Keep it in perspective folks... Every step, no matter how it may appear to us at the moment, is indeed a step that we may only see the results or impact of a year or two, or more, from now.

The way Flight appears to me at the moment is that it's announcement a year and a half ago was designed to take the wind out of the sails of anyone else who might have been considering developing a successor to FSX. Unfortunately, it succeeded.It probably also reduced the number of add-on sales for FSX, given that people have been waiting to see what develops.Furthermore, it strung some 3PDs along, costing them money and time, with pretty much nothing to show for it at the end.The charade continues and the aim appears to be to keep it up as long as possible.So some of the impact is already felt. I know that I feel it. I know that others who have posted all over the Net feel it. The true impact will indeed be felt years from now, but I don't know how many of us will be left by then.

We know it can't be the entire product, because this is gonna be published as a free version. As MS has to make money by selling hopefully attractive content, it should be clear that there must be more to it in the store.

:(

We know it can't be the entire product, because this is gonna be published as a free version. As MS has to make money by selling hopefully attractive content, it should be clear that there must be more to it in the store.

Well since the P-51, Vans RV-6A (don't shoot me if I got the number wrong) and the Maule have been featured in videos and screenshots and aren't in the base pack the logical conlcusion is that they will be the first DLC planes. As for scenery I think the other Hawaiian Islands have been indicated, but I'm not sure if there's any official confirmation on that.Given the recent release of X-Plane 10 I don't see how Flight's announcement took the wind out of the sails of anyone working on a successor to FSX. Just because XP10 apprently hasn't met many people's needs / expectations as an FSX successor doesn't mean it wasn't intended as such.

Edited January 16, 201214 yr by japascoe

Given the recent release of X-Plane 10 I don't see how Flight's announcement took the wind out of the sails of anyone working on a successor to FSX. Just because XP10 apprently hasn't met many people's needs / expectations as an FSX successor doesn't mean it wasn't intended as such.

Perhaps XP10 would not have been released yet, had it not been for Flight.Also, ever heard of Aerosoft 2012? I know they say they could not find a graphics engine, but I am sure that the announcement of Flight did not help it along.

I've been an FS flyer since FS 5 and have never been dissapointed. For me each new version has been a great leap forward. FLIGHT is the first version of the series that has triggered my negative mode.

Your actually telling me and the world that you had no dissapointments in FSX ? Come on !!!! Even Microsoft added some multi-core support after the fact and many other tweek changes after all the flack they got from forums like this.Bob - Las Cruces, NM

Edited January 16, 201214 yr by Toys_R_Us

Like it or not, we hardcore simmers have a relationship of sorts with Microsoft via FS going back decades in some cases with certainly many thousands of dollars spent on this hobby,

That's just it - those dollars were not spent with MS, but with talented third party devs, and MS knows it. Perhaps I am overly cynical regarding MS intentions, but this is what concerns me at this point - not the core product.

Cant wait to get my hands on it.Haters gonna hate but why dont ignore this section of the forums. If you have no intrest what are you doing here? :(

These two statements of course contradict each other: Either MS is developing a serious sim, or it isn't. (And the bit about MS adopting a "wait and see" attitude is part of "it isn't".)I am merely highlighting serious simmer aspects of MS Dec, 8th 2010 press release that up to now have not been complied with.Note that:

1. I do hope MS will eventually deliver the serious simmer aspects of Flight we all want (hopefully sooner than later), and
2. I do wish MS will close the PR gap it created with the Dec. 8, 2010 serious simmer promises with an explanatory press release.

The mistake you are making is believing that criticism is being levelled at Flight for what it will be. Rest assured the criticism is for what Flight is today. And in the absence of an explanatory press release, that's all we can do.In the absence of any other information from MS beyond said press release and the functionality of the Flight beta as widely reported (read: arcade game), any hopes for added functionality are pure, unadulterated speculation.Finally do note that the uncertainty created by MS alone by lack of hard, reliable information hurts add-on developers the hardest for they are not able to plan (and fund) the development of the aircraft and sceneries we all like for Flight. And the lack of an SDK of course helps drive that nail all the way in.Cheers,- jahman.

Strongly agree with you on this Jahman.

Wise words, Tom. I myself am only VERY HAPPY with MS and MS Flight and I don't understand why a lot of people show so much hatred towards them. First of all: MS gave us FS. All those years of happy simming would not have been possible without MS. Secondly, MS didn't HAVE to create MS Flight. But they did. So why be angry about it? Be glad that flying on the PC still is alive. Things can ONLY get better... and because of that I don't understand all the anger. if things could get worse, then I'd understand it if people weren't happy. But not now.

Captain Sensible rides again. :( I've read screeds of this Flight/MS/FXS stuff and it seems as if no matter which way you're facing, you're P*ssing into the wind! :(

That's just it - those dollars were not spent with MS, but with talented third party devs, and MS knows it. Perhaps I am overly cynical regarding MS intentions, but this is what concerns me at this point - not the core product.

Your right. It's mind boggling when software history has shown the open architecture programs have built complete dynasties and sold millions of copies of the core product. Autodesk and Adobe lead that charge. How this company can destroy that is beyond my belief. Autodesk has even had complete "shows" at Chicago's huge McCormick Place featuring just their third party developers. (By the way, it overlooked Meigs Field directly.)Bob

Your actually telling me and the world that you had no dissapointments in FSX ? Come on !!!! Even Microsoft added some multi-core support after the fact and many other tweek changes after all the flack they got from forums like this.Bob - Las Cruces, NM

Hey, FSX sure wasn't perfect - still isn't - but five years have passed and there is no other sim that can touch it. MS delivered two service packs and got some of the bugs fixed. A shame that they fired ACES before a third pack could be released. FS2004 died on me after flying FSX for a few minutes. As for performance I never understood all the whining. I bought a new computer just a few months before FSX was released and it ran FSX good enough for me up until two months ago when it died. FSX wasn't perfect, but a huge improvement over FS2004, just as the latter was a huge improvement over FS2002 etc.

