Get ready to eat cake ...... what flavor of frosting do you like?

[mgh 89]

This is true, but we already know that there will be no whole Earth coverage at the start.

Why should there be?Microsoft's strategy is to give away the basic version of Flight and make money by selling DLC. It's foolish (vergng on stupidity) to expect Flight to be a free version of FSX.Anyway, what's the big deal about having whole earth coverage initially? I suggest many of us only fly in limited regions. I'm in the UK and have never made a flight in Africa the Americas, Australia, the Middle or Far East etc. I'd be happy to only have to pay for my region.Wait to see what's available when Flight is released.

[Rush1169 0]

You clearly never heard of AVSIM's Round the World Race Forumhttp://forum.avsim.n...rld-race-forum/Although I never took part in that race, I have looked in on them and I have done 40,000+ nm in various planes visiting 200+ airports around the world. I still need to check in on South America and it would have been nice to do it in Flight.However, because you - and according to you - many others are not interested in this, it is very likely that there will not be a South American continent in Flight for some time - if ever.Just FYI, I did visit Moscow on my world tour.

You may have missed my point. I'm sure "entire world coverage" will be downloadable. Maybe or maybe not for one price you get the whole shebang, but it will be nothing more than what is offered in FSX and it will probably be relatively expensive to those who bought FSX for $59. That may mean $29 for the DLC of the world coverage or $59 or $99, I don't know but it will be there. Other users would rather pay $29 and get, for example, regions rendered at better resolutions. My point is, you will be able to purchase the coverage, but most people won't simply because they don't need it.

[Guest]

I am looking forward to the AVSIM Round Hawaii Race Forum. :( (Or has this joke already been made?)I don't expect the full world to be covered, really, at least not with 'quality area's' all over the globe. However, it should be possible to add a some more simple scenery addon that covers the whole world just to make flight from one detailed scenery to another a bit nicer.Of course the 'whole world' debate is a bit difficult, because it's between people that care about the whole globe being covered and people that don't care about that. I own FSX since the day it was released: I have flown in Europe around the Netherlands, always flying towards the same 4 airports, I flew around England and I once flew to Norway. When Orbx came up I flew around Southern Australia until PNW was released and since then I've only flown in PNW, apart from some flights back in Europe again. So I myself won't mind if there isn't scenery for the entire globe: I would already be more then happy when I get a detailed region the size of PNW. Of course PNW itself is already a lot larger then Hawaii, so I am really curious to the sizes of the sceneru dlc.

[fenixtucu 0]

Not only is the whole earth coverage underutilized by most (dare I say all) users, but the areas we were interested in, we paid nearly the cost of the whole sim just to add a city or a region or new textures.

You clearly are not part of the "most users"... (dont dare so much)

[Rush1169 0]

You clearly are not part of the "most users"... (dont dare so much)

If one were able to "paint" the globe over the areas they have flown with a brush 50 miles to either side of their plane, I find it hard to believe that *anyone* has flown, even with a 100 mile wide brush, over the entire earth. Maybe a mathmetician can tell us how long that would take at M0.85? But that was not my point. . .see above.

[alainneedle1 97]

Who's flying FSX default?Can somebody here tell me who as a 3RD party developer is covering the whole world with his sceneries?How many here do not want to fly outside Orbx sceneries, last time I checked Orbx was not covering the whole world?Let say that the next place to fly in Flight is California, how many of you will be welling to pay to get it if (assuming the scenery and plane are as good or better compare to the top 3RD party developers) you are able to fly from Hawaii to California, in a big tube, if California and a 737 are available for you to download after a lot of request are made to MS, how many of you will be welling to fly over California only, if you can do it in a Beechcraft?What MS is looking to do is exactly what 3RD party developers are already doing, slowly covering the world with their sceneries.MS already know how much money the top of the line developers are asking for their sceneries today, if MS can provide me with sceneries as good or better compare to the top of the line developers I'm in.Who know, MS may ask us what part of the world we want to fly over first (after Hawaii of course) and go from there,....

[torium 207]

I'm sure "entire world coverage" will be downloadable. Maybe or maybe not for one price you get the whole shebang, but it will be nothing more than what is offered in FSX and it will probably be relatively expensive to those who bought FSX for $59. That may mean $29 for the DLC of the world coverage or $59 or $99, I don't know but it will be there. Other users would rather pay $29 and get, for example, regions rendered at better resolutions. My point is, you will be able to purchase the coverage, but most people won't simply because they don't need it.

Some quotes from pcmag.com:- "Howard's reluctance to discuss the pricing of future content was because, in part, it will be decided by the players themselves. "Inherent to the system is a tremendous amount of telemetry: are players looking for aerocaches? Should we put in more 'gold rushes'? Users are having a really hard time here - what did they, and we - get wrong?" Howard said."- "Additional content will be at a price point that "feels good to them," Howard said of the game's audience. "Over time, there will always be more to come," Howard said."- "Howard wouldn't even discuss the possibility of a boxed software product. For now, Flight is downloadable only, for Windows PCs."

[dmaher 0]

...are players looking for aerocaches? Should we put in more 'gold rushes'?

[alainneedle1 97]

- it will be decided by the players themselves.

Edited January 13, 2012 by alainneedle1

[torium 207]

- it will be decided by the players themselves.

Freeware!!! :(

[Fsau 0]

How do they know people are looking for aerocaches or just freeflying?

[reignman40 450]

How do they know people are looking for aerocaches or just freeflying?

They will track you through your Live account. :)

[mdavis 10]

I have the whole world in FSX. I use FS Genesis terrain mesh, Ground Environment, Scenery Tech, Active Sky 2012, X-Graphics and a few "detailed" airports. So, yes, I have a couple hundred dollars spent to generate realistic-looking scenery and I can fly anywhere and everywhere. I'm currently working on flying all of the list from Doughtery's Dangerous airports from FS2004. There are over 700 flights covering the entire globe, and I use all of the default (or similar) aircraft that were part of FS9/FSX initial installation.Now, before I waste any time joining Microsoft LIVE and loading up my HD with gigabytes of yet more scenery, I want to know how many modules will it take, when will they be available, and what will it cost me to effectively shift from FSX to FLIGHT? I don't think, from what I'm seeing here that I'm going to like the answers. Just sayin' ... So for me, no download, free or not, until I can make the transition.

[Arwen 289]

Quite a few of those here who are being so critical of Flight, because it won't initially cover the entire world, are willing to pay $50 for Aerofly FS . . . which only covers one small country. Some here say they won't even take the effort download Flight. When did this hobby become so polarized? Flight is not (at this point) intended to replace what we have (or don't have) in FSX. So it isn't a matter of all or nothing. The thing that makes flight simming such a great hobby is the diversity of what we have to chose from. Just sayin' ...

[Guest]

Quite a few of those here who are being so critical of Flight, because it won't initially cover the entire world, are willing to pay $50 for Aerofly FS . . . which only covers one small country.

Yes, it's odd, isn't it? SOme people just WANT MS Flight to fail, it seems, and thus support a game that's clearly inferior to MS Flight already... Very odd.