The lack of anything 3rd party (as it seems to be the case) is a big blow, 3rd Party developers are able to pay far better attention to detail, the Project OpenSky 737 exterior is very well done and beats FSX default 737 by a wide margin (and the POSKY is free.) And the PMDG NGX is absolutely beautiful (MS missed a lot of stuff in their default cockpit.)And it goes beyond just aircraft 3rd Parties can give scenery better detail than MS can. For example take KDFW, FSX had a very basic and dated depiction of the airport, freeware developers added the tram tracks and a rough Terminal D. And the payware options for Dallas-Fort Worth are :( whichever one you go for (FSDT or Blueprint) it's well worth it.By excluding 3rd party developers Flight will be a product always lacking, my FSX install is thoroughly populated with AI add-ons making every airport alive with activity, Flight will be a ghost town with the default mediocre AI. I also like to fly jetliners (and bombers...and fighters [with weapon mods!]...and Russian planes...etc.) 3rd parties provide all those, MS won't (we'll probably see a Boeing at some point.) They won't do bombers and likely don't have any interest in doing Tupolev'sI'll get the Free release of Flight to just Compare/contrast the differences between FSX + ENB Series + REX + Photoscenery (both Payware and freeware) + FSDreamTeam airports and MS Flight.To be honest my sunrise and sunset flights around Hawaii are pretty close to Flight's screenshots as is.

Ask yourself a question... Why did Microsoft not include "brand name" airlines in any of thier FS releases over the years? Yeah, they probably did not want to pay licensing fees on a low margin product, but I also believe there was another reason... Can anyone guess what that was?

Licensing fees to the airline?Cheers,- jahman.

What are your thoughts with the death of freeware for Flight?Was there any freeware for Flight before, how can something that never existed be dead?

Very true. People are making statements about a game that hasn't even been released yet.

I sincerely hope no one spends another minute waiting for this pig's butt to become a silk purse.

:(

So Bill, does that mean there will likely be no Eaglesoft aircraft flying the Hawaiian skies in Flight in the near future?

To be very specific that call is mine to make and no one else holds that responsibility. None, and I do mean absolutely none, of what has been cussed and discussed over Flight is a surprise to us.While we don't make announcements, we've have had our ear to the ground with appropriate people since FSX RTM.We've hinted for a while now that as far as we are concerned there are two low cost yet viable MSFS Simulators of Flight which are FS9 and FSX.At this point the simulated flight users must ask themselves what happens if MS never produces another Simulator for Flight?Can you still use FS9 or FSX to simulate flight? Of course the answer is yes.Much hand wringing could be eliminated if one considers his own personal use of FS as either a flight simulator or a game?If the former then one can be satisfied with current FS. If the latter then one should be fine with Flight as a game.

Any company willing to sign on as an approved developer for Flight is foolish plain and simple. The "profit" margin is slim (heard about 30%), and will probably be more headache than it's worth. Just look at Apple's app store-- some of the grief developers go thru just to issue an update. It's my hope that nobody signs on with MS.

Ask yourself a question... Why did Microsoft not include "brand name" airlines in any of thier FS releases over the years? Yeah, they probably did not want to pay licensing fees on a low margin product, but I also believe there was another reason... Can anyone guess what that was?

I think it might be that any airline that'd agree would no doubt demand a degree of quality with their repressntation in the sim that MS woould be unwilling to offer, such as near flawless liveries (i.e. no blurries, accurate bare metal effects, etc.) And accurate flightplans and gate assignments for AI. All that is a lot of work, requiring better quality airliner models and extensive proofreading to make sure each airline flies where it should and parks where it should.It's much easier to use fictional default airlines as they're willing to park and fly anywherePersonally, I think they did a good job with the liveries (Orbit is my favorite, Pacifica looks too much like a straight rip of Gulf Air though.) It's just that the models they're married to are cheap (Orbit would look awesome on the NGX.)

Edited January 9, 201214 yr by FSX4Life

My favourite FS2004 livery remains the Piper Cub's Yellow with Black Cheat. Very authentic.

Ask yourself a question... Why did Microsoft not include "brand name" airlines in any of thier FS releases over the years? Yeah, they probably did not want to pay licensing fees on a low margin product, but I also believe there was another reason... Can anyone guess what that was?

Well I can't guess the other reason unless it's something to do with liabilty if someone does stupid stuff with FS and then posts it on youtube, but regarding the licensing fees I've always wondered if the people at MS have watched any recent Hollywood movies. Surely they have heard of the concept of product placement, no reason that would only work for movies and not for games. Get the airlines to pay you to include their livery, rather than the other way around.