Pull the Plug on the FLIGHT Forum.

[Squishy 0]

Nah just move the forum to " Other Forums":D

[alainneedle1 97]

While I am (still?) in the optimist camp regarding Flight, let's not blame everything on "the" developers. Individual devs likely have their individual, specific reasons for accepting or declining a deal, if offered.

So far we heard only one side of the story and it was from a pi$$ed dev., like you said, who declined the deal first?This is what Tom belive (as I do).... http://forum.avsim.net/topic/359980-perspective/page__st__25Quote: One of the 3rd party developers can correct me if I am wrong and if their NDA allows it. I don't remember too many questions asked about the "engine" at our meetings in Redmond. Most of the folks there were from groups like AVSIM - you know, technically challenged. Only one was a "developer" that would meet our definition of the word. And don't ask... Unless they wish to reveal themselves, I can't answer the question; "who was the developer?". I don't believe that the issues with the 3rd party developers really have anything to do with the mechanics and technical bits and bob's with the FLIGHT platform. I believe the primary issue was terms and conditions of participation. Once a number of the developers said "up yours", I believe that Microsoft cut off significant portions and numbers of these conversations. As an example of closed communications I know that one prominent developer was not aware of the meeting in Redmond until I told him after the event. That developer not being included in that meeting said tons by itself. end of quote.There was at least one developer at the meeting......who was the invited developers? ....we can clearly see that MS did not closed the door on all developers.

[mgh 89]

Why the concern about the relationships between Microsoft and the Developers?It's a purely commercial one. Microsoft and the Developers have their own interests to protect, and if they couldn't agree terms so be it. It happens every day in the real world,

[nbz 4]

There was at least one developer at the meeting......who was the invited developers? ....we can clearly see that MS did not closed the door on all developers.

I also think the "issue was terms and conditions of participation", and not tech stuff. However, having just one single developer really is not good, that's just one apart from "none at all". So I think it really IS bad to see only little dev involvement, and actual opposition from some big established vendors. I would have preferred a Sim that is meant, and marketed, as a Sim, and I would have preferred ALL developers jumping around, shouting in joy that Flight will be the best thing since sliced bread. So this dev situation IS reason for worry for me.(However: a dev not taking part in Flight is more likely to talk about it. Anyone being actively engaged with MS will not say, or hint, a darned thing due to NDA at the moment.)The reason I am still not pessimistic is because I share your idea, that any voids on the market will be filled with new talent. This thing Flight will be strong in the market and create demand, and those who will stick to it (not just buying 0-2 addons but keep buying for some time) will not be the flying-thru-funny-stuff crowd, thus creating demand for real planes and real scenery rather than giant-eared purple flying elephants with poop propulsion or such.Many people who are using FS have not ever flown a real plane. For example, me! Therefore, I and they absolutely can not judge how realistic the handling and exact gauge readings etc. of an addon plane are. It has to look and sound good, and has to fly believably. Then we have a deal. I am not typical for the AVSIM crowd in that I am not into deep systems. What annoys me most about MS' default planes is not their bad physics. It is their cheap, low-res look, and more important, the inconsitency of the various cockpit items in their VCs that made me turn to, for example, nice Carenado GA singles. Most of which are not any "deeper" than MS' stuff. For sure they fly more realistic, but frankly I can not really tell... no real knowledge in me for that. But they also look and sound nice - this I can tell - and their switches aren't labeled the wrong way and don't have important settings made inaccessible by bugs etc.So I may be a bit closer to the "masses" that MS has in mind than most here. You said something very similar elsewhere: Give me a nice scenery to fly in, and a few GA planes that are done in the visual quality we see in the screenies, with a bit more serious quality control on them... given a faster engine, the removal of the biggest graphical annoyance in FSX (hard edges where clouds meet terrain, as shown on the website), a better lighting and so on, I will be absolutely in this thing from day one. Whatever it can NOT do... will be done with what I currently have. I will buy stuff if I think it's good enough for me, regardless who made it. I will not be the only one.I suspect that a few weeks after Flight's release, we will see many on these forums claiming they would never touch it, but at other times display suspiciously deep knowledge about it....As an aside..... with this talk about some devs out, some devs in..... I just can not help it and can not resist to say it:FSX was the sim that - due to performance issues - split the community.Flight is the sim that is, as it seems, in the process of splitting the devs. Edited January 17, 2012 by nbz

[dtrjones 356]

It should come as no surprise to anyone who has been in this hobby for any period of time, that MS wants to own the social content and the marketing value that comes with it. What implications does that have for the AVSIM's, Flightsim.com's, etc.? If we don't try to bring FLIGHT customers into our little corner of the hobby via sites like AVSIM, we will have lost in the longer term.

