Let's no loose sight of the following:In addition to exploring the Big Island of Hawaii for free, you can unlock access to the skies over the remaining Hawaiian Islands by purchasing the Hawaiian Adventure Pack, the first in a series of expansions for Microsoft Flight, which includes:

• Hundreds of miles to explore
• Stunning recreations of landmark features, from the breathtaking Waimea Canyon in Kaua’i to the high-rise hotels of Waikiki
• New challenges
• 20 new missions
• The Vans RV-6A, a two-seat, single-engine, low-wing homebuilt airplane made famous for its speed and maneuverability

S0, Flight is nothing like FSX in the respect that you never be able to fly beyond the Hawiiain Islands for a while and even then who knows? With every expansion of flight you wiil need your credit card. on file with MS. So, when one can fly to any given place is anyone's guess.. .....who wiil need anything more than a single engine GA aircraft?It Just a flying game and any hype that it a real fligjht sim is nothing short of misleading and borders on blatent lying!Like I said previously, I would have no problem paying a premium price for a world wide sim. Flight will never be a real sim and does anyone even have an idea how much it wiil eventually cost to purchase all the expansion packs to fly world wide even it they even become available? MS obviously wants to have you hooked with your credit card on file, for years and years..It wiil be very revealing to know just how much the first expansion pack wiil cost that wiil only consist of a couple of islands,.

Edited February 8, 201214 yr by JoeD

It wiil be very revealing to know just how much the first expansion pack wiil cost that wiil only consist of a couple of islands,.

We already know, in term of USD, it will be roughly $20 for the islands and the Van, which according to n4gix, it breaks down to $5 for the scenery + missions and $15 for the aircraft. Now considering that you pay $35 for GEX Tropical/Carribean for only a set of textures, the $20 for a plane and the scenery sounds pretty reasonable.

We already know, in term of USD, it will be roughly $20 for the islands and the Van, which according to n4gix, it breaks down to $5 for the scenery + missions and $15 for the aircraft. Now considering that you pay $35 for GEX Tropical/Carribean for only a set of textures, the $20 for a plane and the scenery sounds pretty reasonable.

That is like saying you can either purchase a car one section at a time or you can customze a complete car and there is no difference. Personally, I like to drive a car off the lot with a heater and windshield, etc. You are failing to acknowledge that FSX came out of the box with many types of aircraft, a complete world with all textures! One does not have to add anything to have a complete sim. $20 for a couple of small islands that are mostly unihabited using already included textures? I wonder how much the whole pacific ocean wiil cost using that model. Please don't mention aircraft.... what flight sim does not alrady include aircraft?

Edited February 8, 201214 yr by JoeD

That is like saying you can either purchase a car one section at a time or you can customze a complete car and there is no difference. Personally, I like to drive a car off the lot with a heater and windshield, etc.You are failing to acknowledge that FSX came out of the box with many types of aircraft, a complete world with all textures! One does not have to add anything to have a complete sim.$20 for a couple of small islands that are mostly unihabited using already included textures? I wonder how much the whole pacific ocean wiil cost using that model. Please don't mention aircraft.... what flight sim does not alrady include aircraft?

That was not my point. I'm not telling you how good Flight is or will be or how practical it will be. I was pointing out what MS is charging for the expansion pack gives you way more than what a lot of addons for FSX have to offer.

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by sibtiger

That was not my point. I'm not telling you how good Flight is or will be or how practical it will be. I was pointing out what MS is charging for the expansion pack gives you way more than what a lot of addons for FSX have to offer.

There is a difference in FSX add-ons and Flight DLC (Hawaii for now). Choice. The FSX add-on market is fragmented somewhat when it comes to scenery, because not everyone wants to fly everywhere in high detail, but everyone can already fly wherever they want. Hence the higher price.In the case of Flight, there is only one choice as of now for scenery and a few choices of aircraft. So, everyone needs to buy these if they want to evaluate Flight for future use. The price is too high unless you would have bought Hawaii for FSX, which I would not have done and didn't. So for me, neither the scenery nor the aircraft are attractive for the price, whereas I would pay even more for scenery that I would actually want to fly in.People are willing to pay $70+ for aircraft because it is what they want to fly. No matter how detailed and how good the Maule is, if it is not what I want to fly I may buy it for a very low price, but not for $15. Toss it in with some others in a pack and I may give it a try.

There is a difference in FSX add-ons and Flight DLC (Hawaii for now). Choice. The FSX add-on market is fragmented somewhat when it comes to scenery, because not everyone wants to fly everywhere in high detail, but everyone can already fly wherever they want. Hence the higher price.In the case of Flight, there is only one choice as of now for scenery and a few choices of aircraft. So, everyone needs to buy these if they want to evaluate Flight for future use. The price is too high unless you would have bought Hawaii for FSX, which I would not have done and didn't. So for me, neither the scenery nor the aircraft are attractive for the price, whereas I would pay even more for scenery that I would actually want to fly in.People are willing to pay $70+ for aircraft because it is what they want to fly. No matter how detailed and how good the Maule is, if it is not what I want to fly I may buy it for a very low price, but not for $15. Toss it in with some others in a pack and I may give it a try.

But then you don't have to buy any DLC at this point. Wait a bit until MS releases additional ones. In the meantime, you can still use FSX, at least that is what I'm going to do to.

N738 just wait and you will see on your own .

Hi, RT. As I mentioned in another post, it's going to be a long three weeks. I just hope there's more behind the curtain than Josh Howard and a bunch of flying monkeys (uh, flying pun intended). Okay, see my follow-on thoughts below.

