Flight will be good

[maxter 0]

I don't see myself buying it.

Ummmmm, in case you have not heard, you don't have to... :(

[magnetite 38]

Ummmmm, in case you have not heard, you don't have to... :(

Sorry, force of habit. I forgot it was free. Just, every software I always pay for, and I forgot that this was free for the base package.

[Kinetic2080 5]

On topic: flight will be goodFacts:1) The underlying flight model has been improved. Flight has the potential to simulate better aircraft than on todays market on FSX.Quotes:"More experienced players can tailor the flight controls to match their skill level.""The aircraft models are stunningly detailed and are authentically modeled with new modular systems for both aerodynamics and physical systems. Stalls and spins, including snap rolls, are tunable per aircraft. There are also tunable ground dynamics for tires and water operations, fuselage drag for proper slips and prop-wash over control surfaces for more precise aerobatics and ground handling.""There is support for multi-engine aircraft; the team says that there is nothing they cannot make."2) The weather engine has been improved. Serious simmers want more realistic weather than FSX don't they?3) Serious simmers love to buy addons for scenery and planes all the time. They are already doing micro-transactions through their web browser to third party sites. So why bash the idea of getting new scenery and planes at the marketplace just because it's integrated into MS Flight?4) Free flight is still very present. E.g. the serious simmer can skip all the "casual game attract stuff" and use free flight for the usual serious stuff.5) "The landing challenges range from Level 1 to Level 5 and getting increasingly more difficult as the level increases." ... show me a hardcore-gamer who wouldn't like a landing challenge even if it's a game feature... and I'll say he's ready for retirement.6) "Included aircraft are, with the first being the Icon A5. It is a light sports-plane costing around $140,000"... almost misread that as microsoft points, and gave up MS Flight... but then realised it was free (phew).Conclusion:MS Flight has a very good potential to be better than FSX for the serious simmer (unless the serious simmer can't figure out how to go to "free flight mode" instead of "welcome casual mode".) Just because MS Flight welcomes casual gamers doesn't mean it can't be configured into "full realism mode".For those 3rd party developers not too proud to deal with Microsoft, will find their high realism planes go into the MS Flight online store.Even if MS Flight is an online download, big sceneries could be released on DVD's in the future if Microsoft adopts strategies like other franchises with online shops/retail addons like "the sims 3".Final words: It's too early to say MS Flight won't be good.-

[Mickel 42]

I think the issue that is the main problem for many people is 3). This is all speculation on my part, but when people buy from a 3PD, they have an expectation of what that product will be like, simply because of who the developer is. A 737 add on would be a prime candidate as it's popular and comes in all shapes. Someone who isn't satisfied with anything less than the PMDG offering is going to be a bit put out having to cough a microtransaction for a FSX default level 737, and other one to get to a mid level, and yet another for all the bells and whistles - especially if it all comes to more than US$79.95. Someone who wants to press ctrl-E, push the loud lever and go is likely to be upset because they can't get any sign of life out of an in depth model. Some won't care if the outside looks rubbish as long as it flies right, since they never leave the VC. Others won't care if it flies the same at 180,000lbs as it does at 110,000lbs, so long as it looks pretty. Who gets to make the call about the level of complexity or detail, and how much is enough?Your 'facts' are still subject to interpretation, since most of us still haven't seen it, and those that have are supposed to be staying mum about it. However, I'm optimistic. First thing I'm going to do is put the Stearman in a spin. It'll be pretty easy from that to tell if it's something worth sticking with.Mike

[newthog 0]

Who gets to make the call about the level of complexity or detail, and how much is enough?

EXACTLY why I think the MSFlight microtransaction model is excellent - we, as consumers, get to vote with our wallet! If you like a plane/scenery area buy it - if you don't like it, don't buy it. Especially for those of us who have FS9 or FSX on our computers, FSFlight is NOT a need...it's an "in addition to"...at least at this point

[Kinetic2080 5]

Regarding 3) the build in store store, I can see Mike's view. MS has yet to produce a full featured realistic aircraft in-house. It's very important that third-party are allowed in the store to distribute the serious aircraft! But even complex planes like PMDG and PIC installs with "engines running" as default. I was able to get 737 NGX in the air in just 2-3 minutes. 737 is a great plane so it's pretty forgiving both with autopilot and manual control without connection to the FMC. (Airbus perhaps requires more planning to get in the air.)I think both PMDG and PIC would go nicely in the store, alltough it has to be stressed it's the "advanced/expert" difficulty-level, to use FSX difficulty ranking.We don't know yet if third party aircraft will go in the store, but it will be required (MS wil have to allow it) if serious simmers will migrate. With claimed better weather and dynamics (se my post above) at last the core MS Flight program should be able to handle complex planes as long as they are allowed into the store. Apparently the physics engine has a legacy to FSX... but improved, so at least third partys flight models for FSX might fit into MS Flight without starting developent from scratch.Let's hope MS and top third party developers can reach and agreement when the time comes.-

[newthog 0]

Let's hope MS and top third party developers can reach an agreement when the time comes

I'll drink to that!

