Nice try, but surely you're not naive enough to think this is the same thing.

You know, I getting a bit sick of being talked down too. I happen to know just as much about flightsims as most of the guys on this forum.Here is my entire post, with the part that you conveniently left out in bold:

With FXS, you had to buy the game if you wanted to do more than what the demo gave you.In Flight you don't have to buy the entire world, but pay for only the DLC that you want. Yes, it is different, but that doesn't make it necessarily bad.And how many games have you seen that were released as a core platform, with the intention of using DLC to expand (scenery, aircraft, and other features)?

When you bought FSX, you got the whole package for one price. Microsoft's plan with Flight is to nickle and dime customers while ultimately giving them less in return. FSX, you paid $50 and got the whole world plus a dozen aircraft and missions. Spend $50 on Flight and I can all but guarantee that you'll get not even a fraction of that.

You only "got" what was included in the package. How many on this forum are using FSX, without any 3rd party addons? I'm using FSX Deluxe ($69) + a couple of addon aircraft (~$35 each) + Ground Environment X ($46, and that's just North America) + Ultimate Terrain X ($38, just for USA). So my version of FSX cost me well over $200.

And since it has been confirmed that Microsoft has no plans to model the entire earth, that's exactly what you're going to get.

Show me where MS stated THAT!

Edited January 13, 201214 yr by Arwen

I'm with you here Arwen, stand your ground and don't let anybody talk you down.

Edited January 13, 201214 yr by alainneedle1

Arwin,Just ignore him or invite him to go back to the XPX Forum.

This is a good point, but appears to be moot as not too many 3PDs will accept terms that MS seems to have offered them.

We only have "evidence" of two developers who've not accepted the terms that MS offered.We have no evidence whatever that (1) other developers have even been contacted yet, or (2) that other developers may have accepted the terms.I only have evidence that I have not been contacted at all thus far!

We only have "evidence" of two developers who've not accepted the terms that MS offered.We have no evidence whatever that (1) other developers have even been contacted yet, or (2) that other developers may have accepted the terms.I only have evidence that I have not been contacted at all thus far!

Actually we have (3) developers besides you who have clearly stated they will not be developing for Flight as of now.So by my count, developers who have stated that they are not involved in development, contacted or not:AerosoftOrbxPMDGYouHiFi - as I recallPete Dowson of FSUIPC stated that he saw no use for Flight. Admittedly this was pretty far back, but is a big issue for developers who were porting FS9 planes to FSX using FSUIPC. It is also an issue for me as I use FSUIPC extensively.So there you have it. I am sure we are all waiting to see if Abacus will develop for Flight.

Actually we have (3) developers besides you who have clearly stated they will not be developing for Flight as of now.So by my count, developers who have stated that they are not involved in development, contacted or not:AerosoftOrbxPMDGYouHiFi - as I recallPete Dowson of FSUIPC stated that he saw no use for Flight. Admittedly this was pretty far back, but is a big issue for developers who were porting FS9 planes to FSX using FSUIPC. It is also an issue for me as I use FSUIPC extensively.So there you have it. I am sure we are all waiting to see if Abacus will develop for Flight.

I stand sit corrected. I did forget Aerosoft, but then they made that decision long before any of the others, so it's quite possible they may have never been contacted by MS and "invited" into discussions. The same is true of Pete's decision, although he's never made public his reasons or rationale.I simply haven't been contacted at all, yet. So I can't make any informed decision. Should they (MS) decide to (1) invite me and/or (2) provide the terms for doing so, only then will I evaluate the matter and decide. In the mean time, there's more than enough to keep me busy for FS9, FSX and Prepar3D.Funny that you should mention ABACUS, because if anyone's going to jump the shark, it would be Arnie! :(

You know, I getting a bit sick of being talked down too.

Your comment was so naive that I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you were playing dumb in order to score rhetorical points. Was I mistaken? If so I apologize.

Here is my entire post, with the part that you conveniently left out in bold:

With FXS, you had to buy the game if you wanted to do more than what the demo gave you.In Flight you don't have to buy the entire world, but pay for only the DLC that you want. Yes, it is different, but that doesn't make it necessarily bad.

I didn't "conveniently" ignore the bolded sentence because it doesn't make any difference to your argument. You were trying to draw a parallel between the FSX demo and Flight, and I merely pointed out that such a comparison was naive at best. More on that as I respond to the next part of your post.

You only "got" what was included in the package. How many on this forum are using FSX, without any 3rd party addons? I'm using FSX Deluxe ($69) + a couple of addon aircraft (~$35 each) + Ground Environment X ($46, and that's just North America) + Ultimate Terrain X ($38, just for USA). So my version of FSX cost me well over $200.

