"....... They have been too used to making a fortune on their own up to now......"

You know Jeremy Clarkson of Topgear? I must use his most famous quote in reaction to the above: RUBBISH. ;-)

You know Jeremy Clarkson of Topgear? I must use his most famous quote in reaction to the above: RUBBISH. ;-)

And on that bombshell..... :DGreat blog, Francois. I've not been following the development saga of Flight that closely, but the more I've heard the less excited I felt about it. When it turned out it was going to be a very restricted gaming area my feelings were it was basically in the tradition of Flight Unlimited. However FU came with a variety of flyable aircraft and quite a large area to fly in, not to mention a good ATC system, traffic, and very nice weather effects. Flight appears to be a very much less capable game. Flight Limited if you will, or perhaps less kindly FUX. Hawaii is a very strange choice. It limits the international appeal of the game, the weather is always going to be nice and one island looks very much like another after a while.Flight is going down the same business model route that Neoqb's Rise of Flight tried (and basically failed). Not enough people bought into the idea of buying extra aircraft. But at least RoF had good game content (OK, combat isn't everybody's cup of tea, but it also has excellent graphics and good flight dynamics).Even the screenshot slideshows and videos available on the Flight preview website are slow and clunky in the true Microsoft tradition. A total turn off. I see nothing in Flight that can't already be done in FSX with quality add-ons. Flight is basically a subset of FSX. There is simply no point in buying into it.If MS wanted to concentrate on the sensation of flight, rather than the mechanics of it, why not ditch the aircraft altogether and simulate bird flight. Now that would be a game I'd be interested in. There'd be a real incentive to buy a new downloadable species with totally different flight capabilities and survival regimes.

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by kevinh

I see nothing in Flight that can't already be done in FSX with quality add-ons.

Not the first time we hear from a non beta tester claiming they know all there is to Flight.

Not the first time we hear from a non beta tester claiming they know all there is to Flight.

Even though some of us weren't unfortunate enough to waste our time beta testing Flight, we can assume plenty by looking at the press releases and the various previews. You can easily infer who the target audience is when you read about things like "mission packs" and the manner in which they are approaching the project (focusing more on hyped up scenery areas--like Hawaii).Hey, I didn't beta test Fighter Pilot 2 on Miniclips either (I've never played it but found it with a simple google search). Nevertheless, I can tell you with certainty that it's not designed to be an accurate fighter simulation. I would go as far as to tell you that there is nothing realistic about it.

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by Lawyer+Pilot

Even though some of us weren't unfortunate enough to waste our time beta testing Flight, we can assume plenty by looking at the press releases and the various previews.

But you cannot experience the immersion of flying the RV-6A in Flight, or experience how well the aircraft's flight model is done.

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by Arwen

But you cannot experience the immersion of flying the RV-6A in Flight, or experience how well done the aircraft's flight model is done.

Exactly. Assumption is not always right before you actually try it.

I really wonder if when ACES and 3pds were talking about FSX and the next iteration of what FS should have been made it up the line to MS execs; if they didn't get scared. When you think of the next logical iteration of FS and what it was supposed to be...or what ACES/3pds/customers wanted; if it became too large of a project even for MS to undertake.One could argue that FS11 probably could have been a cleanup of FSX, etc..., but the direction being taken at that time; I think they really wanted to write an all around sim ala MMO capturing all types of simmers (killing 4 birds with 1 stone).In a way I think Flight is almost a cop out title.FS11 could have had both a DLC store while being a full sim at the same time. Sorry for sounding like a broken record...lol.

Dillon stated,"I'm just asking for information purposes. Flight Simulator helped me become a real world pilot so I can't understand how a tool like this could get dumbed down and many are fine with it unless there's other reasons"Yes,pressure from commercial level D sim companys.

Jeez, I'm always late for the party. Uh, what hasn't already been said?

The lack of these features, along with the apparent lack of information from the Flight team are part of what have so many FS enthusiasts up in arms.

+1

The flourishing and largely undiscriminating add-on market revealed to MS that they were under-valuing FS. Unwittingly, they had created a sort of mini-operating system or ecosystem on which others could, in effect, run their own code. Flight was a perfectly rational response: it is a reduction of FSX, slightly prettier in parts, and re-packaged in a way that lets MS sell back the individual components of FSX at a price which seems high but which MS hope will isolate, or establish, their market value.

Yup.

I dare say most of those who toss around such silly remarks probably will get more in their annual tax refund than I made this past year...

Yikes, father, you really did take a vow of poverty. I paid my share with the XL2.Uh-oh, did I just become a "quoter" unwittingly. Ah, what the hell (sorry padre), it's only talk. It's going to be a long three weeks.

But you cannot experience the immersion of flying the RV-6A in Flight, or experience how well the aircraft's flight model is done.

Arwen, in your above quote you typed a word that I think has always been, and will continue to be the driving force in this hobby (at least for me); I highlighted it.(I can't articulate what I want to say yet without it sounding like either mindless babble or pointless drivel, so I won't...)Alan :(

Hey Alan,Immersion is VERY important for me also. I don't mind adding some of my own babble to this (because this needs to be said):Without immersion, there is no sense of realism. Immersion is what makes a flightsim more than just a game.And this is where Flight really shines (and is why I am such a strong supporter of Flight).