Hi Tom, you're right.I think Microsoft's deserve more respect than some people are giving hear. Clearly Flight is targetted at wider demographic than the hobbiest Flight Sim community and that FlightSIM and AVSIM are here to support the needs of largly hobbiest.On the face of it, it sounds like we're talking about two distinct groups of people. But Flight could be an important stepping stone to providing a means to build up enough interest in Flight Simulation to then go out and buy a more mature simulation from say Eagle Dynamics or Laminar Research.I truely believe FlightSIM and AVSIM are hear for the love of the Flight Simulation period. Otherwise where do you draw the line at an enthusiast? Are you any less of an enthusiast if you've only flown FSX default for the last 5 years? Or if you only like VFR in the Cessna, well thats what you get in Flight but this could change overtime to provide more challenging situations.Flight may not have a direct benefit to an AVSIM or FlightSIM at the moment, but definately won't do it any harm. In fact I can only see building a larger Flight Simulation community maybe of newbies being a good thing. Why do I say Flight Simulation, well because at it's core Flight is still is a Flight Simulator, many people forget or refuse to acknowledge this. Strip away all the aerocaches, aids and achievements and you're left at it's most challanging, an invoking and entertaining Flight Simulation experiance which I can see growing over time.I think it would be a lost opportunity if AVSIM were to drop interest in Flight now to build a new generation of enthusiasts and interest in Flight Simulation albeit with possibly a younger generation. This market could easily propergate interest to other services provided by AVSIM aided (hopefully) by the community at large, just by keeping a forum running. And who knows what the Microsoft Flight product could still develop into in the future.The concern I have with the way interest in gaming is going, if you dismiss titles like Microsoft Flight (which at least has some Flight Simulation DNA) and Take on Helicoptors then you may lose the Flight Simulation community all together and that would mean hard times for the likes of AVSIM or FlightSIM as there will be no titles to bring any form of Flight Simulation to the masses.Cheers,Dave. Edited January 17, 2012 by dtrjones

[FSMP 95]

MS Flight + Windows 8 -- What a Combination !!!

[Mountain Man 142]

From what I have seen. Flight has a lot to give to both casuals and experience simmers because like with ANY piece of software it can be customized and adapted and MS Flight won't be the exception.

I have yet to see a software product successfully straddle the line between two divergent markets, and I doubt Flight will be the first.

[Mountain Man 142]

I see Tom's point. It would be rash to close the Flight forum.

It would, however, send a strong message to Microsoft that they're movig in the wrong direction.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

It would, however, send a strong message to Microsoft that they're movig in the wrong direction.

You don't think the message has already been sent - and that they care? Have you been reading any of my posts?

[Mountain Man 142]

You don't think the message has already been sent - and that they care?

I think if a prominent enthusiast site that has supported Microsoft Flight Simulator for years were to show solidarity with the community and turn its back on Flight that it would send a very different message. Although recent events lead me to believe that Microsoft made some strategic PR decisions to prevent that sort of thing from happening.

[NWarty 0]

You don't think the message has already been sent - and that they care? Have you been reading any of my posts?

Precisely. Microsoft doesn't care about you Tom, Me, 3PD's or more "hard-core" simmers. They invited you for Damage Control. I'll vote with my wallet as that's the only thing MS with notice.I've sat on the sidelines watching this whole thing go down without comment. It's obvious that MS doesn't care about us (flight simming community), not a single friggin' bit. They are concerned about the almighty dollar/profit/360 Crowd/whatever. Their perogative, so be it.Do I think MS Flight's will be a financial disaster trying to base the Windows Live marketplace to buy addons for a ridiculous and boring flying game? Absolutely. Do I think we'll ever see another "simulation" from Microsoft? Nope.I'd actually like to read more about the squirming/deflecting from MS employees at CES about Flight as I had a friend who went to CES and was completely unimpressed with what he saw/experienced. Edited January 18, 2012 by NWarty

[jtmedina 0]

I have yet to see a software product successfully straddle the line between two divergent markets, and I doubt Flight will be the first.

Falcon, IL2, DCS series, Flaming Cliffs, Silent Hunter, Rise of Flight, X-Plane, FS series. In ALL of them users have the chance to tweak the realism settings and play/fly it in a "realistic" or arcade way.Any thing else been told here is just not knowing how software works internally.FSX can be as arcade as you want it to be and Flight won't be any different.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Although recent events lead me to believe that Microsoft made some strategic PR decisions to prevent that sort of thing from happening.

Why don't you just come out and say what you mean instead hiding behind obfuscation? Taken in the context of your entire message, that comes across as some backhanded jab at me and AVSIM. If you want to accuse us of some nefarious dealings, then do so. Otherwise, put your pen back in your pocket.

[xplanery 250]

Falcon, IL2, DCS series, Flaming Cliffs, Silent Hunter, Rise of Flight, X-Plane, FS series. In ALL of them users have the chance to tweak the realism settings and play/fly it in a "realistic" or arcade way.Any thing else been told here is just not knowing how software works internally.FSX can be as arcade as you want it to be and Flight won't be any different.

Yeah, probably Flight will allow you to adjust settings beetween something simulator like and arcade. Still the remaining question for me to see is how big area Flight will cover with addons, and in case that I find it covering areas I like if their quality are so good that its good idea for me to invest them instead for addons for FSX. Edited January 18, 2012 by pvjinflight

[nbz 4]

I'll vote with my wallet as that's the only thing MS with notice.

Me too - and for the same reason. But for me this means: should I find serious content in the store - good planes, large scenery areas, funtionality like ATC - it will be considered for purchase. Anything that brings Flight closer to a real sim as most of us understand the term is a serious contender to be bought by me. I will likely immediately buy some stuff just to check it out.Any arcade content - flying through weird stuff in the sky, missions to fly a 747 inverted under a bridge, phantasy planes etc. - won't be bought by me.