I 'imagine' ;) that the areas you haven't purchased, will simply be blurry ground masses, which is going to be fine for longer flights, which you would be very likely to be @ 30,000ft +, so it wouldn't make a difference on quality (from that altitude). Also, I 'imagine' there are no actual boundaries which would cause your aircraft to e.g. crash, only fuel is used to limit your range (but if you didn't use unlimited fuel on FSX, then its pretty much the same thing, and if you run out of fuel, you shouldn't be simming XD)I still see great potential in Flight, its not that much different than the FSX demo (as in the response's from it, going from FS2004 to FSX). I only have a few problems atm, the most prominent being the lack of 3rd Part developers and SDK (we may hear more of this, and hopefully MS will strike a deal), I just hope some 3rd party developers are interested in Flight, because there is definitely huge potential, and if they develop add-ons for flight, that in turn will make more people consider shifting over... so its like a feedback loop. If they join, it gets progressively better over time. If they don't, then Flight may likely end up dying, and I don't want this to happen.Other things like the free2play model, the differences, the new UI and everything, I can get used to (and come to love, definitely an improvement over FSX!). Now please, don't kill my face. Its my opinion, and I have a right to it.

I still see great potential in Flight

How? You think you're going to have your beloved MD-11?LOL PMDG has openly stated that they ditched Flight along time ago.... Just let go of the fact that Flight has potential for out community. It doesn't.

If they don't, then Flight may likely end up dying, and I don't want this to happen.

Flight will very much die for our community. IDK why you continue to support MS even when they gave us the finger.

I still see great potential in Flight, its not that much different than the FSX demo (as in the response's from it, going from FS2004 to FSX).

Would you still hold that opinion had the FSX Demo been the entire program, and not just a "sample teaser" for the full program that eventually was delivered?Somehow I doubt so...

Is the MS Flight BETA the entire program? Somehow I doubt so... ;)

my guess is that they would beta the program in its near completion state.

Its best not to use quantity of content here as a measure, as the new system will change things a lot. I would consider the game/sim/be picky on your words to be complete when there are many regions to fly to/from. Also when larger scale aircraft are available. (:

May I ask for clarification? In question number 3 we see 'Nope, I could care less for the large a/c'.

Friends separated by a common language. :Nerd:Perculated down, I meant "I am not interested".

Friends separated by a common language. :Nerd:Perculated down, I meant "I am not interested".

Thanks. Friends for sure. :(

I'm not really sure why so many people seem to have already decided this is an arcade game. Microsoft have stated in the FAQ that the simulation elements will be retained and I for one have no basis with which to disbelieve this. Furthermore, I don't recall all this negativity on the cusp of the release of FSX, where, amongst other things, pilots would fly around in an ultralight dropping flour bag bombs or go wildlife spotting in a zebra-striped ultralight.As has also been pointed out, but seems to have been forgotton, no-one is forcing anyone to be a virtual pilot with a plastic face, bad Hawaiin shirt and bonus points for the number of hours spent inverted with blood rushing to his or her head. The free flight mode will still be there just as it has been in the MS Flight sims I have used in the last 15 years.This upcoming flight release has been exactly as I had anticipated it to be, except for the fact that the basic product is free and the pilot thing is a little silly. But since I am almost certain not amassing these "pilot points" is going to be any more mandatory than it was in order to enjoy FSX, I am not particularly concerned by that. If anything, I well may find I'll have a lot of fun with it, since it's giving me things to do.Anyway, I am very happy with what I have seen. The engine seems to run very well, the advances over the FSX engine are there and I have always been very impressed with the default MS aircraft and scenery (especially in FS2004 and FSX), even if others are not. Thus far the game information, screenshots and videos have at worst met my (hopefully high) expectations and exceeded them on most counts.

HelloI was selected for the Beta, but after seeing what Microsoft have produced with this title I want no further part in this fiasco.Take it from one who has tried MS Flight!, it is more suited to a nintendo console and the pre teen age group.There are NO simulation aspects left that might interest anyone with an interest in aviation, just fly around collecting the golden tokens or avoiding the hot air balloons.Last night I thought I would give it one last chance, just fly around the Island for a while without bothering with the mission.After a little while because I was obviously not following the script I was booted back to that start of the mission, Totally lameThere is nothing here, No ATC, No Ai, from what I can see there are no VORs of NDBs only a trail of golden tokens.Even the waves are static, no animation at all.No means that I can see of interacting with the sim, no simconnect, no config files, it is totally locked down.If it had guns it might stand a slim chance with young gamers, but as it stands anyone older than six will be bored after 30 mins.

My choice of whether to follow FLIGHT or not depends on several factors, most of which have been mentioned above.1) Does FLIGHT offer ME anything that I don't already have and have paid for with FSX? Does it run smoother at high scenery slider levels? Are there internal adjustment to tailor the sim to new and better hardware? Do I have world-wide scenery available at any price? Do I have any additional aircraft available and what are they? The real question here is, if I want to be able to fly a representative sample of aircraft from single engine props to turboprops to exec jets to commercial iron, will those be available? What will it cost me to bring FLIGHT up to FSX scenery and aircraft levels? If the sim is free but it costs hundreds of dollars to make it "equivalent" in scope to the $ FSX that I have now for scenery and aircraft, then the answer is no.2) How does it improve on the flaws or shortcomings of FSX? Is there realistic ATC that handles terrain and other obstacles in realistic fashion? Does it provide for realistic and programmable AI? Is there a decent moving map and flight planner similar to the wonderful FS Navigator in FS9? Are all 24,000+ airports going to be available in add-ons complete with appropriate nav-aids? Are runways overlaid on underlying terrain free from flattened polygons that are often inaccurately elevated.3) Will 3rd party developers be allowed to produce products as add-ons or will Microsoft insist on proprietary control? (I know PMDG has already told MS to take a hike).So, what will it cost to bring it up to FSX/X-Plane 10 scope? What is the release schedule for add-ons? What are the built-in limitations of Windows LIVE that would cause me to pass on it?

My choice of whether to follow FLIGHT or not depends on several factors, most of which have been mentioned above.

+1. Good post. I agree with everything you've said.