why Microsoft why ._.

[bendead 1,090]

When i thought that no FS relative company could be worse than Airsimmer, I was wrong...

Edited January 5, 2012 by bendead

[alainneedle1 97]

Haha i love it, I remember some months ago saying something like....If it look like a duck, walk like a duck and talk like a duck - guess what.... it's a freeking duck

[Bob Familton 14]

"giving players the freedom to fly the skies over the beautiful Big Island of Hawaii"why..EDIT holy crap wow "Those looking to deepen their experience can purchase and download additional content that adds new aircraft, regions and customization options."

From what I have seen of this junk Flight it is not "the beautiful Big Island of Hawaii" ! There are no battleships, Pearl Harbor, or the Arizona Memorial on "the big island which is Hawaii. What I have seen is on the island of Oahu. I guess the idiot people that are trying to sell this piece of crap are the same ones that have mentioned "flap pedals" . Bob.

[Barnsy 0]

Bob did you see the most recent video? Two battleships are clearly visible (and quite well reproduced I might add). One is obviously a memorial (you can see the ship's outline in the water) and the other is on the surface. That indicates that pearl harbour is definitely there. And seeing as the achievements are focused on visiting all the island's sights, I doubt they would have left that out.

[Bob Familton 14]

Bob did you see the most recent video? Two battleships are clearly visible (and quite well reproduced I might add). One is obviously a memorial (you can see the ship's outline in the water) and the other is on the surface. That indicates that pearl harbour is definitely there. And seeing as the achievements are focused on visiting all the island's sights, I doubt they would have left that out.

Hi. Yes I have seen that. The reviews say it is"the Big Island of Hawaii". I have been on most of the Hawaiian island chain 3 times and there are no battleships or Arizona Memorial on "The Big Island of Hawaii". They are on the island of Oahu. Is the description wrong or are there more than one island in the scenery? It does mention the volcanoes which ARE on the Big Island of Hawaii. Maybe they don't know how Hawaii is laid out or maybe you can fly to the other islands in the chain. Again poor description. Bob.

[GoranM 3,809]

Welcome back, Arwen. :(

[Liz 2]

^{Guys I couldn't read these forums without saying something.How much does the average new game cost these days? In OZ it's roughly 90 bucks. FS has always been a premium product that always shipped at a higher price. Say 110. Now Flight is going to be FREE. I see the improved graphics. If performance is improved (which, I'm sorry, is about friggin time considering how woeful the FSX optimisation was which didn't make any use of current GPU power), great. The videos and images clearly show that A) the island resolution, both in mesh and graphics, is much improved, as are the treelines and buildings, and :( lighting effects are on par with modern GFX and the planes are higher resolution than before. Developer commentaries have also said physics are improved, like airflow over control surfaces etc. (so not just noobie crutches like the sceptics say). Having 'missions' available at airports is appealing. These won't necessarily be arcade-style, but could be legitimate GA 'jobs'. I, for one, though Acceleration was nice to change things up every now and then. The red bull races were fun, trying to beat my own times. So was the carrier landing. And I only paid 30 bucks for it, rather than the 70 or so that are required for the 3rd party products.Now, say you're a hard-core simmer like myself. I like to fly where I live (australia), but on larger hauls with 737s or A320s across the tasman and up north. Obviously I'm not going to like Flight in its free release version, but it WILL let me know whether it has improved over the previous version.Now coming back to my initial point: Flight will be free initially. FSX and all its precedents weren't. Neither are 3rd party products (those are, in my opinion, grossly overpriced. I paid 50 bucks for a Cap Sim C-130, enough to buy another game). Seeing as it's free-to-play, I have 110 bucks that would have otherwise been used to buy a game at my disposal to buy THE GAME THAT BEST MEETS MY DESIRES.This means, buying the Australian geographic pack, buying a couple larger planes, and buying ATC if it is not included in the free release. I might throw in a couple missions just to change things up. Does anyone really think MS will be selling these at the same price as current 3rd parties? For it to appeal to casuals, it will in fact have to be much cheaper. Granted, we might have to wait a bit longer for the larger add-ons to be available, but if it's worth it and MS are able to put the necessary work in (unlike previous FS which had to be COMPLETE on release) then what's the big deal with a bit of a wait? You'd have to wait for 3rd party products anyway.I would wager none of you have played free-to-play games, and there's a reason they're successful. You get only as much product as you're willing to pay for, and generally the more you put in the more you enjoy it, with the maximum payback for the developer letting yet more and more updates and features get produced. Im willing to bet most of you have put AT LEAST 200 dollars extra on 3rd party products like myself (REX and ORBX alone would cost you that much), why would you be so opposed on paying less for the same result from MS?At the end of the day, I don't give a crap about the silly games and personalisation microsoft put in. If the casuals put in money that ends up giving me better products, then be my guest. I just want to end up buying the perfect flight sim for me, which is exactly what free-to-play is about.Give the game a chance guys. Soonish we'll have a list of the included features, and a list of future ones, and a FREE valid test of the flight model and new engine.A final note, what ###### me off the most about FSX was the lack of support. Two patches on a huge game over about 6 years. Free-to-play means continual support, read progressively better performance and fewer and fewer issues.}

