We do know it will have good graphics and level of detail and not a game

Can you quote that mate?I'm asking, I can see the good graphics, but how do you know it's not just a game?You remember pre-FSX release, that photo of the Lake and the mountain in Background?

Long before Flight, FSX was already edging towards being just another game with it's "missions." All you had to do was follow the big arrow and fly to the huge green marker in the sky... I mean, let's be serious...

No, it's true. Microsoft wants a game that will appeal to EVERYBODY for the sake of reaching a broad audience, not a simulation, which means it will always be ridiculously dumbed down, unlike PMDG who has even worked with Boeing to develop an addon that's as close to the real thing as we will probably ever get outside a full motion sim.

I think what you say there makes sense - I get the feeling that Flight will be much the same as FSX on its arrival - hopefully not dumbed down - but at the same time I doubt we'll be seeing things like FMC's on the default aircraft - remember folks, we are the minority - most people dont have the time or inclination to sit and read and read documents on aircraft ops. The majority of us here do - quite a few of us fly in the real world as well - so reading manuals comes with the territory. But Microsoft will want to appeal to the wider market - they will invest a lot in development and will want to see a good return on that investment.Passion we have, numbers we do not. I'll be happy with a good quality open ended platform that is designed to fully take advantage of todays systems - I am hoping that the big developers do get a say in developement - but we will not be privvy to that until Microsoft themselves decide to devulge more information on it...until then its all guess work I am afraid... Now where's Mr Mark II to tell us how rubbish its going to be? :-P

RSR has been kind of cryptic about MS Flight... he hasn't really said anything but he's done it in a way that's open to speculation. But we don't wildly speculate on everything that RSR posts here, do we? :) Some of the official MS Flight releases do seem to suggest a sort of "App Store" for addons... what exactly that would mean remains to be seen. If MS doesn't smother the developers with dos and do nots, or charge too much... it shouldn't really have too bad of an effect on the developers themselves. It would probably cause serious problems for publishers and retailers like Flight1 and Aerosoft though.

Now where's Mr Mark II to tell us how rubbish its going to be? :-P

haha!

Flight is going to be a simulation, not a game, yes I believe there will be missions to attract a new group but we will still have everything we come to expect for realism because Microsoft knows that if it's a true game not a simulation it will not sell very well because many of us, some not as in-depth want a realistic simulation and as a game you cant really get the simulation part there!

RSR has been kind of cryptic about MS Flight... he hasn't really said anything but he's done it in a way that's open to speculation. But we don't wildly speculate on everything that RSR posts here, do we? :) Some of the official MS Flight releases do seem to suggest a sort of "App Store" for addons... what exactly that would mean remains to be seen. If MS doesn't smother the developers with dos and do nots, or charge too much... it shouldn't really have too bad of an effect on the developers themselves. It would probably cause serious problems for publishers and retailers like Flight1 and Aerosoft though.

RSR's already said in another thread that we're not happy with the current business model they're trying to push for addon devs.

As long as that is changed, Flight will be very good!

I think every add on maker (EXEPT ABACUS!!!) should all team up and make the best flight sim ever. The guys who make add on airports should do the scenery and aircraft add on makers should make the planes

RSR's already said in another thread that we're not happy with the current business model they're trying to push for addon devs.

I guess I missed where it was spelled out clearly like that... but that is the feeling I got from a few of the posts of his I've seen on the topic. In the end, I think MS has to know that they could be torpedoing their own product if they get too cute with the addon community.

I think every add on maker (EXEPT ABACUS!!!) should all team up and make the best flight sim ever. The guys who make add on airports should do the scenery and aircraft add on makers should make the planes

The thing is someone's still got to make the flight dynamics and graphics engine from scratch for the airplanes and scenery and everything to live in, which is no small task. It's a lot easier to write software than it is to write a whole new operating system.

As long as that is changed, Flight will be very good!

I don't really think you know what your talking about let alone what the difference is between a flight simulator and a game.FSX is a game - Flight is going to be a game.Microsoft will never develop an actual simulator for the PC. They will always aim for the unrealistic characteristics of crap modeled default aircraft and crap physics. Flight will be the same as FSX. Plus i don't know how you can judge it by saying that "Flight will be very good!" when all there is at the moment in time is screenshots and some videos which come to about 1 minute long.

