If you treat it like one than I guess it is for you. The multi-million dollar flight simulators that most major airlines own could also be called an expensive game machine if you used it to do barrel rolls and fly at high speed between buildings without hitting them, but they clearly aren't. Mark

Multi-million dollars flight simulators have a serious purpose of training flight crews. A sub $50 games's purpose is amusement and entertainment. There's no comparison between the two.

Wasn't FSX all St Maarten? That's all we got to see in their previews. Sounds like FSX only programmed better, crisper textures etc. which is fine by me.

I also think the tone of this press release is directed at the casual gamers they're trying to win over, given sentences like "playing with knobs" etc. They know all of us FS nuts will buy it anyway. I'm sure they've improved every feature that was in FSX, if not left it like it was, but not dumbed it down.

Wasn't FSX all St Maarten? That's all we got to see in their previews. Sounds like FSX only programmed better, crisper textures etc. which is fine by me.

Exactly!!

maybe if we all go to Hawaii we might get more info. The folks down there should know more.

Wasn't FSX all St Maarten? That's all we got to see in their previews. Sounds like FSX only programmed better, crisper textures etc. which is fine by me.

Was it? I wasn't around for the FSX development and picked it up after release, but I do remember all the demo videos being shown by the dev team were St. Maarten only.

I finally had the chance to read the release over and I had one thought. "My gosh, what are you guys getting so worked up about?" They say specifically there will be missions but also free flight. They say you will be able to fly cargo, which doesn't exactly prove airliners will be in it, but it means proably not all Maules and Stearmans. And yes, they said game. They consider Flight a game, just like they considered Flight Simulator a game. Most people did, other than a small group of enthusiasts.

And a very large group of real-world pilots.

Multi-million dollars flight simulators have a serious purpose of training flight crews. A sub $50 games's purpose is amusement and entertainment. There's no comparison between the two.

There is a very good comparison between the two, especially when you consider the range of simulation software that is available. To my first point, many people utilize flight simulator to enhance and build upon their real-world experience. With the availability of add-ins such as Massive Scenery, this utility has greatly increased (exponentially) for day VFR flight. Load up satellite scenery and follow along on a chart, and while it's not perfect, the immersion and applicability to the real world is fantastic. It is absolutely invaluable for nav training. I am beginning instrument training tomorrow and will be relying on a range of these "$50 games" to practice, reinforce, and learn. That said, there's the issue of flight models - some people wouldn't know the difference, and to many that do the fact that a home simulator with a less-than-perfect flight model still provides a method of "getting up there" with reasonable believability is enough to see a lot of value in them. I would like to be able to practice in a craft that very closely replicates what I actually fly - but I'll work around it. Don't forget, there are also commercial simulators that are static and are commissioned as procedure trainers, so the need for a perfect flight model is far less important than the accuracy and performance of instruments and position data. I think I speak for a lot of enthusiasts - whether RW pilots or otherwise - when I say that the -utility- of FS and X-Plane is found in the fact that it is, indeed, a very good simulator - though it is sometimes more of a navigation simulator than a flight simulator. And I think that there is a real concern that the future of the "utility" of the simulator (e.g. realistic failure cascades, realistic flight properties, better ATC...) may be in jeopardy to make way for what is seen as a "dumbing down" or "cutting back" of features that longtime users have come to accept as the foundation of MSFS. Until I see more, I'm in that group, but remain optimistic. CheersAndrew

When FSX was released I was at the the store on the day of release and had to get someone to go into the back and dig a copy out of a box. This time I will be waiting for at least a few months until all of the reviews, complaints, details are out. I suggest you guys to the same so you are not dissapointed. Mark.

Yes we do. There will be a DVD version. It is on offer allready in lots of Norwegian stores - I've oredered a copy. Probably a mistake by the Norwegian distributor to make the title available at this time, but nevertheless, it has been done and the shops has it listed: http://www.komplett....aspx?sku=623230 http://cdon.no/spill...flight-14750627 http://www.mobilesto...spx?q=p:4149285 http://www.mpx.no/k/ki.aspx?sku=623230 http://euronics.no/P...ght-PC-PC-Spill

And the fact that you have pre-ordered it means that MS definitely could not cancel its release and you get a refund, as they have done with other things right before they were due to go? So no, we don't know there will be a box, we only know it is likely there will be a box. Al

I hope they add vehicle traffic like they did in FSX. And of course they'll definitely need to add this one:

Wasn't FSX all St Maarten? That's all we got to see in their previews.

No, I clearly remember seeing pictures of helicopters, european countries, etc... at least 6 months before FSX release.Just as a proof, here's a link from february 2006, have a look at the title of the FSX preview pictures (Switzerland, France...) :http://forum.simflig...t-of-this-week/And you can find many more on the net. It's a fact, the PR for Flight is NOT the same as the PR for FSX. I agree with Jacoba, some people just want to make a point by changing history and trying to convince us that the PR for Flight is the equivalent of the PR for FSX we had months before release. It's simply not the case. Now, there might indeed be the entire world pictured in Flight, and eventually we might all be happy... but what they're doing here -again, from a PR point of view- is nonsense. We are not speaking about a movie trailer, which has to be a right blend of teasing you with bits of scenes/dialogue and leaving you wanting to see more of the story, we are speaking about a sim (or game, as you want ) with no storyline.It's not as if they could spoil us by showing pictures of London or Paris, or even jets, right ? On the contrary, it would only feed our urge to switch to have a serious look at this new version and eventually switch as soon as it's released. What I'm just wondering is :- What is their goal by releasing only pics of Hawaï and the same planes all over again ?- Would there be any negative effect of showing pictures of the worldwide scenery now ? (there must be another area of the world which is complete by now)- Is there any marketing strategy other than to say "tadaaaaa !" a few weeks/days before release when they finally show us pictures of the Flight world ? (which is really some kind of a PR joke) The only 2 answers I can get to now are either Flight is going to be initially a Flight Unlimited type of sim (with future region addons sold in the marketplace most probably), or that we were completely fooled about the release date, and the game is still in very early development stage (...then looking at a possible 2013 release) If someone has better answers to these questions, which are often overlooked on this recurrent topic, feel free to share Deniz

Wait 5 months before the release of Flight and see what happens then.

You surely meant 8 months, right ? (and I'm not claiming the pics I found were the first ones released)

What I'm just wondering is :- What is their goal by releasing only pics of Hawaï and the same planes all over again ?- Would there be any negative effect of showing pictures of the worldwide scenery now ? (there must be another area of the world which is complete by now)- Is there any marketing strategy other than to say "tadaaaaa !" a few weeks/days before release when they finally show us pictures of the Flight world ? (which is really some kind of a PR joke) Deniz

One could argue that there is indeed at least some valid reason for taking the 'tadaaa!' approach to PR (i.e. letting very little slip until right near the release). This is especially true for something aimed at typical gamers as opposed to hard core simmers, where one can hardly expect a casual gamer to be drooling over a leaked feature list of stuff such as improved stall characteristics or coastal distortions of VOR signals and all that kind of realistic stuff which might be in the sim. I suspect it's far more likely a casual gamer would click the buy button if Flight came right out of the blue with a big showy bang rather than if it dribbled out over a matter of months, giving them time to get bored with the notion of it. Sadly, I doubt their PR strategy is that way inclined as far as sophisticated psychology is concerned, but if it was, that would at least make some sense. Although if I am wrong and that is indeed the way MS are playing it as a deliberate marketing strategy, then all credit to them for giving it a try. Al

OK! 8 months, now what? The path taken is not the same, but that doesn't make things better or worse, only different.