as they have for FSX.

Indeed, I just posted over there. We'll see what kind of response comes.

Admin seems to have deleted that thread. Those posters there claimed there was nothing wrong about it!

Hawaii is obviously default, this speculation of it being something more is just flattery for the Flight dev team, I expect even more improvement in the default scenery than what we are seeing in these early screenshots.You really think Hawaii looks so good that you wouldn't buy add-ons? Did you think the same thing when you saw FSX screenshots for the first time? The visual improvement over FS9 is comparable after all. Sure Flight looks as good or better than FSX with add-ons but so it should, it's the next generation. Just imagine what third parties will be able to do with an improved engine, new effects and systems, I guarantee add-ons will improve Flight just as much as they have for FSX.

Of course Hawaii is default, Flight does look better compare to FSX but nothing to make me fall off my chair and of course add-ons will be available for Flight, MS is not opening a store to keep it empty.I can't wait to see what kind of add-ons will be made for Flight, Flight1 where they cover the entire USA or Orbx where you have to buy a section only? Unless MS put some guideline in place for add-ons I can see a war between developers for your money....and that can be good for us.

Admin seems to have deleted that thread. Those posters there claimed there was nothing wrong about it!

Was following the thread while it still existed. I couldn't believe it! :(

Was following the thread while it still existed. I couldn't believe it! :(

Nor could I. I thought that, as a community we had respect for other's work - obviously I was wrong.

So you dont think this part of Hawaii that they seem to keep featuring in the preview shots is just going to be one of the default "detailed areas" in the same manner FSX had a few "detailed areas" like Rio, Oshkosh, St. Marteen and Las Vegas (speaking of regular non-Accel FSX)?I agree that the whole world for obvious reasons wont be as detailed as what they have shown, but I wouldn't be surprised if a few more of these "detailed areas" are included with Flight as they had been with FS9 and FSX. Perhaps more detailed areas will be available for purchase in the "market" if you so choose to buy them, similar to the way Accel added a detailed Edwards, Red Bull race course(s), the F-18, etc.I would be surprised if they left the rest of the world stripped and void of any detail for it to be purchased piece by piece. In other words, I imagine that major cities with still have the main buildings and landmarks like they do in FSX without having to purchase a NYC or L.A. area to get those items. Does that mean that they will be as detailed as what has been shown as Hawaii? Probably not, but I doubt it will be bare bones either.I guess we really wont know until MS reveals all the product details, but I dont think the default version will be a whole lot different that FSX was. We will most likely still need to buy better land class products, better mesh, and so fourth, be it from the MS Market or other 3rd parties like we do now.

That's about the most level-headed take on Flight I have ever read. Nice one!Only thing I would venture to add is that I hope MS will not be short-sighted and do something stupid like prevent installations of addons NOT bought from the MS store. By all means have a Flight user interface based addons store to which any developer (or non) can make submissions but under no circumstanes should MS attempt to make this a closed eco-system. That, in my opinion, would be fatal for the MS Flight franchise in the long term. Perhaps it would even be reason enough for Aerosoft to actually develop their proposed flight sim as opposed to just threaten to do it...

Nor could I. I thought that, as a community we had respect for other's work - obviously I was wrong.

Your posts on this matter have little to do with respect and more to do with causing trouble, that much is obvious from the fact that you've trawled this subject up again several days after it had already been broached, and discussed, and that included a post by the person whose pictures had been used. In your comment about a lack of respect, you have conveniently overlooked the fact that lots of people agreed that it was indeed cheeky to have reposted those comparison shots, yet here you skip over that in a blanket condemnation of the FS community, which is another transparent attempt to stir things up again and cause an argument. It's a familiar stance from you, as I'm sure most forum regulars will be aware.Al

Some of us might think re-posting other's work without acknowledgement is more than "cheeky".

Yup, there goes the second part of your usual methodology, the 'feigned indignation' stage. Want to go for your regular stage three?Al

I think the hawaii area is a free addon done for MSF. I you like it then purchase others from their marketplace. The default sim framework is just fsx sp3. These screenshots/webisodes are just addon adverts. Of course the sim will have some improvement but get ready to buy a detailed LHR (London heatrow) addon from microsoft. In the end it is Ms vs Orbx vs flytampa vs aerosoft etc, who makes a better scenery, and if microsoft changes the scenery coding then they make more money until others figure out the SDK's. Just my thought's...