The obvious difference is that FSX, out of the box (and after a patch or two) is a full-featured flight simulator package. Flight, on the other hand, is not (and likely never will be).

And since it has been confirmed that Microsoft has no plans to model the entire earth, that's exactly what you're going to get.

Show me where MS stated THAT!

It was mentioned earlier in the thread, but rather than task you with looking for it, I'll just reproduce it below:"The team has decided to not try and make the whole world this time. They feel that doing smaller areas at greater quality is more worth while. As such, the current game world is just the Island of Hawaii."

Read more:

http://flyawaysimula.../#ixzz1jNEqNNzt

As such, the current game world is just the Island of Hawaii."

Read more:

http://flyawaysimula.../#ixzz1jNEqNNzt

...and will continually evolve with new terrain, aircraft and challenges that can be downloaded via expansion packs.

The obvious difference is that FSX, out of the box (and after a patch or two) is a full-featured flight simulator package. Flight, on the other hand, is not (and likely never will be).

The other obvious difference is that Flight will be free with paid-for DLC.Until we knows what DLC there will be there is no substance to your second sentence.

It was mentioned earlier in the thread, but rather than task you with looking for it, I'll just reproduce it below:"The team has decided to not try and make the whole world this time. They feel that doing smaller areas at greater quality is more worth while. As such, the current game world is just the Island of Hawaii."

"At launch

, not everyone will have the opportunity to fly where they are. The team has decided to not try and make the whole world this time. They feel that doing smaller areas at greater quality is more worth while. As such, the

current game world

is just the Island of Hawaii. The old audience may be frustrated that it’s not built with everything, but it is built for everyone."

"The game is built on an improved legacy engine, for large scale scenery support. The base is still a globe, it’s just that there is not enough geography yet. But they would rather launch now and not have everything than wait and let the product age. This also helps keep the download size down."

Read more:

http://flyawaysimula.../#ixzz1jNK85n3T

This "naive" female flightsimmer can also cut and paste snippets (from the exact same article). I've been saying that some of you are so intent on tearing down Flight that you have rendered yourself blind to the big picture. "You cannot see the forest for the trees."

INITIALLY (as in the free version) Flight is not going to include the whole world, but that doesn't mean that it will not EVER cover the whole world.

Edited January 13, 201214 yr by Arwen

The other obvious difference is that Flight will be free with paid-for DLC.Until we knows what DLC there will be there is no substance to your second sentence.

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

"The team has decided to not try and make the whole world this time. They feel that doing smaller areas at greater quality is more worth while.

Now, to me, this says volumes. It does not say that we just didn't have time to do Africa and Asia for the release. To me, it says that they will be focusing on doing smaller areas at greater quality.Sure, anything is possible, given time, money and will. The will is not there right now and some of us think that if the will is not there now the money (ours) won't be there either when they actually find the time.

"At launch

, not everyone will have the opportunity to fly where they are. The team has decided to not try and make the whole world this time. They feel that doing smaller areas at greater quality is more worth while. As such, the

current game world

is just the Island of Hawaii. The old audience may be frustrated that it’s not built with everything, but it is built for everyone."

"The game is built on an improved legacy engine, for large scale scenery support. The base is still a globe, it’s just that there is not enough geography yet. But they would rather launch now and not have everything than wait and let the product age. This also helps keep the download size down."

Read more:

http://flyawaysimula.../#ixzz1jNK85n3T

This "naive" female flightsimmer can also cut and paste snippets (from the exact same article). I've been saying that some of you are so intent on tearing down Flight that you have rendered yourself blind to the big picture. "You cannot see the forest for the trees."

INITIALLY (as in the free version) Flight is not going to include the whole world, but that doesn't mean that it will not EVER cover the whole world.

+1wonder how many times we have to repeat it....

you have rendered yourself blind to the big picture. "You cannot see the forest for the trees."

Autogen playing up again ?? :( :LMAO:Time to turn the MOUTH slider down, and the BRAIN slider up, for better performace, and a smoother experience.

This is true, but we already know that there will be no whole Earth coverage at the start.Now, to me, this says volumes. It does not say that we just didn't have time to do Africa and Asia for the release. To me, it says that they will be focusing on doing smaller areas at greater quality.Sure, anything is possible, given time, money and will. The will is not there right now and some of us think that if the will is not there now the money (ours) won't be there either when they actually find the time.

But with FSX we got whole earth coverage (pretty much for free or certainly for very little money) and most users hard drives have never touched the Russia files since being installed (my hand is up). 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. Add up all the eye-candy and most of us has paid several times the intial cost of FSX.

But with FSX we got whole earth coverage (pretty much for free or certainly for very little money) and most users hard drives have never touched the Russia files since being installed (my hand is up). 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. Add up all the eye-candy and most of us has paid several times the intial cost of FSX.

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.