Last year I had particular hopes and expectations for Flight, as most of you did. Subsequent to the January press release, the only thing that came as a real surprise to me was that the core game would be free (I had expected it might be a $19.95 download or similar).The hopes that I held were reasonably high, since I have seen how the level of immersiveness and accessibility in games has improved considerably over the last few years, let alone the graphical advances. Although I am not a beta tester, I fully anticipated that videos and screenshots would be leaked over the net, despite the NDA.Having looked at these, I have to say that I my impressions have exceeded those high expectations. The only things I have absolutely no idea about are performance and how the game will cope with different types of anti-aliasing. But I will find that out soon enough when I download the game, hopefully within 4 months or so.But as someone who has used all versions of MSFS from FS98 through to FSX (as well as CFS2 and CFS3), I would just like to point out those things that have really impressed me. I firstly need to point out that 90% of my use of the civilian versions of MSFS is VFR flight without navaids and a significant portion of that at uncontrolled airfields (even my local airfield in real life became uncontrolled on weekdays in the last few years). The other 10% has been in jets using IFR procedures as available with the stock version of the games. I see this as a contrasting diversion from VFR and keeps me proficient at these procedures within the limitations of the stock game architecture. I expect I will continue to have FSX on my machine for IFR flight in the foreesable future.I also should point out that around 8 years ago, I started to become a little too obsessed with flight sims - to the point where I felt I was spending too much time trying emulate what real commercial pilots might do and certainly spending too much time on the forums and tweaking things. When FSX came out, I relaxed this attitude alot, wrote a VFR weather generation utility and then settled into the usage pattern I described in the previous paragraph. I also have worsening heath problems that are continuing to reduce the amount of time I can spend on a PC, so my usage is now limited to around 25 minute to 30 minute maximum sessions. Of course, this still works out well for short VFR hops.Anyway, first up I am very impressed with the new HUD display on the top of the screen. I think it is a huge improvement over what was essentially it's predessesor - the infamous red text. What I like about the HUD is the visual attractiveness compared to the plain red text and how the relevant parameters are shown in a visual / spatial way rather than as mere numbers. For example, the wind indicator now shows wind direction visually and relative to the aircraft direction of travel, whereas in earlier versions it was merely a number. The compass is again visual, so users can now avail themselves of visual clues via panel instrumentation as per usual in addition to the compass at the top of the screen. And the rather benign stall indication of the past appears to now be replaced with a more meaningful and progressive indication of a pending aerodynamic stall. Whilst all these things ought to be very welcome for new users, I am going to find them extremely useful, convenient and visually attractive too.Regarding the terrain, I am impressed by the way runways now blend into the surrounding greenery. As much as things progressed in later versions of MSFS, the runways were never convincing at all for me, as they simply had that graphical "overlay" sort of appearance. It wasn't until I began buying Richard Goldstein's scenery for FS2004 that I realised how superb properly blended runways could look. And whilst third party developers have managed to get this right for some time now, it is wonderful to finally see this in a stock product.I am further impressed by the improved autogen and the blending of roads, etc. In earlier versions, these were often a little haphazard and quite often unbelieveable, but looking at some videos of flight, I can see that the autogen has a logical layout that reflects real life - in other words trees laid out logically where they were obviously planted that way, trees neatly lining roads, and (possibly but hard to tell), some trees appear to sway in the wind. Overall, the terrain now has a far more logical, believable and coherent appearance. And I don't miss the cars, since their animations were never really convincing to me in any case.The coastlines look to be significantly improved as well, both in terms of elevation and the action of waves hitting them.The sounds appear to be sigificantly improved as well. As a racing sim enthusiast, I cannot place enough emphasis on how important sound is - it is a major clue to what is happening and sound in games these days has come a very long way from what I ever heard in FSX. It would seem that what we are getting with flight will be on par with other current games.And the aircraft (at least the two it would appear to come with), seem to be up to Microsoft's excellent standards. I was very impressed with the vintage aircraft included with FS2004, so it is good to see a Stearman included in this game - rather like a Jenny on steroids.Anyway, whilst the vast majority of you appear to be disgusted with this game and Microsoft, I have the opposite view and I am really looking forward to trying it out. I think all the business and policy decisions Microsoft made in relation to this game have been the correct ones and this will be proven over time. As a business they have developed a product to appeal to the majority at the expense of a tiny minority and therefore it will be a financial success for them. Nevertheless, I don't think there has been a better time for flight simming than now, since it would seem there are games to cater to all tastes and desired levels of complexity. Rather than being dominated by the traditional "MS flight Simulator", we do now indeed have games that will cater VFR flight for everyone from the complete novice to the highly experienced (Flight and AeroFly FS), the serious simmers (FSX / XP10) and the ultra hardcore (LM). Since when were there 5 products on the market and covering such a diverse range of interest, user commitment levels and complexity? We really all ought to happy.Incidentally, I won't likely be posting again on this forum (or following it) for a while, if at all. There will no doubt be a barrage of flames and insults in this thread aimed at me and I don't have the desire to face those or have to further justify my enthusiasm for the upcoming Flight product. I had thought that hard core flight simmers were far more mature than as evidenced by what I have read on these forums over the last week, but I was clearly very wrong on that count. I had hoped this might be a forum where supporters of Flight could discuss the product, but I was wrong on that count as well.

