My thoughts on FLIGHT's real target market.

[Arwen 289]

"The team behind Microsoft Flight consists of roughly 50 people, including a mix of professional pilots, 40% of which worked on the previous team."

http://flyawaysimula.../#ixzz1jFtzjOHi

Doesn't this mean that roughly 20 of the 50 member Flight team were on the Aces FSX team?

Edited January 12, 2012 by Arwen

[Attila 2]

"The team behind Microsoft Flight consists of roughly 50 people, including a mix of professional pilots, 40% of which worked on the previous team."

http://flyawaysimula.../#ixzz1jFtzjOHi

Doesn't this mean that roughly 20 of the 50 member Flight team were on the Aces FSX team?

The real question is how many of these people are artists and mission designers and visual system programmers as opposed to people with real flying backgrounds.

[Arwen 289]

Ya know, some people here are going to just take anything positive about Flight and spin it into something negative. Be a doomsayer if you like, but I'd much rather give Flight the benefit of the doubt. I too would have preferred that Flight was released as a complete package, and an immediate replacement for FSX. But MS decided (at this point) not to do that. Personally, I think that is a bad decision ... but my ego is not so fragile that I feel like I'm more qualified than MS.We all have two choices here:1.) You can decide that Flight is just an arcade game if you like, and write it off.2.) Or you can quite being so negative and accept the POSSIBILITY that Flight is going to be a decent flightsim, and give it a chance.I'm going with #2.

[Dillon 2,197]

"The team behind Microsoft Flight consists of roughly 50 people, including a mix of professional pilots, 40% of which worked on the previous team."

http://flyawaysimula.../#ixzz1jFtzjOHi

Doesn't this mean that roughly 20 of the 50 member Flight team were on the Aces FSX team?

I stopped believing what's put out in print on various sites who claim to know when in the end the resulting product is an effort like Flight. Microsoft's Flight website had allot of great stuff as well:Welcome! We’ve created this section to provide news and updates direct from the Microsoft Flight development team. We’ve been getting all your emails and comments and are creating this central point of contact to respond to your questions. Currently, we’re still early in the development process, so there are many things not yet ready for detailed discussion. We’ll address what we can for now and will provide more in-depth information over time.Since the very first introduction to Microsoft Flight at Gamescom back in August 2010, we’ve received a tremendous response from both new and longtime Flight Simulator fans. We truly appreciate the warm welcome back. For this inaugural “News from the Development Team” update, we want to give you some context for our new direction. For starters, we’re still some time away from launching the product — far enough out that we are currently unable to provide any details, such as the launch date. We apologize for any frustrations this may cause. We can’t wait, either, to deliver this new experience to all of you! We’re delighted to be able to provide a view into our game at such an early time and to share our progress as we get closer to finalizing the product. We’ve never reached out this early in the development cycle before, so hang in there, and we hope you enjoy the sneak peek.A number of you have asked, “Why did you drop ‘Simulator’ from the title of the game?”In addition to the FAQ on this topic, 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. What we’re doing now is improving the total experience while building on this legacy, enhancing the enjoyment for all who share a passion for flight. The more people who join us in the Flight experience, the greater the opportunity we’ll have to do even more.Many of you are concerned that because we want to appeal to a wider audience, we must be building an arcade game.We don’t need to create an arcade game to welcome a wider audience. But we do need to improve the total user experience if we’re to be successful in welcoming new audiences into the experience of Flight. The passion and fascination of flight is powerful, with so many different aspects to aviation and different levels of enjoyment to experience. There is distinct value and strength to be gained by welcoming a wider audience, and we can’t claim to have done the best job of it in the past.What does appealing to a wider audience mean?It means improving the user-interface experience, achieving better performance on today’s hardware, providing more focused challenges for people who aren’t quite sure what to do next, and introducing more persistent experiences for people who return often. It also means keeping alive the freedom to go where you want (Ed.: as long as it's on the island of Hawaii!), when you want, and to do what you want. Regardless of their hardware power, piloting experience, or level of interest, many people have enjoyed the traditional flight-simulation experience as a solitary activity. We see a compelling social aspect to the experience inherent in the fun, and we need to better enable and support this dynamic to strengthen the entire Flight experience for everyone.Based on the previous webisode, we’ve heard, “This doesn’t look any different from FSX!”As we said in the introduction, we’re still early in the development cycle, so the fact that you comment on the similarity to FSX is great! This comment alone should ease some of the arcade concerns. Please follow along with our progress as we continue to release more webisodes, screenshots, and additional information. In the end, we hope that you’ll have a great time looking back at these early samples and being part of the evolution. Thank you for all your enthusiasm and support!If you want to get advanced notice of updates to this section and the website in general, please sign up for our mailing list at https://live.xbox.co...tactPreferences.Thank you,The Microsoft Flight Development Team Edited January 12, 2012 by Dillon

[Guest]

We all have two choices here:1.) You can decide that Flight is just an arcade game if you like, and write it off.2.) Or you can quite being so negative and accept the POSSIBILITY that Flight is going to be a decent flightsim, and give it a chance.I'm going with #2.

+1 #2! :wink:I have to say that I kinda like the idea of DLC... I think it's cool having something new offered all of the time. Of course I hope the DLC won't cost a fortune... But I would be nice to see MS Flight becoming better and better week after week...

[DylanM 1,069]

I'm reserving judgement on #2 until at least the NDA is lifted and some of the testers can give us some concrete feedback (it should be clear the direction the devs will take it, and we might also have nore info on how often DLC is expected to be released).

