I've seen some hints that the flight dynamics underlying the planes in Flight, at the most realistic settings, are at least as realistic as those of FSX. That could very easily be what they mean when they say they're respecting legacy simming (though of course I have no more way of being certain about that than any of you).

Identifying which cycle you're in is the hardest part of course. There's the Kodak cycle and the Apple cycle...

I am in the retirement cycle... :(

I am in the retirement cycle... :(

The premier place to be :)

Edited January 16, 201214 yr by simmerhead

The premier place to be :)

Well... in these economic conditions, I will officially "retire" when I die at my job. :(

Well Tom, I think if many here will read your words and simply stop to absorb them. They'll get a clearer picture of what is actually happening.Some of us have tried in vain to tell others and indeed myself tried to the extent of diving into MS financial quarterlies for info to educate others here who simply refused to see the forrest for the trees.But in the end it was like pushing water up hill... many simply chose to ignore all the smoke and pretend there was no fire.Hopefully hearing it from you, the last sane and respected voice int he FS wilderness these days, will restart the logic cogs and common sense will return to those who have done their best to avoid it for the past few months.

I can tell you for certain that whether we as a community get on board or not, is not a major concern of theirs. Their eyes are firmly on the market that they are attempting to address with FLIGHT. Like it or not.

You are absolutely correct, we are not their target audience...

Edited January 17, 201214 yr by Jacoba

It is only human for us not to like change. Whether or not this change is for the better or worse, we are yet to find out.

It is only human for us not to like change. Whether or not this change is for the better or worse, we are yet to find out.

Depends. We don't like change if we are content enough with our current situation to not want the alternative. Problem is, often enough the alternative is seen as worse than it actually is. Sometimes the alternative may even turn out to be better in the long run. Especially when you have a choice, why not except the existence of the alternative?

Tom,thank you for this very informative and interesting piece of history.It caught my attention the one you said:

Dealing with a hostile minority of your anticipated user "base", and having a product to launch and more important things to do, why invest and indeed, waste, that energy?

This is how MS saw the reaction? as a hostile minority? The last 2 weeks there was a total uproar here in the formus and on other forums too.Also:

Their eyes are firmly on the market that they are attempting to address with FLIGHT. Like it or not.

I don't understand what kind of market is that. I am not a market expert but this is how i see it. FLIGHT is released as a free download, little Johnnie is flying around with the spectacular scenery of Hawaii, nice airplane graphics, and of course a nice feeling of flying. So far so good. What is next for little Johnnie? he wont be bored? How many times he will fly around? He will look to do something parallel with flying, because for him flying around at first was interesting but for him now is not enough. I don't even think that in the future he will ever buy an online addon to fullfill the flying experience. Perhaps his father will buy him one for a present but this is it. And what is the end of the story? After some months FLIGHT might be deleted or just being installed on his/her harddisk.I strongly believe that addons are made for us the purists. Addons enhance the experience by putting more realism and realism is equal to simulate something as it is in real life. That is flying IFR/VFR from A to B, practicing flying patterns in good or bad weather on different airplanes.So, if MS targets the little Johnnie market (little Johnnie can be also a grown up individual with no interest at all about aviation) what is the future of this FLIGHT product? Just this simple question that is whirling my mindThank you

It is only human for us not to like change. Whether or not this change is for the better or worse, we are yet to find out.

If it earns more for Microsoft then it's a change for the better from Microsoft's perspective.

A quote from Tom's message:My point? If you know you are going to be in front of a hostile audience, why get on the stage in the first place? Close quote.Comment: Only if you have nothing to offer.

Well, Tom says Microsoft has eyes "firmly on the market that they are attempting to address..." and VOR_Active points out that little Johnnie who has no current interest in flight simulation seems to be that market. To push Tom's point a bit regarding corporate secrecy and silence, it's interesting to speculate just what the market is. If sales of DLC modules is anticipated for profit, then the existing hard-core market would seem to be the target. As VOR_Active has pointed out, how many millions of console kids might download a freebie, check out some nice island scenery, get bored and then move on to yet another first-person shooter or D&D clone?Staying power in any "game" (sorry, I don't like to call it that, either) is complexity and repeat play value. Look at the big successes in gaming - pick your own long time favorites - and you'll see what I mean. FS (in all its iterations and upgrades up to this time) is not only immensely complex (24,000 airports, hundreds of planes with thousands of liveries, millions of flight plan possibilities, infinite weather changes, scenery on the other side of the world, and the ability of users to build, paint and recreate their own aircraft and airport scenery) but it has potential to help real world pilots hone their IFR skills. Its fascination and interest is potentially limitless, provided it adheres to realistic variables. If just one of these abilities is lost or downgraded, it will cost a large percentage of user interest in a new product. There are many simmers who do nothing but build planes, paint planes and populate airports to model reality.So you either cater to an established market with a better product, thereby forcing the desire (and/or "need") to upgrade, or you create a new market. If you create a new market you risk losing what made you top dog in the genre and you risk losing your core audience. I don't think you can do both with one product.I hope I'm wrong. Looking at the screenshots (not the fuzzy videos) at 1920x1200 from the FLIGHT web portal, I see a lot that I like, at least with the scenery - the volcanic mountains with waterfalls, very nice waves at shorelines, more realistic buildings, a great harbor and ships, excellent cloud displays in valleys, good sunsets, etc., all improvements in scenery realism. And while Microsoft is not actively participating in public forums, they have, apparently, gone to the beta-testers for feedback. Since a few of them are on public forums under a NDA, we can also assume that the hard core simmers have been considered, at least with regard to flight dynamics. Time will tell if they've missed the mark, but if they have, their sales of DLC modules will go nowhere, because casual simmers don't invest in hundreds of dollars of add-ons. And my money will stay with FSX and X-Plane until FLIGHT offers the aircraft and the world.

Tom,thank you for this very informative and interesting piece of history.It caught my attention the one you said:This is how MS saw the reaction? as a hostile minority? The last 2 weeks there was a total uproar here in the formus and on other forums too.Also:[...]

Let it be clear that it is wrong to think that those that want utter realism have a majority. This is simply not true. They are a very vocal minority. I mean, look at the amount of people that actually posted. I think that's 200 different people max... that's a minority, and a very small one at that, according to MS's standards. Plus, I'd bet a few bucks that the people that post at Avsim are partly the people that post at other forums. The vast majority of simmers are indeed rather casual, due to time constraint or simply not being interested in complete system simulation. They'd be content flying the Boeing 737 inverted through hoops...

They'd be content flying the Boeing 737 inverted through hoops...

Really? They can do that? Sounds like fun! :smile:Kind regards,

Sure they can. Default Boeing 737, you can do a lot with that thing :(

I don't buy it. There are a lot of very time consuming and complex games that have become best sellers, and the Flight Simulator series was a best seller for 25+ years, despite being regarded as too complex. Predicting the success of a game is just as impossible as predicting next months number one hit single or movie. It can't be done consistently. A strategy based on outsmarting the market is a risky one. Finding a niche and delivering a quality product to that niche can be just as succesful.If all Microsoft want is success in the mass market I would say that FLIGHT is a very risky project which contradicts that strategy. FLIGHT doesn't have mass appeal like a first person shooter or angry bird clone. Compared to other games in the making FLIGHT gets very little press in the gaming media and on gaming sites, so either the bean counters at Microsoft have done a very strange market analysis, or there must be more to FLIGHT than meets the eye at this stage. Also, the PC isn't really the best platform for dumbed down games, since the hassle and cost of using a PC is a lot higher than that of a console or pad.