I don't really think you know what your talking about let alone what the difference is between a flight simulator and a game.FSX is a game - Flight is going to be a game.Microsoft will never develop an actual simulator for the PC. They will always aim for the unrealistic characteristics of crap modeled default aircraft and crap physics. Flight will be the same as FSX. Plus i don't know how you can judge it by saying that "Flight will be very good!" when all there is at the moment in time is screenshots and some videos which come to about 1 minute long.

for 69$ is great "crap"

for 69$ is great "crap"

He's talking about the default planes and their crappy flight dynamics.

I would like to throw some oil in the flame. A little offtopic as well... :) To those who say that FSX and missions are made for gamers... In short - yes, that's true. BUT keep in mind that many people got involved in simulation (meaning the one you are sticking to) only because they first tried the missions and got some interest in "flying the comp". Later on somebody moves directly to serious simming, others try the multiplayer first. FSX multiplayer can be very confusing sometimes, but anyway it serves as a starting point for many. And when you first realize that multiplayer and the way it's played is just not good enaugh you start looking for improvement. Such as addon airplanes, manuals, procedures, textures, weather (you name it).What my point is? I think its clear. There is NOTHING bad about having some "teasers" or gaming built in the simming platform. In this way we get more and more fellows, addons and etc. You dont like it? Just dont use it.I have no idea what the MS Flight will look like or is it going to be a game or a sim. If they include some entertaining stuff in it - VERY GOOD. We just have to wait when it will be released and lets see. I dont think there is a way we could seriously influence the "product" anyway. :) I'm not sure if there is a way to make a good cooperation between MS and addon devs, because the tasks for both are soooo different.

So here's what we DO know... every couple of years MS has released some FS update or another... some are big, some less so... but FSX is the culmination of years of updates... and so rather than an FS11 they decided to sell the ESP engine to Lockheed and start over (that's now sold as Prepar3D, and they claim most FSX addons will still work with it). In the process of making the new engine, they seem to be trying a little bit of rebranding to expand the audience, but would they be creating a new engine for the sim if it was just going to be a silly arcade game? If it was going to be a silly arcade game, would the PMDG folks be posting anything, good or bad, about the addon developer business model MS is thinking about?

I think a new simulator should not be produced and programmed as a complete finished product by a single developer but more like a group of developers that collaborate, cooperate and contribute that part of the overall simulator that they understand best. First of all you need a developer group that produces a well coded realistic visual simulation model of the planet (WGS-84, Laws of Physics, 3D terrain, atmosphere - including a new WX engine, topography, scenery urban structures etc). On Top of all that there would be a world database of realistic airports. Programming that engine should be that groups only objective and they should not be tasked with anything else. It is also their task to further improve the engine in form of future updates and to add features, as new hardware becomes available to improve that Earth modell. There would be a user upgrade price policy subscription to cover the financial aspect in the long run. Now all the other following groups in the collaboration already exist: Next you have another group, e.g. such as Navigraph to provide, support and service the whole world wide Nav-Aids, AIRACs. and Charts. The user would pay a monthly subscription to update their 28 day cycle. This would ensure that the whole Sim would always be up to date with the real world navigation structure, if the user wishes to do this. The next group would be aircraft and special scenery designers - like the way they already exist to this day. As we all know they already produce really awesome products - but as pointed out: for a really bad simulation model with tons of issues and no support from the developer. Microsoft will ALWAYS be a compromise. So the user can then purchase each new aircraft for his virtual hangar separately. Free ware developers could be presented with an official SDK. So no more aircraft you don't specifically want or need. Last but not least, there would be all the VATSIM and IVAO stuff, to provide online ATC etc. It already exists. Computer AI is outdated and just eats resources, so is unrealistic Computer ATC. Now the an interesting question that comes to my mind is: could Xplane become a possible collaborator? There are some good things in there but also a whole lot of weaknesses and the chances are big, that they want to keep their product (and therefore the profits) for themselves. In that case it is sort of the same problem that we have with MS: too many things out of the same hand, will probably lead to some kind of compromise or limitation. So all what the simulation community really needs, is the developer group, that would build that engine and earth model in the same non compromising dedicated way, as for instance PMDG developed their NGX. The other parts of Developers already exists (I know I have repeated this too many times - but it is just a fact), they just need to adopt the new backbone system. So now the ultimate question is: who will make a business plan and DO IT ? (I am just a poor pilot that spent all his capital for an ATP ;-) )