Why can't we pull it together?

[dighost 25]

some of you have become so jaded by what you THINK Flight is

Arwen, it's not that we are jaded, it's what we know given the information we have been presented. Anyone can go on Youtube and see beta footage of the menu, settings and gameplay, it's all no big secret. There are testers talking about features, performance, etc all over the web. We know that some of the better third party developers will not be participating (unless MS does a 180 with their DLC program). We know that MS is making it more game-like. If you know something we don't, then fine-- it will be revealed to us in the future when we find out about it ourselves. Until then, you can't summarily lump us as being jaded.

[Arwen 289]

I disagree. In my opinion, many of you have become jaded. That is clearly evident by what I read in your posts.Many here have made up their minds that Flight can not possibly be a serious flightsim. So they spend many hours of their free time here posting all sorts of negative things about Flight (much of which is based only on speculation, or their interpretations of incomplete information) while ignoring anything that is contrary to their narrow view of Flight.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Arwen

[maxter 0]

We know that some of the better third party developers will not be participating...

Some being the operative word... I note that you did not say all... That's a positive start right there.Now if we could only keep in that vein...

[xplanery 250]

I disagree. In my opinion, many of you have become jaded. That is clearly evident by what I read in your posts.Many here have made up their minds that Flight can not possibly be a serious flightsim. So they spend many hours of their free time here posting all sorts of negative things about Flight (much of which is based only on speculation, or their interpretations of incomplete information) while ignoring anything that is contrary to their narrow view of Flight.

Then there is another side speculating how Flight would be serious simulator although they have no solid evidence either. (other than marketing speech which often has nothing to do with reality).All i require Flight to have is whole world modeled even with same quality that FSX has so I can fly anywhere I want with big planes, full third party support (unless Microsoft can make me PMDG quality addons and also release tons of places as freeware so I can download them) and some kind of ATC system.These are very reasonable demands that are a standard in all previous FS versions during last 12 years and in X plane too. Edited February 6, 2012 by FScamp

[dighost 25]

I disagree. In my opinion, many of you have become jaded. That is clearly evident by what I read in your posts.Many here have made up their minds that Flight can not possibly be a serious flightsim. So they spend many hours of their free time here posting all sorts of negative things about Flight (much of which is based only on speculation, or their interpretations of incomplete information) while ignoring anything that is contrary to their narrow view of Flight.

Care to enlighten all of us fools that have a narrow view of Flight?

[Arwen 289]

Then there is another side speculating how Flight would be serious simulator although they have no solid evidence either. (other than marketing speech which often has nothing to do with reality).

I happen to have very solid evidence (I just cannot share my evidence with you). Unlike most of the posters here, I'm basing my opinions of more than just guesses and speculation.

All i require Flight to have is whole world modeled even with same quality that FSX has so I can fly anywhere I want with big planes, full third party support (unless Microsoft can make me PMDG quality addons and also release tons of places as freeware so I can download them) and some kind of ATC system.These are very reasonable demands that are a standard in all previous FS versions during last 12 years and in X plane too.

You're not going to get the whole world modeled for free. Unlike FSX and X-Plane, the core game is FREE and you expand it by purchasing DLC. Most people don't need scenery that covers the entire world, because most would never fly over more than 10% of the planet. I would be very happy with Flight's DLC scenery coverage, as long as I'll eventually be able to purchase the specific regions I want to fly in, AND these areas are done with the same quality that Hawaii has be rendered. MS is not going to be releasing "tons of places as freeware" . . .that is contrary to Flight marketing model (you're getting the Flight core for free . . . it is the DLC that will fund Flight, and enable it to expand). Edited February 6, 2012 by Arwen

[Rush1169 0]

Care to enlighten all of us fools that have a narrow view of Flight?

There is really nothing more to add that hasn't been covered in a plethora of threads in the forum. There is no smoking gun today. There will be a day. There was a day when the world was flat. Those who believed the world was flat were not considered fools until after it was proven the world was actually a ball. There was a time when there were a few who strongly suspected world was a ball, but convincing others was futile until they could "prove it". It's OK to hold your ground on the side that Flight is rubbish. Just make sure you change your stance if you are proven wrong and I'll do the same.

[dighost 25]

Just make sure you change your stance if you are proven wrong and I'll do the same.

Sounds good to me!!

