Clearly, the prudent thing would be not to buy Flight tomorrow or on its release date whenever that is.It's not about the money. It is about knowing what I am getting and IF I want to support the company and the product after I do have a clue about what I am getting.I certainly would not want to support another mediocre quality product, nor a direction of development that would reduce my enjoyment below the level I currently have with FSX.We reward lying politicians by electing them for we believe their promises, the bigger the lie, the more people believe it. We reward game developers based on past performance, even after they have made whole sale changes to the development team that brought us the previous version. Then we find out about the lies, but it's too late.If we get another FSX-like quality product in Flight, it will be because of rewarding MS by buying FSX on day one. They got away with it once, they may try it again. I swore off the day one buying after seeing Civ V and some of the Total War disasters.

With just about every release of any game in any genre ... there will be people who love the game, there will be people who are calling it mediocre quality and there will be those that call the game crap.   Many of us believe that not a single MSFS was of mediocre quality but yet you believe this.  Even with your examples, CIV V and Total War ... the reviews are overwhelming positive.Flight simming, as a hobby, is to exciting for many us to past on "Flight" .. i am confident that this group, myself included, has bought every civil flight sim released.  MSFS, ATP, Flight Unlimited, etc.   

It must be a generational thing and perhaps the fact that I am a software developer myself, so I know what could have been done with how much extra effort.I recall games released with very few bugs and properly written manuals. Games that did not need patches upon patches to make them playable. I guess the phrase "they don't make them like they used to" applies here as well.FYI, Civ V was released about a year ago and they are planning yet another major patch for next month. I play it sometimes, I even have a mod released for it, but it is just a mediocre effort. By comparison FSX is far better except for the fact that I will only be able to run it properly when I get my 2600K later this week. A mediocre effort to release a properly running game on the part of MS.

I certainly would not want to support another mediocre quality product...

Mediocre compared with which other flight simulator?

Don't confuse functionality with quality. FSX has a lot of functionality because it is an old franchise and each year we got a few new features. This does not make it a quality product, however. Just because FSX is in a class by itself, it does not mean that it should have been released in the state that it was. It is still unplayable for many people and so we have the FS9 split. Also, most of us would have stopped using FSX long ago, had it not been for the 3rd party developers. Support for the product was also mediocre, stopped dead with the release of another mediocre product, Acceleration.For a quality flight product, check out Falcon 4 and its successor Falcon 4 AF.In the case of Civ V, one can at least appreciate the product support from Firaxis. They will continue to support and patch the product as long as fixes and improvements are needed. Perhaps 3 years after its release, Civ V will be a quality product. FSX will never be.

Clearly, the prudent thing would be not to buy Flight tomorrow or on its release date whenever that is.If we get another FSX-like quality product in Flight, it will be because of rewarding MS by buying FSX on day one. They got away with it once, they may try it again.

FSX ran poorly on full detail at the time of its release because of the physical limitations in producing single-core silicon CPUs. It was an issue which began impacting computers during the development of FSX; specifically, that limitation was causing quantum mechanical tunneling and overheating on the data tracks of CPUs when manufacturers tried to speed them up using the traditional methods of increasing the speed of CPUs - i.e. making them smaller and adding more stuff.This was what put the brakes on Moore's Law; it was nothing to do with MS trying to get one over on people or making a mess of things owing to incompetence or any of the other nonsense accusations which people level at MS as though it is some sort of evil empire. Additionally, people had been loudly demanding backwards compatibility in FS, which also put limitations on the kind of technology MS could incorporate into Flight Simulator. That is the reason why they dropped FS and created Flight, in order to draw a line under the demand for backward compatibility.So FSX was far from being a case of 'MS getting away with something', and if you think it was, then you'd be conveniently forgetting the recent history of computer development. But even so, when the physical limitation on the development of faster single core CPUs forced a change in how CPUs were created (using multiple cores, which we now see are common), the problem was circumvented, and FSX can run well in spite of not having been developed with those in mind. But FSX ran perfectly well from day one if you were prepared to use the detail sliders (which is what they were there for whilst the world awaited a CPU solution).There is (literally) a world of difference between creating what FSX offers in comparison to all other flight sims, and to do it when Moore's Law had run into a brick wall and everyone was demanding that their five year-old add ons should still work with it, was an achievement not to be underestimated.Al