Tom, when you were invited to see Flight what king of questions did you (or others) ask on the engine capability, did you ask what kind of bugs were fixed?What did they tell you about it? I'm asking because the only thing the pi$$** developer(s) are talking about is how they got the shaft (or were excluded) by MS, but they are not talking about the engine capability.....knowing that FSX is not optimized for todays hardware I'm sure questions on the engine were asked so what's new with it?

MS didn't HAVE to create MS Flight. But they did. So why be angry about it? Be glad that flying on the PC still is alive.

Flying on the PC is dying because FSX code is dead (no more development) and Flight is not for serious simming. It might be in the future, but we have no idea and anything we say past what Flight is yoday is mere fantasy.

Things can ONLY get better... and because of that I don't understand all the anger. if things could get worse, then I'd understand it if people weren't happy. But not now.

Things can only get better because FSX code is dead and Flight is not for us. So yes, things can only get better.

But given its freemium business model, and the fact that it caters both hard core simmers and arcade casual gamers, FLIGHT will be able to reach the mass and really takeoff. :(

There is not evidence at all that Flight caters to the serious simmer at this point.

I've been an FS flyer since FS 5 and have never been dissapointed. For me each new version has been a great leap forward. FLIGHT is the first version of the series that has triggered my negative mode.

+1! Proverbial optimists, take note!

No they do not.Just because Flight is being marketed differently (free core + bought DLC) than FSX (boxed DVDs), does not make it any less of a simulator. Despite what many here seem to think, Flight is still unfinished . . . it is still in Beta. I contend that there are still parts of Flight that are still under development (as in still being tested). It is not uncommon for a developer to not discuss things until they know that they will be in the released product.

You keep talking about what Flight might be without any hard information whatsoever to base your beliefs on.

I'm not making THAT mistake at all. In my replies, I have been the MOST critical of others here who are using claiming that Flight will NEVER succeed, and that the Free core + DLC will FAIL. I've leveled most of my criticism at the naysayers who are not only predicting that Flight will fail, but seem to be hoping that it will.

Flight might just succeed, catering to the arcade flyer.

Not all hopes. Some of the "added functionality" that will be in Flight is based on a lot more than just hope.

OK, state your sources then! You won't be able to because you don't have any. Likely MS themsleves don't even know which way Flight will evolve, if it evolves.

The way Flight appears to me at the moment is that it's announcement a year and a half ago was designed to take the wind out of the sails of anyone else who might have been considering developing a successor to FSX. Unfortunately, it succeeded.It probably also reduced the number of add-on sales for FSX, given that people have been waiting to see what develops.Furthermore, it strung some 3PDs along, costing them money and time, with pretty much nothing to show for it at the end.The charade continues and the aim appears to be to keep it up as long as possible.So some of the impact is already felt. I know that I feel it. I know that others who have posted all over the Net feel it. The true impact will indeed be felt years from now, but I don't know how many of us will be left by then.

Thanks for the explanation! Yours is the first viable explanation for what that misleading Dec, 8, 2010 PR statement was all about!

Your right. It's mind boggling when software history has shown the open architecture programs have built complete dynasties and sold millions of copies of the core product. Autodesk and Adobe lead that charge. How this company can destroy that is beyond my belief. Autodesk has even had complete "shows" at Chicago's huge McCormick Place featuring just their third party developers. (By the way, it overlooked Meigs Field directly.)

An excellent point, but Autodesk goes for $4K -$9K! (depending o the license) I would be willing to pay a lot of money for FSXI, but not that much. Would I pay $500 for an FSX SP3 that stomped all the bugs and never again a CTD regardless of the add-on loaded (can be done!) Yes, definitely!

Hey, FSX sure wasn't perfect - still isn't - but five years have passed and there is no other sim that can touch it. MS delivered two service packs and got some of the bugs fixed. A shame that they fired ACES before a third pack could be released.

Agreed. FSX still is the best simulator in flight sim history, faults and all.Cheers,- jahman.

Tom, when you were invited to see Flight what king of questions did you (or others) ask on the engine capability, did you ask what kind of bugs were fixed?What did they tell you about it? I'm asking because the only thing the pi$$** developer(s) are talking about is how they got the shaft (or were excluded) by MS, but they are not talking about the engine capability.....knowing that FSX is not optimized for todays hardware I'm sure questions on the engine were asked so what's new with it?

One of the 3rd party developers can correct me if I am wrong and if their NDA allows it. I don't remember too many questions asked about the "engine" at our meetings in Redmond. Most of the folks there were from groups like AVSIM - you know, technically challenged. Only one was a "developer" that would meet our definition of the word. And don't ask... Unless they wish to reveal themselves, I can't answer the question; "who was the developer?".I don't believe that the issues with the 3rd party developers really have anything to do with the mechanics and technical bits and bob's with the FLIGHT platform. I believe the primary issue was terms and conditions of participation. Once a number of the developers said "up yours", I believe that Microsoft cut off significant portions and numbers of these conversations. As an example of closed communications I know that one prominent developer was not aware of the meeting in Redmond until I told him after the event. That developer not being included in that meeting said tons by itself.

FLIGHT is a product failure that neither caters to the hard core simmers (and with no SDK, it never will be able to!) nor is it enough action to be fun enough for the casual arcade gamer.

Etheris, unless you can start supplying facts to substantiate your claims, you can count on your messages disappearing. You have populated this forum with your negative views of the product AND we get your message and your take on the FLIGHT product. Without facts, cease and desist. Otherwise you are going to be doing a lot of typing for nothing.