[Rush1169 0]

Let's hope MS and top third party developers can reach an agreement when the time comes

I'll drink to that!

Ditto. Although I think 'reaching an agreement' with 3PDs is a non-starter. They either agree, or they close shop and a different 3PD steps up. I'm sure they'll reach an agreement.

[KevQA 0]

You put yourself in a position that you wouldn't had you been around this community for the last 20+ years. Your taking personal anger directed at a company that has played games with loyal customers (and internal Microsoft staff) that have fought hard to make this franchise very special over the years. Now things have went off the deep end. The trouble with being new is you haven't had the years of ups and downs with the Flight Simulator franchise. Yes you can say it's a game but this software has been responsible for more pilots in the last 20 years than any other. The dream of Bruce Artwick has been overshadowed by corporate greed. The firing of Aces and the development of Flight has officially tipped the scale in favor of those in Microsoft who's opposed Flight Simulator for years. It's like the Disney company without Walt. Disney would be a whole different company if Walt was still alive. With Bill Gates gone more than a few things have changed around Redmond... The creation of Flight Simulator was intended to be a PC based simulation of Flight not a game. X-Plane not being under the big corporate umbrella stuck with it's roots in how it marketed the sim but Microsoft strayed from that all the while keeping FS a simulation in it's truest form (they even took out the WWII module that was present in earlier versions like FS 4.0). The reason X-Plane is certified by the FAA yet it's inferior on many levels to FSX is because it was marketed for what it is. Microsoft has been in an identity crisis with Flight Simulator for years yet put millions into making it the top PC simulation of the civilian flight experience money can buy. The marketing suites must have been told one thing while Aces developed away with impunity in the direction of a true simulation... It was so good that many thought back in 2001 Flight Simulator helped the terrorist with training. Arwen being new you wouldn't know that even then suites at Microsoft wanted a Flight type of experience but someone powerful in the company would have non of that. FS2k2 was put on hold and almost didn't get released because of fear. This is the history I'm talking about that you may not have. I heard no knee-jerk reaction coming towards X-Plane after 9/11 showing which sim was the superior product even then yet today it has FAA certification. For years when news stations or anyone for that matter recreated a crash more times than not they use Flight Simulator as the platform to show what happened. All in all God only knows why Microsoft didn't just market Flight Simulator as a simulation like Lockheed is doing with Prepar3D today (a version of FSX for those that don't know). It certainly would have made since if companies Lockheed, Boeing, Cessna, and flight schools from around the world put their stamp of approval on the product for so many years.So I can see you getting offended and not understanding. New people never would or could understand. They see this one product and say, "What's all the fuss about it's only a game". If you've been around since 1986 you'd see the labor of love Aces and freeware/payware developers have put in it over the years. You'd empathize on how hard it is to learn a whole new way of doing things with each new version of FS but people keep going because it's a labor of love. You'd know or read about the pains of building planes in Flight Shop and GMAX or the extensive research it takes to bring detailed aircraft and airports to the virtual screen. This is where the anger comes from... I've used FS since 1986 you've most likely only been around since 2006 if that long and one version of FS (FSX one of the most problematic versions ever released next to FS2000). You jump on the side of a company that wants to shut this history down, control freedom of development, rewind the advancement that took years to develop (simulating the whole world), and expect to get a warm dialog from people. Your on the wrong side with this one and you shouldn't take it personal. Respect the history that's lasted for 20+ years and quit looking at it in the context of black and white only. The anger is not at you personally because you don't have the history many of us have but many of your comments about Flight is like a slap in the face to the vision of people like Bruce Artwick, the Aces team that brought us the whole world on one disc (which ended up being FS9 and FSX), the many freeware/payware developers who've contributed over the years, and many of the long standing fans of the franchise.

This post really got to me and I pretty much agree with everything you said.These videos show why a large portion of the community is upset right now, myself included. The first one almost brought tears to my eyes. The second one shows the community that the ACES team created.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AJWpA1y3Owhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8oLTgyja_UI am going to go were ever the 3PD's go. I will continue to support them whether it be in Flight, XPlane, FSX, etc. And thanks to all those great people who freely upload their creations to AVSIM to make the hobby even better.

