DLC more expensive then I hoped

[Glynn 405]

Besides, until anyone has flown FLIGHT and see the magic for themselves it is ridiculous for them to compare it with the earlier outdated versions

Hello StephenI have flown it and I fail to see the "magic".For what it is (a basic flying game) it is well done, but nowhere near being a sim at this point in time, we need much more.If the extent of your sim flying is VFR with a basic joystick/yoke setup then you may be entertained for a while and for those folks it will be great.BUT if you have thousands invested in hardware controls and enjoy flight planning, ATC, major airports and airliner type simulation then I doubt Flight! will ever be an option.I hope that I am proven wrong though.

[Silver_Dragon 411]

Carenado aircraft win ALL Flight airplanes, please don´t sell smoke please

[JSkorna 137]

Carenado aircraft win ALL Flight airplanes, please don´t sell smoke please

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[meshman 109]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Translates to Carenado's planes are better than those in Flight. Microsoft, please don't give us a smoke and mirrors product.Yo entiendo castellano poquito, or something like that...

[Arwen 289]

And they have vastly more content. To the order of a 100 times.I'm not sure how you can say that paying £16 for an area the size and 'quality' of the Hawiaan chain is good value. In fact I'd say it's horrendous value.To replicate the 24 default aircraft of FSX Deluxe you'd have to spend £264.Sill sound like good value?

My point was that you're getting more than just the scenery. If MS feels that the Maule is worth $15, then they must feel that the RV is worth about the same $15, meaning that the scenery by itself is likely valued at something closer to $10 (based on being reduced as part of an intro DLC package), which seems reasonable to me. In my opinion, the basic aircraft are a poor option and a bad decision by MS. Only fully functional aircraft should be available, and priced from $10 or so for the smaller, less complex aircraft.I don't know where Flight is headed, or if it will succeed. All I'm saying is give it a chance. Then we all have to decide as individuals where we will get the best return for our flightsim dollar ... with Flight's DLC, addons for FSX/X-Plane, P3D's monthly fee, or a new regional sim like Aerofly FS? This is a decision that I'll be making as well over the next few months.If Flight succeeds then we have more available options, and I view that as a very positive thing.If Flight fails, then that leave an pretty big gap, since it will likely mean that MS is no longer a Flightsim contender. Hopefully another company will eventually fill that gap. Edited February 6, 2012 by Arwen

[JSkorna 137]

Translates to Carenado's planes are better than those in Flight. Microsoft, please don't give us a smoke and mirrors product.Yo entiendo castellano poquito, or something like that...

Thanks!

[ViperPilot 81]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Translates to Carenado's planes are better than those in Flight. Microsoft, please don't give us a smoke and mirrors product.Yo entiendo castellano poquito, or something like that...

He's just trying to make a point... I'm sure he knows what he wants to say; the translation's a little off, that's all.His opinion is just as germane to this conversation as everyone elses.Alan

[RYR738 9]

I really think that a lot of folks are just not seeing the Bigger Picture here !MS are giving us a brand new and sophisticated flight simulator platform and a large island to try it out on and it is for FREE !!The level of detail on both the planes and scenery is incredible and you can add all the islands and the fantastic Vans RV-6 for just another 20 dollars !!I think you guys are missing the whole point here !!Fred.

[Gibbage 199]

To replicate the 24 default aircraft of FSX Deluxe you'd have to spend £264.

How many people here even fly default aircraft? How much would it cost you to fly a RV-6 in a OrbX quality Hawaii? $60? Sound like a good value now?

[Glynn 405]

I really think that a lot of folks are just not seeing the Bigger Picture here !MS are giving us a brand new and sophisticated flight simulator platform and a large island to try it out on and it is for FREE !!The level of detail on both the planes and scenery is incredible and you can add all the islands and the fantastic Vans RV-6 for just another 20 dollars !!I think you guys are missing the whole point here !!Fred.

HelloNo Fred, we are missing the entire world, complex airliners and ATC, thats all

[Rush1169 0]

I really have no intention of buying the Ivory Coast or Ukraine airports anytime soon anyway, so what in the world (pun intended) do I want with 25,000 airports anyway?

Nobody has ever come remotely close to 'painting' the globe with the track of their FSX plane, however, there is a valid argument for those wanting to fly between two long-distance points. For example, LA to NY. If you have the LA scenery and the NY scenery, what happens enroute if you don't have the region(s) in between? There has to be something between the two points. That brings us to the decision Microsoft made to limit the initial release of Flight to Hawaii. Hawaii keeps things simple. We all know there is more to the world that Hawaii, but, realistically it is impossible to fly any of the available aircraft to a mainland because you'd run out of fuel before you could make it. So, the whole "problem" of what's between two distant points doesn't defy realism at this stage of Flight. As development progresses, there will exist the very unrealistic scenerio of having a plane that can carry enough fuel to go between two distant scenery areas. It is a problem that, without a doubt, will have to be addressed.As it stands right now, Hawaii is plenty of area for the given planes as none of them could make it mainland on a tank of fuel and because it's surrounded by water, there is nothing unrealistic about the presentation. Hawaii was a very logical scenery area to introduce us to Flight. Consider if, on launch day, Microsoft made available a 737. That plane can make it to mainland on a tank, but for the user, there would be nothing there upon arrival. That's silly and it's the reason why there are no long-haul planes currently.How MS will handle the issue of "what's in between" is anyone's guess. I'm sure MS already knows the answer. I'll guess that, since they already have the database of land, airports, and navaids, they will probably release for example, most or all of N America land coverage, but maybe included with that is just the airports and navaids of the United States. Such that if you fly to Canada, you will lose navigation and airports, but the land will be there and if you stay inside the US, you'll be able to navigate to and land at any airport (in FSX level detail). So, let's say you buy SoCal, you'll get that area in fine detail, the rest of N American land at "normal" quality, and United States land+airports+navaids in "normal" quality.

[dighost 25]

Good luck to MS with their failed pricing model. There was fire and hell over the cost of $15.00 for the extra DLC pack for Call of Duty. MS will need to price the DLC much, much lower if it is going to get the buys. I mean the whole point of microcharging DLC is to get the buyer to pay a buck here, a couple bucks there--- then watch as the totals add up.

[RYR738 9]

@ mad dogWhy would MS give you all that free in the base pack ?Don't think for a moment that Flight will not have ATC.Fred.

Edited February 6, 2012 by RYR738

[RichLP 32]

I'm an old old timer... and I can remember the days before whole world coverage flying cross country between scenery areas with absolutely nothing but green space in between...Not that I expected to go back to that...

[Rush1169 0]

How many people here even fly default aircraft? How much would it cost you to fly a RV-6 in a OrbX quality Hawaii? $60? Sound like a good value now?

Don't forget +$70 for the FS program. So, $130 for a nicely done RV-6 + Orbx Hawaii + the base game engine. Edited February 6, 2012 by Rush1169