Yes, I know none of us know how far MS will extend Flight, but I suspect it's highly optimistic to hope it might eventually end up as anything like a full world simulation or even as a regional simulation, like Flight Unlimited.

I am afraid not even MS knows. And unless they know and let me know I personally do not intend to spend more then 40 bux on DLC: Hawaii and the Maule. Like I wouldn't start buying single tires unless the manufacturer commits to build and sell me the car, too.

Trust me. This is nothing compared to the atmosphere amongst military aviators or even amongst some of the more laid back commercial pilot community. We're passionate about our hobby and will pounce over every square inch of mediocrity

Really? Must just be amongst the fighter jocks. I flew 17 years with MAC and AMC...sat through way too many hours of cockpit BS...and it never came close to the overt hostility, negativity, prejudicial, and overly entitled opinions and views I've seen expressed in some of the posts contained in this forum.MSFlight, to me, is a different take on the flight genre - and I'm interested in it, as I am in quite a few things that deal with flight. I joined the forums because I thought I would find interesting discussions about it...not blatant bashing of both the product and those who are interested in it. There are a few who make interesting and rational posts as to why they are NOT interested in Flight...unfortunately they seem to be outweighed by those who would prefer to lash out and ridicule anyone who shows an open mind towards it.I'm looking forward to the 29th...downloading Flight...and seeing how I like it.

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by newthog

I'm going to go out on a limb here and posit that most (say 98%?) of the Flight lovers do not have much, if any, real world flying experience. And, no, being a passenger does not count. Cute thought though. I may have a seizure if someone with a pilot's license posts here and says that they like Flight. If they have an ATP certificate or even just a CPL, I'll probably keel over.

The main reason i'm actually a little bit interested in flight is because fred and rto seem to have had some positive experiences - and i'm pretty sure they've both sat up front of a plane once or twice.If the fde is good and the graphics engine is good, there's hope. Don't get distracted by the gold coins. What I want to know is is there the core of a real aviation simulator hidden under there? I'm cautiously hopeful that there might be.

I wasn't ridiculing you and of course you are entitled to your positive opinion. It certainly would be wrong for FMs here to try and shut out certain opinions. You've made some strong assertions about Flight's immersiveness and I asked you why it was more immersive than FSX with high end add-ons, in other words where is the big advance? The post you referred to didn't really enlighten me much, except you said you weren't a real pilot, which puts a question mark against your comment about how difficult the aircraft should be to fly with no aids selected. It's quite possible the extra difficulty is not realistic but simply to crank up difficulty for users who've completed missions on easier settings.I'm not trying to convince you your feelings about Flight are wrong, but given your enthusiasm for it I couldn't help wondering where that came from. Yes, I know none of us know how far MS will extend Flight, but I suspect it's highly optimistic to hope it might eventually end up as anything like a full world simulation or even as a regional simulation, like Flight Unlimited.

I was not talking about you. But you jumped into my reply to another member, who was ridiculing what I posted. You accused me of trying "to say who can and who cannot post in" this forum, when that was not at all what I was suggesting. I just see a LOT of very negative people here, who are apparently only here to constantly attack anything good that is posted about Flight. And I feel that sort of behavior is not only wrong, but I feel that it is having a very negative effect on any new membership here.I haven't made any "strong assertions about Flight's immersiveness" . . . I have merely stated my opinion.I have been using flightsims for longer than many of the members here who are ridiculing Flight. No, I'm not a pilot, but I didn't think that was a requirement for a person to post their opinion about immersion or to state that a flight model feels unrealistic or not. I was also a beta tester for Fly!, so this is not the first time that I have evaluated flight models while a sim was in development. And real pilots in both beta tests have agreed with my observations. I have made it VERY clear that I am giving my OPINION here. I make mods for RPG games and my mods make these games more realistic and more immersive (not just according to me, but to a LOT of gamers who use my mods) . . . yet I have never killed any person (or creature) in my life. So should only trained killers be allowed to make games that include killing? I know what flight feels like in a real aircraft, and I know when a flightsim does this well, and when it doesn't.My enthusiasm comes from loving flightsims. I was really looking forward to Flight until the Jan 4th press release came out. Then I was very upset at the direction MS was apparently taking Flight. The next day I received an email from MS, telling me that I had been accepted as a Flight beta tester. I was still upset, but I figured, "what the heck, why not give it a go?" I went in to the testing VERY skeptical, but within a week (after I had begun testing the rest of the Islands, and flying the RV and the Maule, and doing ILS approaches) I was really beginning to enjoy the feel of Flight. Again, this is just my opinion, but Flight was consistently giving me a better flight experience than any other flightsim that I have ever used. And I kept going to back to FSX to compare the two sims. Flight kept winning for me, even without AI and ATC (and I hate the hoop-flying challenges, in both Flight and FSX). But I like small GA aircraft, not the heavies, which are all Flight has right now.In my opinion, Flight is a really good flightsim in many ways. But it is FAR from perfect in at least as many ways (at least in the current build). But I've yet to try any flightsim that did everything right . . . they all have their strengths and their weaknesses. I'm not the Flight fanatic that many here are accusing me of being (just because I've been more positive than negative about this new sim) . . . I have made a LOT of very critical posts on the Flight Beta Forum. I have lobbied hard for the Flight Team to fix some issues, and for the need to include an AI and an ATC (and a bunch of other things, that may or may not ever be added to the sim).I'm still going to keep using FSX, but for now, I'm enjoying Flight more, so that is what I'm now putting the most flight time in.

