Arwen, on 07 February 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:Flight definitely has the potential to replace FSX . . . IF the Team is allowed to take Flight to that level.

Why not?

My reason why this might not happen was just a few lines up in that same post that you quoted:"I am concerned about the DLC pricing, because if the DLC doesn't sell well, Flight is virtually dead in the water. And I do want it to succeed."And I'm pretty sure that the success of Flight's DLC is what will determine just how far Flight will advance.

I guess I am one of the original five.

My reason why this might not happen was just a few lines up in that same post that you quoted:"I am concerned about the DLC pricing, because if the DLC doesn't sell well, Flight is virtually dead in the water. And I do want it to succeed."And I'm pretty sure that the success of Flight's DLC is what will determine just how far Flight will advance.

. As far as i know there is a few that belive Flight and the MSmarket place can become our new money pitt . before the beta there was plenty of hints/feedback on what was goin to be the best selling products on the ms market when it comes to flight .After the beta all those hints and feedback was confirmed . I also hope the aditional content thats been in the works and not tested by anyone on the beta sells well . before and after the Beta i did my best to provide some help (for free). Now lets wait till the 29 ....

I'm just really annoyed at MS, by the way beta testers were blind-sided by yesterday's news.

Obviously I've missed something...what was yesterday's news?

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

That would mean the entire team consists of 4 people then.

There was a VERY LONG period of time from when public announcement of Flight's release was made until when the announcement was made to the beta team. Some of us thought than MAYBE they should have let us know FIRST.

And the announcement of the release came while I was still getting to grips logging into my Beta account again...... wooooshhh ! What Beta ?

As expected, we all have different opinions on the Flying Car game, and so for it appears that 10 or 11 people :( actually are on board the train. It is impossible to tell how it will turn out. Based on the Stupid, in your face crap that has been dribbled out of Microsoft both written and in video's make it impossible for most of us to make any kind of informed decision. It's is starting to appear that MS was even playing games with the Beta Test folks who were trying to do a good thing for the community. Stephen said that he was mis-informed or mis-directed by MS. Stephen in a very kind guy but down here in the south that is what we call being lied too and we don't like it very much!! I don't really care who likes or dislikes this thing. I see alot of numbers and percentages thrown around. He is another one or two: I am 64 years old and have been around the world more than once. One of the things that I learned is correct 100 percent of the time: there is no such thing as free. No matter how or where the word is used, it should set off an alarm for you. This entire goat rope and scam is based on "MS is giving you this simulator for free" all you have to do now is........well there is that alarm again....hear it!!

Flight is a new approach in trying to fleece people, but there is no precedent to base the rest of the statements on. Namely that Flight will be continually improved and that it is not a finished product. For all you know, it is a finished product, just as FSX was on release and it will take 6+ months to come out with fixes and the so called "improvements".

Where can I find this information?Quote: "But they would rather launch now and not have everything than wait and let the product age."Microsoft would rather launch Flight - "is a finished product now" - and not have everything than wait and let the product age."Funny stuff.

If MS had thought that the FSX features missing from Flight would cost them money, they would have included them from day one. To think that if Flight succeeds they will spend that money to put new features in for the simulation enthusiasts is a fallacy.

What are you talking about? Missing features?Quote: "Weather conditions are settable. When there is more geography in the game, they may add more features prevalent to a larger scale map. Such as the feature introduced in FS9, of being able to download information from real world weather stations, and have the game simulate them."

Maintenance of the code and making improvements is cost effective only if MS can sell more or higher priced DLC.

Naturally.

If this all sells as they expect, they will have no reason to add any new features to Flight.

So if Wal-Mart "sells as they expect, they will have no reason to add any new" product on the shelves?Growth is the goal of every business owner, even MS.Quote: - "It became too easy for previous teams to focus on the faithful. While this could be seen as a good thing, at some point this became a burden that stopped the product from expanding."Focus on the faithful - stopped the product from expanding!Do you really understand why this became a burden?

Arwen, you said: "IF the Team is allowed..."But the Team (Microsoft) want growing or expanding a business. Flight is most likely to expand into a new segment of ...... :(

And I'm pretty sure that the success of Flight's DLC is what will determine just how far Flight will advance.

Agree. And if not = Business plan "B".Anyway exciting.....

Where can I find this information?Quote: "But they would rather launch now and not have everything than wait and let the product age."Microsoft would rather launch Flight - "is a finished product now" - and not have everything than wait and let the product age."Funny stuff.What are you talking about? Missing features?Quote: "Weather conditions are settable. When there is more geography in the game, they may add more features prevalent to a larger scale map. Such as the feature introduced in FS9, of being able to download information from real world weather stations, and have the game simulate them."Naturally.So if Wal-Mart "sells as they expect, they will have no reason to add any new" product on the shelves?Growth is the goal of every business owner, even MS.Quote: - "It became too easy for previous teams to focus on the faithful. While this could be seen as a good thing, at some point this became a burden that stopped the product from expanding."Focus on the faithful - stopped the product from expanding!Do you really understand why this became a burden?

About Flight being finished. In my view it is functionally complete. The UI is set, the manual is set, the target audience is set and the DLC is the only thing that will be developed based on what sells. Considering that it would have been just as easy to have preserved many features from FSX, but they have been removed, You need to refer to your line in red. More on this later.If Wal-Mart has limited space in the store, it will not remove stuff that sells well in favor of something that it knows did not sell well enough to continue selling before. ie: MS will not divert resources from developing things that sell well to make things for the faithful, that did not sell well enough. See your red line again.So, then. MS decided not to focus on the faithful because it was just not profitable enough. So, if their new-found market that likes Mustangs without a cockpit is selling better and all of their designers are busy turning out more of the same, why would they ever want to spend time on something that will result in the aforementioned product that stopped FSX from expanding.Clearly, in MS's view, FSX reached a critical mass, where maintaining and developing the feature heavy product was not returning enough. Now, MS is trying to cash in on the 25-year success of MSFS and use it to sell a watered-down product and MS is trying to feed just enough nonsense to everyone to keep their hopes alive that one day in some far future - if they support Flight - Flight may become something resembling what they once had in FSX.Why? So they can again be at the same point as they were with FSX?So, I understand perfectly well what MS is doing. It is a shameful way of doing it, but I understand.

That would mean the entire team consists of 4 people then.

There are at least 8 former Aces devs working on Flight. 8 of the best actually.Fred.

There are at least 8 former Aces devs working on Flight. 8 of the best actually.Fred.

Yes, but are they allowed to do what they want to do or are they slaves to the bean-counters?

Slaves of course ! Just as they were with FSX.MS pays very well for serious talent !!

Edited February 8, 201214 yr by RYR738

Clearly, in MS's view, FSX reached a critical mass, where maintaining and developing the feature heavy product was not returning enough. Now, MS is trying to cash in on the 25-year success of MSFS and use it to sell a watered-down product and MS is trying to feed just enough nonsense to everyone to keep their hopes alive that one day in some far future - if they support Flight - Flight may become something resembling what they once had in FSX.Why? So they can again be at the same point as they were with FSX?So, I understand perfectly well what MS is doing. It is a shameful way of doing it, but I understand.

Well said!