Maybe they haven't got anything more than Hawaii. Perhaps MS intend for this version of their sim to be a modular release....Maybe MS have realised that once people are hooked on one high definition package they won't be able to resist purchasing other areas.Start small and build from there, makes sense if you think about it.

Perhaps it makes sense, but you're going to be alienating a lot of people who like to fly outside of a single U.S. state. If that's the case (and I seriously doubt it), I won't be buying into this new concept of flight simulation. As it is now, I have purchased very little add-on scenery simply because I don't fly to these places enough to justify spending $20-30.I seriously doubt the scenery system will be modular because the default scenery already exists for worldwide airports from work done with FS2000 through FSX. Why completely moot that and limit the sim with a regional setting?Now if they start with default scenery based on landclass and then had HD sceneries built on from there. I could see your point.

That's about the most level-headed take on Flight I have ever read. Nice one!Only thing I would venture to add is that I hope MS will not be short-sighted and do something stupid like prevent installations of addons NOT bought from the MS store. By all means have a Flight user interface based addons store to which any developer (or non) can make submissions but under no circumstanes should MS attempt to make this a closed eco-system. That, in my opinion, would be fatal for the MS Flight franchise in the long term. Perhaps it would even be reason enough for Aerosoft to actually develop their proposed flight sim as opposed to just threaten to do it...

Why do you think Aerosoft is not impressed with Flight and will be supporting Xplane-10 as they stated it in their forums....you really think MS will allow add-ons to be sold in other store but theirs, what for, to let everybody have a shot at the $$$ Flight will generate without MS taking a % of the sales??I see MS allowing approved developers only selling add-ons for Flight in their own store, pay as you go, futher more, a store where it's the only place to get add-ons (don't get me started on how the download will be done) will reduce piracy, not make piracy bullet proof but saving $$ to the developers, like I explained before it's a "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" type of deal.

Yup, there goes the second part of your usual methodology, the 'feigned indignation' stage. Want to go for your regular stage three?Al

At leat I have more than one stage. Your single sttage seems to be to ignore substantive points and descend to ad hominen attacks, coupled with vague threats.

I think the hawaii area is a free addon done for MSF. I you like it then purchase others from their marketplace. The default sim framework is just fsx sp3. These screenshots/webisodes are just addon adverts. Of course the sim will have some improvement but get ready to buy a detailed LHR (London heatrow) addon from microsoft. In the end it is Ms vs Orbx vs flytampa vs aerosoft etc, who makes a better scenery, and if microsoft changes the scenery coding then they make more money until others figure out the SDK's. Just my thought's...

The Hawaii area is definitely not a free add-on and the sim framework itself is NOT FSX SP3. If it was, they'd just call it that. It's the same situation as was with FS9 going to FSX. Did we call FSX "FS9 SP1?" No....not that I know of. The same level of improvement between FS9 and FSX is happening again with Flight based off of the screenshots and videos.The point of the add-on store is to get more people aware of add-ons and bring in more money for developers and Microsoft. And Aerosoft isn't even going to develop for Flight, as they previously stated.

That's about the most level-headed take on Flight I have ever read. Nice one!Only thing I would venture to add is that I hope MS will not be short-sighted and do something stupid like prevent installations of addons NOT bought from the MS store. By all means have a Flight user interface based addons store to which any developer (or non) can make submissions but under no circumstanes should MS attempt to make this a closed eco-system. That, in my opinion, would be fatal for the MS Flight franchise in the long term. Perhaps it would even be reason enough for Aerosoft to actually develop their proposed flight sim as opposed to just threaten to do it...

What would be fatal for the franchise in the long term is Microsoft not getting an adequate return on its investment - ie not making enough money. The time when Miscrosoft it's not making enough momey is the time the franchise will end. Sales of add-ons currently make no money for Microsoft directly, and the indirect effect of sales to people who only buy it because of add-ons is second-order and, I suspect, very small. My impression from following AVSIM forums is that add-on sales are measured in thousands and not even in tens of thousands - if I'm wildly in error I'm sure a Commercial Member will put me straight. Given that enthusiasts generally seem to have many add-ons, we are talking about a small nbumber of individuals and hence of purchases of flight simulator.. Microsoft will be wanting sales in millions and it won't get them from enthusiasts.