[Arwen 289]

So you prefer to put more weight on stuff like the speculation and guesses that are posted on this forum? . . . . at last as far as those posts that agree with your conclusions.I'm sorry, but I haven't seen any PROOF that MS is not doing exactly what they stated on their Flight website.EDITED: what I was replying to has since been removed.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Arwen

[Attila 2]

Ya know, some people here are going to just take anything positive about Flight and spin it into something negative. Be a doomsayer if you like, but I'd much rather give Flight the benefit of the doubt. I too would have preferred that Flight was released as a complete package, and an immediate replacement for FSX. But MS decided (at this point) not to do that. Personally, I think that is a bad decision ... but my ego is not so fragile that I feel like I'm more qualified than MS.We all have two choices here:1.) You can decide that Flight is just an arcade game if you like, and write it off.2.) Or you can quite being so negative and accept the POSSIBILITY that Flight is going to be a decent flightsim, and give it a chance.I'm going with #2.

I don't think I am being negative, more like cautious, even slightly optimistic about some things for which there is some basis.For instance, people in this forum, who know something about FSX have stated that the flight model appears to be better and at least one of the planes can perform aerobatic maneuvers that have not been possible in FSX. Nice and I hope it is not a one-off just for this plane. At least it seems possible to do.However, I refuse to be optimistic where there is no evidence or even worse, there is evidence to the contrary to what wishful thinkers are posting. Case in point, the SDK, World coverage and quality of add-on planes for start.We have absolutely no evidence that there is even one 3PD, but we have heard from people - who might know if there were - that they have not heard of any. So, call me a pessimist, but I doubt that we'll see any high quality aircraft for a long long time, if ever.I have no doubt that Flight will be visually better than FSX, but we don't know the cost. Is the cost the lack of AI, real-time weather or was FSX such a dog even after SP2 that we can get great FPS and still have all FSX functionality? Then why is this functionality not being beta tested. Will it only be tested by paying customers?You can stay optimistic and I will continue to point out when you don't really have reason to be. I may be wrong, but this is a discussion board. We can't just have it filled with posts on one side of an issue. Edited January 12, 2012 by Attila

[Arwen 289]

I don't think I am being negative, more like cautious, even slightly optimistic about some things for which there is some basis.For instance, people in this forum, who know something about FSX have stated that the flight model appears to be better and at least one of the planes can perform aerobatic maneuvers that have not been possible in FSX. Nice and I hope it is not a one-off just for this plane. At least it seems possible to do.However, I refuse to be optimistic where there is no evidence or even worse, there is evidence to the contrary to what wishful thinkers are posting. Case in point, the SDK, World coverage and quality of add-on planes for start.We have absolutely no evidence that there is even one 3PD, but we have heard from people - who might know if there were - that they have not heard of any. So, call me a pessimist, but I doubt that we'll see any high quality aircraft for a long long time, if ever.I have no doubt that Flight will be visually better than FSX, but we don't know the cost. Is the cost the lack of AI, real-time weather or was FSX such a dog even after SP2 that we can get great FPS and still have all FSX functionality? Then why is this functionality not being beta tested. Will it only be tested by paying customers?You can stay optimistic and I will continue to point out when you don't really have reason to be. I may be wrong, but this is a discussion board. We can't just have it filled with posts on one side of an issue.

You're making a lot of assumptions.First of all, the absence of proof that something exists, is not proof that it doesn't exist.And you don't know all that is being beta tested.And you're assuming that my optimism is just me being optimistic. Edited January 12, 2012 by Arwen

[Attila 2]

First of all, the absence of proof that something exists, is not proof that it doesn't exist.And you don't know all that is being beta tested.And you're assuming that my optimism is just me being optimistic.

The absence of evidence is not proof of absence, but believing without evidence is called faith.Your last two sentences seem to imply that you know more than the rest of us, from sources we do not have. Perhaps.Just curious that with all the things leaked from the beta, none of this made it out yet.

[Arwen 289]

I've also posted that it is possible that some beta testers may be testing additional content . . . which those who broke the NDA might have never had access to.And there's a LOT of logical reasoning behind my optimism. I cannot believe that MS is going to leave out the stuff that simmers have come to expect will be included in a flightsim. Their Free + DLC method is not going to succeed unless simmers buy into Flight.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Arwen

[FlyAndFight 37]

...And there's a LOT of logical reasoning behind my optimism. I cannot believe that MS is going to leave out the stuff that simmers have come to expect will be included in a flightsim. Their Free + DLC method is not going to succeed unless simmers buy into Flight.

Their Free + DLC method is not going to succeed unless "gamers" buy into Flight. It's been obviously stated by MS's demos and marketing plan so far. It also has been mentioned ad nauseum that the hard-core simmer community is tiny compared to MS's target audience. It is then only logical that MS cater to that gamer audience first and foremost. "Capture The Coins" type of DLC will vastly out-number the "simmer" type content, without a doubt.That's not being negative. That's being realistic.

[Arwen 289]

MS needs BOTH groups if Flight is going to be a success. This is what I've stated ad nauseum.And the simmers are not going to buy Flight unless it include that stuff that so many are demanding.I'm pretty sure that MS knows both of these things,That is not blind optimism. That is logical ... and realistic.

[dmaher 0]

It's true...the new direction is user driven. That whole target market debate is going away. The new balance sheet will show who is buying - what they buy. There’ll still be market segments and products to suit. The maximum is hitting all segments...it's why Flight is clearly intended to be built with partners.

[Attila 2]

Times change. Gates was excited to announce FSX at CES 2006. Did Balmer even mention Flight?