If you tried the BETA you would have a different opinion. And without 3rd party support it's a kiddie game.

If you tried the BETA you would have a different opinion. And without 3rd party support it's a kiddie game.

EXACTLY!!People think that the NGX and ORBX scenery will suddenly "spawn" in game while flying for a few hours.... :(

 

If you tried the BETA you would have a different opinion. And without 3rd party support it's a kiddie game.

I disagree. Although the teenage gaming aspect is far below my..."ahem"...dignity, other aspects, much further into it, are quite intriguing and surprisingly difficult and sophisticated, even for an old.. (clearing of throat).. master like me. Not saying I know these things personally of course, for tattling tall tales of tantilizing trivia are totally taboo. But as anyone can see there is a lot of overthetop nonsense being splashed all over these pages that are every bit as off base and exaggerated as Microsoft was in their marketing decisions. But there is also real solid merit in some of FLIGHT that reveals a comprehensive simulation engine beneath the childish cartoonish surface. Besides, this product is not finished yet, and if their plans as stated are implimented this thing could go nearly entirely in the direction many of us core simmers hope for. Some of the graphics and dynamics are every bit as good, if not better than anything I have seen anywhere else. There is a lot to be hopeful for, just as much as there is to be initially disappointed with. Now, just in case anyone actually reads this post, I'm back to flying FSX out of Jefferson County Washington, which is the only Microsoft flight simulator program I have ever installed on this machine.

Edited January 7, 201214 yr by SpiritFlyer

 

I disagree. Although the teenage gaming aspect is far below my..."ahem"...dignity, other aspects, much further into it, are quite intriguing and surprisingly difficult and sophisticated, even for an old.. (clearing of throat).. master like me. Not saying I know these things personally of course, for tattling tall tales of tantilizing trivia are strictly forbidden. But as anyone can see there is a lot of overthetop nonsense being splashed all over these pages that are every bit as off base and exaggerated as Microsoft was in their marketing decisions. But there is also real solid merit in some of FLIGHT that reveals a comprehensive simulation engine beneath the childish cartoonish surface. Besides, this product is not finished yet, and if their plans as stated are implimented this thing could go nearly entirely in the direction many of us core simmers hope for. Some of the graphics and dynamics are every bit as good, if not better than anything I have seen anywhere else. There is lots to be hopeful for, just as much as there are to be initially disappointed with. Now, back to flying FSX out of Jefferson County Washington.

+1I already posted a few times that I know someone who is a die hard simmer and a Flight beta tester and he is highly annoyed by all the crap that's posted on the internet. He says everything to MAKE it a sim is there in Flight. The flight dynamics, wind, detail, sounds, it's all one notch above FSX and above all it's stable and performs well. And this is about a BETA! He says you would be nuts to NOT give Flight a try BESIDES running FSX on your pc. He does also say that it does depend on the dlc if this one is going to be a winner.In short: talking about Flight without actually having flown in it, is useless. But it's fun too. :( (BTW It's useless for those who are positive about Flight as those who are negative...!)

Edited January 7, 201214 yr by J van E

+1I already posted a few times that I know someone who is a die hard simmer and a Flight beta tester and he is highly annoyed by all the crap that's posted on the internet. He says everything to MAKE it a sim is there in Flight. The flight dynamics, wind, detail, sounds, it's all one notch above FSX and above all it's stable and performs well. And this is about a BETA! He says you would be nuts to NOT give Flight a try BESIDES running FSX on your pc. He does also say that it does depend on the dlc if this one is going to be a winner.In short: talking about Flight without actually having flown in it, is useless. But it's fun too. :( (BTW It's useless for those who are positive about Flight as those who are negative...!)