Not only improve.Quote: - "Microsoft Flight is a new approach to a beloved franchise. It is a completely separate product from FSX,"...A short time left ........Disagree? :(

Hi,Torium. I appreciated your response. And, I can't disagree with all the quotes you provided as counterpoint (omitted the bulk for brevity). However, a quote is still just a quote, it's talk, it's a sound byte. I know these are hackneyed expressions, but "talking the talk" and "walking the walk" are not the same (and MS doesn't have an entirely clean record on this one). I mean, MSGS can say these things (and yes, I've read most of the quotes), but are they all true, will all aspects of the project come to fruition? (or will the entire project run out of steam and collapse like a deck of cards) Hmmmm, a long, long three weeks (and longer for different DLC) indeed.

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by N738NM

I mean, MSGS can say these things (and yes, I've read most of the quotes), but are they all true, will all aspects of the project come to fruition?

Good point.John Venema (Orbx) stated: - "We will no longer pre-announce any products in development. We will not announce release dates at all ...."And the reason is obvious.Howard (Microsoft) said: - "Overall, the game is a lot more experimental than past Flight Simulator games. Offering the game as a free-to-play title opens up new options for experimentation and innovation".And "experimentation and innovation" = quick changes.An example of uncertainty:Howard (Microsoft) said: - "Should we put in more 'gold rushes'? Users are having a really hard time here - what did they, and we - get wrong?Additional content will be at a price point that "feels good to them. Over time, there will always be more to come."We must expect some changes.

Considering that it would have been just as easy to have preserved many features from FSX, but they have been removed

Do you really think Microsoft will give you all (updated) features from FSX - free?

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.

Of course not. But you are still wrong.wikipedia.org: - "In the 1980s, Walmart continued to grow rapidly, and by its 25th anniversary in 1987 there were 1,198 stores with sales of $15.9 billion and 200,000 associates."If Wal-Mart has limited space in the store - they build a new store - using (at the end) money from their customers.If Wal-Mart remove stuff that sells poorly, they loose many, many customer ($$).Why do you think Wal-Mart sells some goods at lower price than the cost price?Why do you think Microsoft "sells" Flight (base pack) at lower price (0 $) than the cost price?Why do you think Orbx give you freeware (lower price than the cost price)?

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.

Sorry, you don't understand my "red line"? IF "arcade-addons" for Flight sell well, then MS can make things for the faithful.One example:"The faithful" (e.g. 10 000 customer) won't buy Flight-addons (DLC) because ATC have been removed.10 000 customer x 0 $ = 0 M$"The faithful" will pay 10 $ for "Flight-ATC".10 000 customer x 10 $ = 100 000 $MS compile ATC-app from FSX --> Flight + new installer = ? M$ (cost price more than 100 000 $ ? :( ).Selling Price (100 000 $) - Cost Price (? $) = ? MicrosoftNow "The faithful" will pay 100 $ for some new Flight-addons (DLC).10 000 customer x 100 $ = 1000 000 $

So, then. MS decided not to focus on the faithful because it was just not profitable enough.

Right: Not profitable - enough. MSFS want (need) their flight sim business grow.Quote: -"Flight's challenge is to bring back the Flight Simulator fans, as well as attract a new generation ."1 (Flight Simulator fans) + 1 (new generation) = 2 (flight sim business grow).

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.

Bill Gates said: - "Our success has really been based on partnerships from the very beginning. Pick good people, use small teams and give them great tools so that they are very productive in terms of what they are doing. An important re-engineering principle is that companies should focus on their core competence and outsource everything else."Joshua Howard said: -"The plan was to turn the wonder of flight into a piece of software that will appeal to anyone at all interested in aviation, not just the hardcore simmers."1 (Maule M-7-260C) + 1 ("Mustangs without a cockpit" - crap) = 2 (flight sim business grow).

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.

Yes. You're right. But may become something like FSXI?However, the "watered-down product" is FREE. Then you decide what you want or need to put on top of "the base pack".If you prefer FSX - stay with it. Or do as I: Use both!

So, I understand perfectly well what MS is doing. It is a shameful way of doing it, but I understand.

A shameful way of doing it? Why? Explain?Arwen said: - "I'm pretty sure that the success of Flight's DLC is what will determine just how far Flight will advance."Yes, I agree.

A shameful way of doing it? Why? Explain?

For my reply, please see the excellent post by Mike T athttp://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__2254149

For my reply, please see the excellent post by Mike T athttp://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__2254149

A quick summary of Mike's excellent points would be:"MS said we were going to get a gourmet dinner. What we got is a half-baked rutabaga"

A quick summary of Mike's excellent points would be:"MS said we were going to get a gourmet dinner. What we got is a half-baked rutabaga"

Where exactly did it say that Bill?

"MS said we were going to get a gourmet dinner. What we got is a half-baked rutabaga"

When/where said Microsoft:Flight = FSXI (or similar)?Link please.

Where exactly did it say that Bill?

Does Flight meet the criteria MS has posted in their various carefully crafted statements. Even if one puts the most pessimistic spin on what was so carefully wordsmithed, in reality Flight comes out a very pale shadow of even that.However, that said Flight does still have the potential to actually meet the cited strategic vision, but that would require some fundamental shifts in the actual tactics applied.

When/where said Microsoft:Flight = FSXI (or similar)?Link please.

Show me where my gourmet dinner vice rutubaga analogy implied what you seem to believe it did?

There are X-ACES people working on FLIGHT.FSX might have tried to do too many things at once and. A more incremental approach might have had better success.

I completely disagree. What FSX needed was some loving to iron out the bugs (e.g. memory leaks, fix the terrain textures, etc..) and some code optimization. Other than that it is pretty decent overall. It really needed a new flight model but at this point I have another sim that is decades ahead of its time for that.Best regards,Robin.