FS11 could have had both a DLC store while being a full sim at the same time.

Not if it was based on the FSX codebase.Software architecture isn't called 'architecture' for no reason - there are a lot of similarities in between the fields. The main being design of complex structures, and that sometimes it really is better to throw EVERYTHING away and start again from fresh.It looks a lot like what MS is doing with Flight. Some assets are always kept - scenery data is easily reusable. Some assets have to go - the easily copyable (piratable) aircraft model system for a start!Lets face it - one of the BIGGEST problems with the entire 3PD economy is piracy. A previous commenter gave an example of his annual profits, and from what I have read over the years this is not unusual. Flight sim modding is still a cottage industry, prey to piracy as there is no inherent security built into the CODEBASE. Security relies on 'wrappers' and dll 'locks' - both very easy to circumvent. Google 'pmdg torrent' - 1.5x10^6 hits. A secure codebase can ONLY be built fromt he ground up - you can't 'tack-on' security like that, because at it's core, FSX needs unencrypted files to run.A cottage industry is exactly what indie game production was 10 years ago. Look at what Valve, the Xbox Marketplace and Apple have done for indie game writers. It is now a MASSIVE industry. It might still be carried out in cottages, or flats, or schools, but now it is a VIABLE industry, not just a hobby. The floor my office is on has 8 tenancies - every other tenant on our floor are APP WRITERS employing between 5-10 people each. Three years ago when we moved in here the building was deserted - we were the first tenants for years, we took it because it was cheap!Sure, MS want 30% of the return of a game on Xbox live, and presumably the same cut from Flight addons. (Where do people get the idea there will be no 3PD addons?), but compare that to the 'cut' 3PDs take from piracy - more like 70%? 90%?Hearing about ORBX and PMDG not reaching agreements was disappointing, but we know very little about the failed agreements. I don't think this necessarily means we wont see addons of their class for Flight, any more than EA not being a release partner for the Apple App Store resulting in no decent games on iOS. In a way, the lack of the larger 3PDs at launch is a GOOD thing - it opens up the field to smaller devs who may not have had the opportunity before.Despite what has been said, I'd be confident of seeing ORBX releasing DLC for Flight within a year or so. If not, hey, maybe I will have to explore other parts of the world.

Uh, what hasn't already been said?

Artichoke. No-one has mentioned artichokes yet. Until now.

N738NM, on 08 February 2012 - 10:41 PM, said:Uh, what hasn't already been said?Artichoke. No-one has mentioned artichokes yet. Until now.

Thanks for the laugh, Corinoco. However, you may be right considering the the path this thread has taken. And, frankly, I'm turning into a vegetable trying to read all of these threads. See ya.

Arwen,I would like to give Flight a try, but there's one limitation for me; it's called single core system.I use FS 9... FSX, Orbx, REX are not options for me. I use a selection of freeware add ons found in the various File Libraries.Payware additions? Two Carenado Cessnas, a CLS Piper Arrow, and the Quest Kodiak. Everything else is freeware from... uh huh.Am I sad? No. Bitter, whiny, angry? Of course not!Why? Immersion.I use what I have, and try to be creative. How? Well, I immerse myself in research, and use FS as the experience driver. Reading books, viewing video,reading stories and articles on the Web... then using FS 9 to experience how it was (or is).So I don't see photoreal scenery out the windows; big deal. I'm not landing at iFly Tampa... oh well. I have more pressing things to do; like flying.Setting the next NDB freq into the radio. Looking at the GPS for reference. Checking CHT and LOP settings. Looking at my sectional.One has to do the same things regardless of the Sim, right?That's why I said immersion is the key, no matter whether it's the 737NGX, or the Default C-172. How one interacts with what's been createdis where the fun, the satisfaction and the joy comes from.So, to the masses out there...If you really like Flight, that's totally awesome!If Flight isn't your cup of tea, then so be it. To each his own. Use what you have, or what fits your ideas of a 'flight sim'.HAVE FUN! :((See? I told you it would look like psychobabble... )Alan :(

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by ViperPilot

After posting my thoughts on my blog, word got out.... also onto Facebook where I spend most of my days nowadays.I had a brief encounter with Paul Lange, the man I see as the driving force behind MS Flight (he sure was behind theFSX Missions) and decided maybe someone here too is interested to get my views on what's happening........ or, in terms of flight SIMULATION on what is NOT happening. But should.....Find my blog post here.And as I already explained to Paul, this is not 'hate mail', just my opinion of what we as a flightsim community are missing....

Great blog post, François!As for all those out there not willing to recognise that for good or bad, over the years MSFS became a franchise with a following, I truly hope when you wake-up in the morning your SO doesn't say:"You want what? Last night was last night! What do you think this is, a franchise?" :LMAO:Cheers,- jahman.

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by jahman