This all is absolutly true, we have a winner here, but..also some issues. :(

Edited January 7, 201214 yr by Johan_Dees

Nice original post.If the flight models and sounds for the Stearman are as good as that plane looks, I, for one, won't mind flying around the big island low and slow and just enjoying the breeze...with a friend in formation. What will that cost me? Not much, and it will be a change of pace from the heavy iron in FSX on clear days, and the systems modelled CRJ in XPX in bad weather. And maybe some LM-FS P3D in the future.Diversity and choice is a good thing!BillKGYH

He says everything to MAKE it a sim is there in Flight

Except for products like the PMDG NGX, I hope they change their minds.

I'm so glad you're content with this tripe OP / dev / MS PR.If this was a completetely new engine with next-gen graphics I'd give them more credit... bit it ISN'T. It's just a tweak of FSX code, which could have just as easliy been released as a SP (which we would have gladly paid for).Absolutely no credit is due to the devs or the neanderthal with an MBA and a spreadsheet. And the PR hackneys who strunk the community on with this:"...we want to directly address the concern that by dropping the “Simulator” from the name, we’re dumbing down the experience. Quite the contrary! We’ve developed on the “simulation” aspect for many years and have no intention of losing that legacy."

Edited January 7, 201214 yr by DylanM

Couldn't agree more with ya SpiirtFlyer. I think everyone just had to let out a lot of steam after the announcement. Hopefully things will die down soon. After several days of reading the endless comments over and over it's getting a tad stale. I think MS Flighty (sorry, had to put in my dig), could be perfect for the original poster. It's quick, simple to get up and flying, no tweaking needed, in and out in 30 minutes which sounds like his limit. He could be the target audience for it. I'm sure they'll be a nice little following for it - not sure if it will really have legs though.I'm just glad I know what direction to go with my hobby and can make hardware and sofware choices based on that. Also happy my investment of FSX add-ons will last for years to come. Don't have to re-stock the same airports for each new version anymore.Ah, simming is good right now,Clutch

I respect the opinion of everyone, I have never pointed at a forumer person, I have pointed to his opinions instead, a forum I guess is made just for that.How boring would be a forum where opinions can't be argued ?I wouldn't speak about hijacking when people express opinions, you have to admit that in these days there is room for pointing at MS. ~I am sure that within few weeks this forum, sadly, will become really quiet.

If this was a completetely new engine with next-gen graphics I'd give them more credit... bit it ISN'T. It's just a tweak of FSX code, which could have just as easliy been released as a SP (which we would have gladly paid for).

Folks keep making that statement, but......having actually looked at the folders and files, there's really nothing in common with FSX or any other previous version. Yeah, there's an ..SimObjects/Airplane folder, but what's in that folder? One tiny 25kb file named "Airplane.dll" is all...What's this? There's not even a Scenery folder or any Texture folders either!

Besides, this product is not finished yet, and if their plans as stated are implimented this thing could go nearly entirely in the direction many of us core simmers hope for.

I agree that such is possible. However having already allowed MS to lead me by the nose and fool me once, I'm not about to fall for that again!No, this time they are going to have to EARN my trust and respect. No longer will I allow myself to get snookered twice. I shall remain cautiously and mildly optimistic. As the old saying goes:

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!

It is only visible at the flight.cfg, the rest seems to be 'packed', scrambled or whatever.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!Thats what you ment Bill ?

Clearly, Flight will appeal to the people who were flying default FSX in VFR mode, in clear weather at small airports, with AI traffic (air/ground) turned off, with no ATC and around medium graphics settings. That's fine and good for you - this time.The rest of us will be left behind with FSX and we'll use it as long as we can, but at some point we'll likely have to give up our hobby for lack of hardware and/or software support - unless we are prepar3d to spend $ or lower our XPectations in a flight sim.When you will want to expand your horizons and step up to a more satisfying flying experience, you will likely not find one. If you accept the fact that you will get less features for more money, the trend will continue with Flight's add-ons. The first island is a showpiece and so are the first few planes. But as you will demonstrate your willingness to pay more money for less features, MS will push the quality down as far as it will go.Unfortunately, that is as winning a strategy for MS as it was for a certain mart. Lower the price - along with quality - and they will come. The decline will be somewhat gradual of course, but at the end it will be as natural and accepted as paying $1.99 for a useless app on some well-known platforms.

Besides, this product is not finished yet, and if their plans as stated are implimented this thing could go nearly entirely in the direction many of us core simmers hope for. Some of the graphics and dynamics are every bit as good, if not better than anything I have seen anywhere else.

Totally agree, I too believe that this may come to pass.

When you will want to expand your horizons and step up to a more satisfying flying experience, you will likely not find one.

Firstly you presume too much in your own definition of what is a "satisfying experience" and secondly there are already a couple of viable alternatives in the market, ripe for further development, don't count them out.Now back to my FsX flight.