You don't get it do you? read the FAQ on the Flight website and tell me where is written the program will be arcade.

I take facts and I do not listen to MS marketing chats.Flight will not have an ATC, a weather management, it will miss SID and STARS and it will have no flight planner at all. Just to mention a few.These are elements that distinguish a simulator from an arcade where you only have to use your pad controller ( ..Kinetic..caugh.. ) and nothing more.Oh.. wait... which simulation elements are you expecting Flight to have ? Which of these sim aspects have been highlighted on MS Flight web site ? Please point me there, I might have missed them, thx

I take facts and I do not listen to MS marketing chats.Flight will not have an ATC, a weather management, it will miss SID and STARS and it will have no flight planner at all. Just to mention a few.

Sources for the above, please! Aside from what MS themselves have posted, there ARE NO "FACTS". Period.Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

So Mark, can you point us to where they list EVERY FEATURE of FSX or FS04?Oh wait, you can't, and so that must mean it's not in there.You have no more FACTS then the rest of us. Please don't tell us how you are reading between the lines or how "such and such developers" have posted stuff about what they THINK Flight will be about or contain.

And round and round in circles this debate continues to go.......

I take facts and I do not listen to MS marketing chats.Flight will not have an ATC, a weather management, it will miss SID and STARS and it will have no flight planner at all. Just to mention a few.These are elements that distinguish a simulator from an arcade where you only have to use your pad controller ( ..Kinetic..caugh.. ) and nothing more.Oh.. wait... which simulation elements are you expecting Flight to have ? Which of these sim aspects have been highlighted on MS Flight web site ? Please point me there, I might have missed them, thx

You have NO proof what so ever to be saying this, Flight will be just like every other MSFS Simulator with improvements, just like 2002-2004 and the 2004 to FSX.

These are elements that distinguish a simulator from an arcade where you only have to use your pad controller ( ..Kinetic..caugh.. ) and nothing more.

This is laughable, so the fact that MS have stated they are NOT making an arcade isn't enough to convince you?

Since when did you come to that conclusion? Wait, I know when, not when I said it long time ago but when MS said that they will reused what ever they see fit from FSX....their way to say....we have started with FSX...blah blah blah.The only thing that will satisfy you is if I tell you where I got my info and it's not happening, I see you are just taking some part of what I said for your own deductions....Since you are talking about other developers not agreeing with me...well...read here, Nick N. also posted what he think Flight will be with other developers, do yourself a favor and keep an open mind...http://www.strikings...hp?topic=1867.0http://www.strikings...hp?topic=2255.0

Don't tar me with your insanity brush.Every game on the planet uses the art assets and code of it's previous releases. Cryengine 3 is built off the back of Cryengine 2. Modern Warfare 3 has original building models from the original modern warfare. Please don't suggest I've learnt anything of value from you. This is incredibly common knowledge.I'd love for you to tell me where you got your information, since it clearly doesn't exist whatsoever. Edit: Oh my word. I've just seen you post that on a modern engine Flight should run like Crysis 2 on Cryengine 3If you really need any evidence that you have no idea what you're talking about......this is it.

Edit: Oh my word. I've just seen you post that on a modern engine Flight should run like Crysis 2 on Cryengine 3

You just know that it will run like FSX SP3; but then again why wouldn't it?

This is laughable, so the fact that MS have stated they are NOT making an arcade isn't enough to convince you?

You can give him all the proof you want, it just doesn't process. It is indeed laughable.

Don't tar me with your insanity brush.Every game on the planet uses the art assets and code of it's previous releases. Cryengine 3 is built off the back of Cryengine 2. Modern Warfare 3 has original building models from the original modern warfare. Please don't suggest I've learnt anything of value from you. This is incredibly common knowledge.I'd love for you to tell me where you got your information, since it clearly doesn't exist whatsoever..

I'm glad you saw the light, Flight is built on the back of FSX and should have been called FSX SP3 from FSX SP2, you'r spot on this time.You whish...

I'm glad you saw the light, Flight is built on the back of FSX and should have been called FSX SP3 from SP2, you'r spot on this time.You whish...

You still don't get it. Since Windows Vista was built off the base code of Windows XP, does that mean it should be called "Windows XP SP4?" No...it was a new release with so much changed code that it was a different operating system. Now, replace XP with FSX and Vista with Flight and tell me...does it make any sense whatsoever to call Flight "FSX SP3." It makes no sense at all. There's a reason new software builds/versions are used instead of service packs. Service packs update an already released application. A new version entirely contains a huge amount of rewritten code or changes that makes it much different/improved over a previous release.

I'm glad you saw the light, Flight is built on the back of FSX and should have been called FSX SP3 from FSX SP2, you'r spot on this time.You whish...

What are you talking about? So do you think Battlefield 3 is Doom SP794?Windows 7 has plenty of code which is identical or at least similar to Windows 3.0 (released in 1990). I take it Windows 7 is just a service pack then?I find it incredible that someone who clearly has no knowledge whatsoever as to the workings of a flight sim can have such a confident opinion.

You still don't get it. Since Windows Vista was built off the base code of Windows XP, does that mean it should be called "Windows XP SP4?" No...it was a new release with so much changed code that it was a different operating system. Now, replace XP with FSX and Vista with Flight and tell me...does it make any sense whatsoever to call Flight "FSX SP3." It makes no sense at all. There's a reason new software builds/versions are used instead of service packs. Service packs update an already released application. A new version entirely contains a huge amount of rewritten code or changes that makes it much different/improved over a previous release.

I think you'r the one who does not get it, Window 7 should have been Vista enhanced,,,but guess what....there is no money for MS if they do that, it's better to slim down repackage Vista (don't you remember how bloated Vista was) and calling it Window 7 with some change and reselling it to you right? Same with Flight, only the name change with some FSX tweaking (have they not trimmed it down from 15 to 10GB?) and new missions exactly to be able to resale it to you (us), do you get it now.....Link please...

LMAO @ Alain asking for evidence

Especially when he has no evidence himself.My link? PC Pilot Magazine...2nd developer's diary article for Flight. Can't give a link for that, but I could post a screenshot. Didn't specifically say "Huge amounts of rewritten code" but it stresses that FSX was relying on a lot of legacy code and that it's time to change that.