Edited February 10, 201214 yr by Arwen

I'm still going to keep using FSX, but for now, I'm enjoying Flight more, so that is what I'm now putting the most flight time in.

There lies the biggest difference in where things should be and where there really at coming from your own mouth. If Flight was where it should be you'd ditch FSX like 99% of us ditched FS2000 when FS2k2 came out or how we did FS2k2 when FS2k4 came out.

Please enlighten me ? Anything to Alexander ?RW aviation is my background so not very well up on all this simming stuff.Fred.

I still don't see how you could miss Francois Dumas with 1,400+ post to your credit. :(

Edited February 10, 201214 yr by Dillon

Flight was where it should be you'd ditch FSX like 99% of us ditched FS2000 when FS2k2 came out or how we did FS2k2 when FS2k4 came out.

But you didn't ditch FS2K4 when FSX came out, did you?

I still don't see how you could miss Francois Dumas with 1,400+ post to your credit. :(

Very easily really. I never heard of him. The only 3rd party devs I am familiar with are PMDG.Up to now I have been flying their 737NGX in FSX. It's fantastic software and so like the professional stuff.Fred.

@ Francois. Thanks for the info. It's just that I have not seen you around until very recently. Being a retired 737ng pilot I mostly use PMDG's NGX on the FSX platform.I am enthusiastic about Flight having used it for the last month but fear the MS will not take it in the proper direction.I really believe it's potential is huge but that remains to be seen.I am have been an ongoing beta tester for CAE's Tropos 6000 level-D software and tend to compare everything else to that.http://www.cae.com/e...tropos.6000.pdfhttp://www2.icao.int...al%20System.pdfFred.

No worries Fred...... you're excused :-)I 'flew' a CAE once, and 'sat' in a variety of cockpits....from DC-3 through most Boeings.... both in the air and on the ground, but they never handed me the controls on those ! :LMAO:I do fly GA aircraft occasionally, when good friends let me and money allows, but apart from all that, computer flight simulation is my 'terrain'.My 18.000 or so posts on Avsim have long disappeared since I moved from being an Admin here to other sites..... and now back for a few remarks.

Arwen, on 09 February 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:I'm still going to keep using FSX, but for now, I'm enjoying Flight more, so that is what I'm now putting the most flight time in.

There lies the biggest difference in where things should be and where there really at coming from your own mouth. If Flight was where it should be you'd ditch FSX like 99% of us ditched FS2000 when FS2k2 came out or how we did FS2k2 when FS2k4 came out.

Apparently you missed my first post in this thread. I'll copy it here for you and highlight my main points:

Flight is a really good simulator. It is just not finished yet.So many of you are so angry with MS for not releasing FSXI instead of Flight.This is suppose to be a flightsim community, and you guys should appreciate the fact that MS (and members of the former ACES team) are back in the flightsim business again.The problem is that you are expecting a repeat of the past ... in how the MS Flightsim new versions were released. And the simming/gaming world has moved into the present while you guys had your heads stuck in the clouds.It has become VERY expensive to make a flightsim, which is why there are now so few of them. We all want realistic, real world scenery, along with high resolution graphics, plus all the bells and whistles. The bar keeps being raise higher and higher ... and so does the development costs in creating a sim that will even come close to meeting the expectations of hardcore simmers.Like it or not, MS is NOT going to release a replacement for FSX (at least not yet), so accept that and stop whining about it.What MS has decided to do is to make Flight, and see how well a GA sim will do in today's gaming market (and flightsimmers are also gamers in my opinion).Flight is based on MS's current digital/online gaming model, where the core game can be downloaded for free, and you purchase DLC to build on that core.If Flight's DLC sells well enough, Flight will move forward and more DLC will be released, It is the DLC that actually funds Flight.At some point, after enough DLC is released (assuming that Flight succeeds), we might just see a boxed version DVD version of Flight that includes all the DLC. This happens with games all the time ... Bethesda just released "Fallout: New Vegas Ultimate Edition" for $40 (the original game sold for $50 and the 5 DLC originally sold for about $10 each).I personally believe that Flight has the potential to become FSXI ... it just needs the time (and the funding) to grow into what I believe the Flight Team has intended it to be.Edited: I get that most of you guys are going to totally disagree with me ... but please be nice, and respect that this is just my own personal opinion.