FSX ran poorly on full detail at the time of its release because of the physical limitations in producing single-core silicon CPUs. It was an issue which began impacting computers during the development of FSX; specifically, that limitation was causing quantum mechanical tunneling and overheating on the data tracks of CPUs when manufacturers tried to speed them up using the traditional methods of increasing the speed of CPUs - i.e. making them smaller and adding more stuff.This was what put the brakes on Moore's Law; it was nothing to do with MS trying to get one over on people or making a mess of things owing to incompetence or any of the other nonsense accusations which people level at MS as though it is some sort of evil empire. Additionally, people had been loudly demanding backwards compatibility in FS, which also put limitations on the kind of technology MS could incorporate into Flight Simulator. That is the reason why they dropped FS and created Flight, in order to draw a line under the demand for backward compatibility.So FSX was far from being a case of 'MS getting away with something', and if you think it was, then you'd be conveniently forgetting the recent history of computer development. But even so, when the physical limitation on the development of faster single core CPUs forced a change in how CPUs were created (using multiple cores, which we now see are common), the problem was circumvented, and FSX can run well in spite of not having been developed with those in mind. But FSX ran perfectly well from day one if you were prepared to use the detail sliders (which is what they were there for whilst the world awaited a CPU solution).There is (literally) a world of difference between creating what FSX offers in comparison to all other flight sims, and to do it when Moore's Law had run into a brick wall and everyone was demanding that their five year-old add ons should still work with it, was an achievement not to be underestimated.Al

I know all this.I also know that MS made a mistake and bet on the wrong horse. To compound the problem, they released the game knowing full well that it will not perform even remotely well on the hardware of the day. And you are defending this approach as if it were inevitable. It was not.I'd expect this sort of thing from a small company that ran out of funds, but not from MS that is in control of the development of the OS, DirectX and has first hand knowledge of whatever Intel and AMD are up to.You can defend MS all you want, but it is a cop out. Let's just hope Flight will be a better experience.

If it were released tomorrow, I'd buy it tomorrow. I think any real fan of flight sims would.

So a "real fan" buys every flight simulation that is available, irrespective of whether it's a sensible purchase or not? I guess that means that I am not a "real fan" then. I prefer to have ONE flight simulator, and if MS Flight was released tomorrow, the one feature that it would need for me to take the plunge would be compatibility with my existing FSX addons.

for me to take the plunge would be compatibility with my existing FSX addons.

No Flight for you.

So a "real fan" buys every flight simulation that is available, irrespective of whether it's a sensible purchase or not? I guess that means that I am not a "real fan" then.

You might try reading what I wrote, instead of getting upset about what you think I wrote, and note what the OP wrote too whilst you are at it.If it's not clear, I'll write it again and emphasise the bit you appear to have missed: 'I THINK any real fan of flght sims would'. I'm not asking anyone else to agree with my opinion, I'm merely offering it, which is what the OP asked people to do in his original post on this thread. So yes, I do think any real fan of flight sims buys every flight simulation that is available, since it is the only way to have a truly informed opinion about it. Feel free to disagree.Al

Then I'd load the SDKs (Note to MS: There better be SDKs!) and start to learn what I could do to make it better, for me and others.

If the SDK is released does that mean that Aerosoft, Fly Tampa or Orbx just to take these three can make addons and sell them in their own store like they did with FSX?So with the SDK released what will happen with the MS store? Do you think MS will open a store and let the SDK been avalaible for who ever want to make addons and sell them in their own store?MS store = money from addons = approved developers only selling in the store = SDK released to them.

If it were released tomorrow I would buy it tomorrow1 fly it for a day or so 2 take a good look at the file structure, and then try to ram all my addons into it to see which worked.3 Mess with it's cfg fileBascially everything I do with FSX but over the course of a weekend instead of 3 years. :(

Also, it is not being built off of FSX. It's being built from the ground up, but using pieces of code from FSX where it is the obvious choice. (from PC Pilot magazine article)

You still beleive that, after seeing all the pics released, lets just say that Flight is a re-built from the ground up, it is NOT a new engine, why in hell will you keep ANY of the code from FSX in a BRAND NEW ENGINE?

If the SDK is released does that mean that Aerosoft, Fly Tampa or Orbx just to take these three can make addons and sell them in their own store like they did with FSX?So with the SDK released what will happen with the MS store? Do you think MS will open a store and let the SDK been avalaible for who ever want to make addons and sell them in their own store?MS store = money from addons = approved developers only selling in the store = SDK released to them.

Huh? Have you never seen Apple's App store? The SDK is open to the public and there are thousands, if not millions, of free user created apps in the store.

If the SDK is released does that mean that Aerosoft, Fly Tampa or Orbx just to take these three can make addons and sell them in their own store like they did with FSX?

Still beating that same old, dead horse Alain?I'll have to see what the SDKs do or not do. Unless they impose some sort of DRM then I don't anticipate the BGL file for mesh or photo scenery to be any different from what FSX produces. If that's so, then I'll make my revised files and offer them through my site. If and it's a BIG IF, there is some DRM code in there I'll have to weigh the benefits of utilizing whatever method of distribution is available and make a business decision.Until a whole lot more is known, it's all a bunch of pounding keys on a keyboard and little else. :(

You still beleive that, after seeing all the pics released, lets just say that Flight is a re-built from the ground up, it is NOT a new engine, why in hell will you keep ANY of the code from FSX in a BRAND NEW ENGINE?

Because if it does what's needed and is developed and tested why waste time and effort re-writing it and then re-starting the development and testing process all over again?