Disrespectful to ACES?

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

we don't ever have to use real money to buy add ons...it is just Microsoft Bucks

For some reason, that doesn't really give me any real feeling of assurance... :(

[N738NM 0]

I have to agree with this. MS cannot expect us to blindly invest good money into purchasing DLC when we do not know where the game is going. Time to end the secret squirrel stuff.

+1 I won't invest until I know what the plans for it are

+1 C'mon, Josh, tell us where this is all going? Do you folks at MSGS even have a plan? You must. So, lay it out for us. Good or bad. Are you people in Redmond serious about having the flight simulation community as customers? Are you going to unlock all these folders full of AI and ATC that beta testers have hinted exist? And, if so, how much is it going to cost us? Surely, someone over there must read these forums. So, let's hear it.

[ahuimanu 50]

More than 75% of the Flight devs are ex Aces.Fred.

75% of statistics are made up on the spot - the Web says so.

[n4gix 4,955]

it goes wiout sayimng that Flight wiil ber an omline purche only and rquir you to be online when playing the game.

Well, one out of two ain't bad! No one needs to be "online" while playing simming with Flight... :(

[AlphaInfinity 13]

SpiritFlyer was right on. A more incremental approach to the simulation might be the way to go. When I look at how Microsoft has evolved over the last 10 to 15 years(having worked there and been in the IT biz for 15 years now), I see that their approach to FSX was about the same as their whole portfolio of products. FSX never did anything really, really well. Much like Microsoft, it tried to do too many things and it turned out to be a mediocre at best. Did the product evolve and get better? Sure, but only because of 3rd party development efforts. Microsoft doesn't do anything really well anymore(with maybe the exception being their Office and Xbox lines of business). They dropped the ball on the mobile markets, their core business of designing operating systems took a black eye with Vista. Windows 8 looks like it will fall flat as most enterprises are just now making the transition to 7. Adoption rates for 2008 R2 have not met expectations. These guys just ended up fragmenting the talent base and as a result, they are no longer the envy of the software business. They need to take a page out of Apples playbook and focus on doing one thing and being the best at it.

Edited February 8, 2012 by AlphaInfinity

[JoeD 0]

Well, one out of two ain't bad! No one needs to be "online" while playing simming with Flight... :(

Are you 100% shure of that? :(

[JSkorna 137]

I am 100% sure of that.

[n4gix 4,955]

Are you 100% shure of that? :(

Considering that the servers have been off-line all day and it didn't stop me from flying around for eight straight hours, I'm "100% shure (sic) of that!" :(

[N738NM 0]

A more incremental approach to the simulation might be the way to go. When I look at how Microsoft has evolved over the last 10 to 15 years(having worked there and been in the IT biz for 15 years now), I see that their approach to FSX was about the same as their whole portfolio of products. FSX never did anything really, really well. Much like Microsoft, it tried to do too many things and it turned out to be a mediocre at best. Did the product evolve and get better? Sure, but only because of 3rd party development efforts.

Scott, I agree. And, I do see merit in purchasing only the locales, planes, and modules (the much rumored ATC and AI folders) that I want.But, I don't want to fly in Hawaii. And, I don't want to fly a Maule.What do I want? I want some news from Microsoft about how and when they are going to address flight-simulation-specific applications like ATC and AI and NAVAIDS. How much will it cost me to unlock those features (assuming that they are present per beta-tester hints)? And, if I do unlock those features, will they be as good as what the 3rd party developers have spent incredible amounts of time and energy creating?Per your post, that's the value of the 3rd party developers. I'm used to Orbx scenery, Carenado aircraft, MyTraffic Pro AI, and FlyTampa's Logan Airport. If MSGS could provide DLC content as good as that then I'd be the first in line (er, online) to buy my points or whatever I need to purchase them. Uh, that's assuming that the graphics and/or framerates are as improved in Flight as some beta-testers have suggested.Okay, Microsoft, so why not license an SDK with Flight? Your expertise this time was to improve the simulation and/or graphics engine (as allegedly you have done). So, now let others do the value-added work of making exquisite add-ons like those provided by Carenado, Orbx, FlyTampa, and PMDG. I know, I know, we've been down this road before in other threads, and we've even heard from some of the 3rd party developers.So, yes, I see merit in the incremental approach. And, yes, I agree that FSX was "jack of all trades, master of nothing" if you'll pardon the expression. And, yes, I'm glad that Microsoft has created a game that will bring the joy of flight to the masses (per their recent video). But, I just don't know what they have for me and other flight simulation enthusiasts. And, they're not telling us, which is even more frustrating.Do I hope that MSGS has the internal or external talent available to pull off additional content that is worth the money and the wait? Yes, but I'm a doubter.

[rtodepart 761]

so whats diferent from buying airports and planes for FSX to make it look and feel better than what we are goin to do with flight?

[Attila 2]

 

so whats diferent from buying airports and planes for FSX to make it look and feel better than what we are goin to do with flight?

If you do this, you get a good looking simulator. If you go with Flight you get a good looking game, with a lot of simulator functionality removed. When the game is released, many people will realize just how many features that were taken for granted in FSX will not be available. Everyone has different expectations from Flight, but the way things are, very few people will have nothing to complain about.

[rtodepart 761]

If you do this, you get a good looking simulator. If you go with Flight you get a good looking game, with a lot of simulator functionality removed. When the game is released, many people will realize just how many features that were taken for granted in FSX will not be available. Everyone has different expectations from Flight, but the way things are, very few people will have nothing to complain about.

my first version was FS95 latter by the time fs98 was about to be replace by FS2000 thats when i got tired of seating there and my desk not moving or taking off .that i went for real flight training . i hope you get the idea . my last one its the beta version of Flight . by the way i like what i see so far and i know my desk wont take off . we had paid a ton of money for other sim addons and i dont see no one mad when they had to pay to get diferent airports from the same developer and those airports were not 20$ with a plane included . So whats diferent from what flight has to offer as far as having to buy the rest of the world ????

[alepro 15]

I see very little support for Flight, quite the opposite. I do feel very sorry for the ACES guys who were let go. They had many good ideas, and they understood that the FS community is very important, while also adding some "arcadey" features to draw in new people. What the flight guys are doing is not at all new - it's the same idea ACES had. Just that ACES were smart enough to offer a rich simulator for serious simmers as well.

[RYR738 9]

Flight's devs are almost all ex Aces guys !!!!Did you not read the whole thread ?Fred.

Edited February 8, 2012 by RYR738

[corinoco 22]

There is only like five people on the planet that actually like flight, so don't worry this will all be over soon.

There's six. I'm looking forward to it as well.