[Barnstormer1 0]

I shall go were ever suits my needs. All for me and me for all ")

[Kinetic2080 5]

Not many were to fond of Bill Gates, but he did license Flight Simulator and even thought internet would make it a better product. Aces was a pretty large team for a product that wasn't mainstream. I think Mr Gates allowed the team to go on many years after other game generes went dead. adventure games (Leisure Suit Larry) and realistic combat flight simulators (G-Lock, Falcon) and elite-type space exploration games are almost not being made. Flight Simulator outlived those most of those games by many years. When Bill Gates stepped down I think things went downhill with PC games. MS had bought many game studios and axed almost all of them including a personal favourite Ensemble Age of Empires series. I'm not very fond of MS new strategies. Microsoft Flight Simulator versions are native windows desktop application and unlike pc games it has an open structure with bgl, wav, bmp and so on files open to the user. It's a program made with advanced users in mind. Most users had to be pretty knowlegable at the time of the early simulators. As far as I know MS Flight probably will be restructured into todays normal game design because the average user no longer are pc experts.I feel sympathy for many of the hobbyists who enjoy making their own aircraft and scenery. The pc world has changed. At least MS Flight Simulator was one of the last to change into commercial. It looks like x-plane is the way to go for hobbyists not sticking with fsx. Recently tough MS released Xbox XNA so independent members of the xbox live community could have their go at making their own xbox games even though it is a closed platform. If the product passes the review it will be available to others in the xbox live shop who can purchase and give it 1 to 5 stars. Maybe it's a far shot but if members of the xbox community are allowed to program their own games, maybe members in MS Flight will get similar developement kits when MS Flight matures.-

[xplanery 250]

Really only area where Flight has major improvements from FSX is graphics, and thats just natural as FSX is already 6 years old. However still when compared to Aerofly FS Flight looks really nothing impressive.

[jcomm 6,005]

Why to you say so?I do not own Aerofly FS, nor did I participate on FLIGHT beta program, but I've been closely following each and every piece of information on both sims. The major reasons why I haven't yet ordered Aerofly FS is because:1) I still have great expectations on FLIGHT, and there are native features in the MS product, inherited from previous versions, that make it more appealing to me for a start - Additional systems modelling , being able to perform basic, but important engine management, including mixture settings, having ATC (and MSFS's ATC is still, even if flawed, the best around!!!), having time-of-day/day-of-year environment lighting variations, etc...2) I want to save my money for PSX ( :-) , ok, blame me... )3) In real life I fly gliders, and I believe the way Aerofly models gliders is certainly more convincing than the default gliders in FSX, but!, Aerosoft has their Discus line, and believe me, these are great, so, maybe in the future we will be able to add it to the FLIGHT platform (?)4) Regarding sophisticated airplane, namely airliner, operations, no other sim can do better, or even approach PS1, and in the future PSX. Yes it is "only" b744, but it's PERFECT, so, I will use FLIGHT for leisure flying - the same I would do with Aerofly FS... For gliding, I still use that specific great sim - Condorsoaring...5) There is yet another reason - I need time to invest in Flight Gear (ups!) The next version is really appealing, with the new autogen scenery....http://www.flightgear.org/news/flightgear-v2-6-release-candidates/

[...] However still when compared to Aerofly FS Flight looks really nothing impressive.

[sluggy 3]

Not many were to fond of Bill Gates, but he did license Flight Simulator and even thought internet would make it a better product. Aces was a pretty large team for a product that wasn't mainstream. I think Mr Gates allowed the team to go on many years after other game generes went dead. adventure games (Leisure Suit Larry) and realistic combat flight simulators (G-Lock, Falcon) and elite-type space exploration games are almost not being made. Flight Simulator outlived those most of those games by many years. When Bill Gates stepped down I think things went downhill with PC games. MS had bought many game studios and axed almostall of them including a personal favourite Ensemble Age of Empires series. I'm not very fond of MS new strategies. Microsoft Flight Simulator versions are native windows desktop application and unlike pc games it has an open structure with bgl, wav, bmp and so on files open to the user. It's a program made with advanced users in mind. Most users had to be pretty knowlegable at the time of the early simulators. As far as I know MS Flight probably will be restructured into todays normal game design because the average user no longer are pc experts.I feel sympathy for many of the hobbyists who enjoy making their own aircraft and scenery. The pc world has changed. At least MS Flight Simulator was one of the last to change into commercial. It looks like x-plane is the way to go for hobbyists not sticking with fsx. Recently tough MS released Xbox XNA so independent members of the xbox live community could have their go at making their own xbox games even though it is a closed platform. If the product passes the review it will be available to others in the xbox live shop who can purchase and give it 1 to 5 stars. Maybe it's a far shot but if members of the xbox community are allowed to program their own games, maybe members in MS Flight will get similar developement kits when MS Flight matures.-

This is one of the best posts I've read in this forum. Tinkerers like us are a dying breed these days.Cheers, SLuggy

[Dillon 2,198]

This is one of the best posts I've read in this forum. Tinkerers like us are a dying breed these days. Cheers, SLuggy

No your not... FSX has many years ahead of it as well as X-Plane and other options. Just evolve with the times and develop for another platform...