[xplanery 250]

You're not going to get the whole world modeled for free. Unlike FSX and X-Plane, the core game is FREE and you expand it by purchasing DLC. Most people don't need scenery that covers the entire world, because most would never fly over more than 10% of the planet. I would be very happy with Flight's DLC scenery coverage, as long as I'll eventually be able to purchase the specific regions I want to fly in, AND these areas are done with the same quality that Hawaii has be rendered. MS is not going to be releasing "tons of places as freeware" . . .that is contrary to Flight marketing model (you're getting the Flight core for free . . . it is the DLC that will fund Flight, and enable it to expand).

What if some longhauler wants to fly from London to for example Tokyo which are both big places and relatively popular at least for people to fly. Can that longhauler get any enjoyment from the trip if plane just teleports to other area, or if there is just nothing below to see during cruise?Also modeling whole world with quality that we have seen in pictures from Hawaii is surely not going to happen. Unless Microsoft wants to lower their standards a bit in some areas of Earth I see no way Flight could apply for those who like to fly long range mid continent flights, and lots of Flightsim community outside areas likely to have DLC packs.But yeah I am really not complaining, I still have my FSX and in future X Plane 10. Probably for those who like to fly in those regions that likely will be modeled for Flight will enjoy it. I just happen to like being an adventurer and flying to all most distant locations from "mainstream" point of view.

[Rush1169 0]

You're not going to get the whole world modeled for free.

What if some longhauler wants to fly from London to for example Tokyo which are both big places and relatively popular at least for people to fly

Then you pay Microsoft for the global coverage DLC. Then, if you want London and Tokyo in high-detail, you pay for the high-fidelity DLC of those two areas. No different than it is today. Edited February 6, 2012 by Rush1169

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Then you pay Microsoft for the global coverage DLC. Then, if you want London and Tokyo in high-detail, you pay for the high-fidelity DLC of those two areas. No different than it is today.

Sounds fair and sensible to me.

[Guest HowardHughes]

Sounds fair and sensible to me.

No it doesn't. It sounds utterly stupid. Mostly because you'd have to pay for;- London- The east coast of the UK- Norway- Sweden- Finland- Almost the entirety of Russia- Japan.All for one route.

[masneoquil 66]

No it doesn't. It sounds utterly stupid. Mostly because you'd have to pay for;- London- The east coast of the UK- Norway- Sweden- Finland- Almost the entirety of Russia- Japan.All for one route.

Read again his post.Global coverage, in low quality, London and tokio in high quality

[greengriffon 51]

Then you pay Microsoft for the global coverage DLC. Then, if you want London and Tokyo in high-detail, you pay for the high-fidelity DLC of those two areas. No different than it is today.

Considering it took MS this long to offer Hawaii which is only 11,000 square miles, more than half of it vegetation, in what century can we expect they'll be offering a "global coverage DLC" and anything remotely resembling a major metropolitan area? Let's also completely forget the fact that whatever city or region they develop next is going to be one shot in a thousand that it's something you actually want. The only reason we'll buy it is because by then, we'll be incredibly sick of Hawaii.I'm sure Flight is going to be fun, however I've already made my peace with the idea that it will be focused on simulating the experience of flight, and NOT the experience of air travel.There's a huge difference between the two. Edited February 7, 2012 by greengriffon

[Rush1169 0]

Considering it took MS this long to offer Hawaii which is only 11,000 square miles, more than half of it vegetation

OK. How long did it take?

in what century can we expect they'll be offering a "global coverage DLC" and anything remotely resembling a major metropolitan area?

Considering they already have global coverage and major metro area on the shelf (think back to FSX), not very long indeed.

Let's also completely forget the fact that whatever city or region they develop next is going to be one shot in a thousand that it's something you actually want. The only reason we'll buy it is because by then, we'll be incredibly sick of Hawaii.

I live in S Central US. No 3PD has ever made anything interesting in my area. I've still bought other scenery areas and stuff. Yeah, I would have preferred my local airport, but for me and a great majority of users, our specific area has always been a long shot, so we buy NY, Vegas, Chicago, PNW, London, et al - I never even had one ounce of hope that my stomping ground would ever been done by *anyone*, but that didn't stop me from enhancing my experience - I just had to pick a different starting point.To expand a little, I've never gotten sick of any specific 11,000 square mile area. My flying is 99% on guages, procedures, tuning, keeping level, throttle, etc. I like seeing a city and airport when I take off and land, but the enroute scenery is the least important. I like flying a lot more than looking. I know, everyone is different.