Seriously???ms will not be producing a simulator, ever again. ms will not be producing other continents. only if this makes any profit will ms produce any other locations, and the locations will be specific to gaming. not simulation. it is hard to believe that some people still have any hope.

[GoranM 3,809]

Because that's all they have left, Liz.There a few of us that copped a lot of flack for being "right" about Flight from the pro Flight crowd. All they have left is hope that Flight will improve from being an incomplete sim game, with just Hawaii and MS published aircraft, to a game with world scenery, and 3rd party developer support.

[Liz 2]

Even the die hard head in the sand members are admitting that this thing is a mess. it is just surprising to see someone still with hope, but whatever. I guess I should not vent my frustration out on those who still think this is a likely simulator.

[GoranM 3,809]

Not all of them. Some are still staying VERY silent on the matter. I won't mention them by name, but I'm sure they know who they are.

[Liz 2]

Oh, I know what you mean. There are some that were very arrogant in their positions that this would be a global simulator and anyone with a different opinion should be considered a troll or just not participate in the conversation. I have seen a couple of them, but some, I have no idea where they are. Maybe they just have not heard. Gotta tell you. By next week, this Flight forum is going to slow down to a crawl due to lack of interest. A testament to ms.

[Marith 2]

What is interesting is the people who think that Flight will be saved by the DLC. The Microsoft Flight team have around 50 people and I doubt that number will be able to produce the same amount and quality of content which is provided by all the great 3rd party developers (Aerosoft, Carenado, HiFi Technologies, Orbx, PMDG, Rex, to name a few).With no SDK, no option for freeware, and hardly any, if at all, 3rd party developers interested in providing add-ons (according to various posts), it's going to be a very long time before Flight has anything near what you can have in FSX/FS9 today.Contrast that with 24 airplanes, 45 high-detail airports and 38 high-detail cities which you get as default with FSX plus a huge number of quality payware add-ons and freeware and you will see most of us aren't excited by Flight.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Marith

[spesimen 135]

I'm going to blame who I've been blaming for the downfall of gaming for the past decade.Consoles. They started this DLC garbage and now every game is being produced with the same model. It's bad enough consoles destroyed realistic first person shooters outside of the Arma series.

aye. although keep in mind, big reasons why large publishers chnaged focus to consoles...there's a lot more casuals than pc people, and piracy is much more difficult when you have to do hardware mods to make it work instead of just firing up bittorrent. the DLC thing is a direct response to the proliferation of used console titles and attempting to create an incentive to buy instead of rent. not thrilled about it myself either but there it is.cheers-andy crosby Edited January 5, 2012 by spesimen

[TheGrunt 44]

Consoles haven't killed anything. Consoles are the way most people like their games: easy to install, learn and play in short intervals. When gaming started to became more mainstream for people's free time entertainment, the way has been clear: there is growing demand for easy and familiar games for the masses. And where is demand, there is the focus of game developing companies. In that sense, gaming industry is no different compared to for example music and film industry, whose main products are as easy going, calculated "pop" stuff as most of the games are today.If majority, or even pretty large amount of gamers really would want to play HC sims, there would be a plethora of them in the market like there is some generic fps games today.Simulators are really a niche and there is not room for many commercially succesful ones, no matter what. This may change a bit in the future as gamers become alltogether older but not much I think. Ultimately, easy games are what people want and are ready to pay for. And in generally, they aren't willing to pay for HC simulators, which require months or years to master. It is easy to say that past was different as PC was full of simulators and strategy games. This is true, but the business was very different in the 's and 90's. Although popular at the time if you looked at the small PC game market as a whole, but even then they were far from truly popular entertainment for large masses.

Edited January 5, 2012 by TheGrunt

[Jetstream96 20]

MS flight looks like a total tragedy!!!!!Is it no more than Google earth and only Hawaii??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!