Edited February 10, 201214 yr by Arwen

Regardless if Flight is hardcore or not, if they include 1 helicopter, I'll be satisfied. If the scenery is nice, flying over beautiful landmasses low level is very enjoyable. Regardless of tokens etc (actually may be fun) ATC, etc. If the flight model is somewhat accurate, I am in. The thing about helicopters you can land in almost anywhere, low, slow and they are somewhat a challenge to fly. Thus, Flight provides beautiful scenery, like Orbx, I am in 100%. That being said, most likely fly online using FSX, training in FSX and navagation FSX. Flight may prove to be very fun. Maybe not as hard core as I prefer, but may find a solid place as far as "fun" flying goes. A lite core flightsim. A new generation of "Litecore" fliers may emerge and end up with us hardcore flyers. The worst it can do is get people interested in flying and switch to FSX.

Edited February 10, 201214 yr by drumsonly2002

But you didn't ditch FS2K4 when FSX came out, did you?

Because FSX wasn't superior to FS2k4 when it first came out. Top machine back in 2006 couldn't run is smoothly. It's only now one can buy a moderatly priced machine and run FSX out the box without any tweaks but that still might not be the case. FS2000 was the same way, it ran like crap. When FS2k2 came out people flocked to it over FS2000 because the thing ran and was totally updated. When FS2k4 came out it had more refined weather and clickable virtual cockpits. FSX came out and had good graphics but that was about it outside of performance issues. What's the point in upgrading if your machine can't run the software? I have yet to buy a PC that can run FSX.Flight is not a natural upgrade to FS2k4 let alone FSX.

Edited February 11, 201214 yr by Dillon

I'm going to go out on a limb here and posit that most (say 98%?) of the Flight lovers do not have much, if any, real world flying experience. And, no, being a passenger does not count. Cute thought though.I may have a seizure if someone with a pilot's license posts here and says that they like Flight. If they have an ATP certificate or even just a CPL, I'll probably keel over.

Call the medics - I have my SEL, taildragger check out, and some multi and instrument instruction (lack of funds due to job loss). I ended my career with the military (22 1/2 years) as head of our squadron's Flight Engineer Training section - I retired as an E-8 Flight Engineer Evaluator, and have time as flight mech in a C-131, and flight engineer in C-130 and C-141s. I've flown and logged civilian time in a Warrior, Archer, Arrow, Apache, T-34, Luscombe, Cub, Citabria, C-150, C-172, and probably a couple of others that I can't remember. A few hours of "unofficial" time in a DC-3 , C-123, Short Skyvan, and Twin Otter. I've flown the full motion C-130 and C-141 sims. I've been computer flying since the days of Flanker 2.0, F-15, and European Air Wars.This is not meant to belittle your post - far from it. You have posted some well thought out and positive statements in these forums - I may not agree with all of them, but at least you offer reasoning behind the majority of them.In short, I think I'm somewhat qualified as to my love of flight, and my actual flight experience. While I can't say that "I love Flight" as I have yet to experience it, I like the idea of what Microsoft is attempting, and am looking forward to the 29th to try it out.

I am a third party developer and a 3PD too. One of the new ones who is in it for the money.Arwen, I'm used to getting bashed at forums and now I like, and expect it.I am not a true simmer because I don't sim very often. I once used FSX to supplement my flight lessons and I made some photoreal for my own use. I saw huge numbers of flight sim forum members and assumed it was a large cottage industry, at least a million strong.A 1% market share would make me a rich man. It did not happen. My 300 sales were to hard core simmers found at forums like this one. I have never been able to reach the larger market of consumers who just want to fly easily without much knowledge. Microsoft Flight is an attempt to do just that. It is also common practice these days to hook a customer into a continual purchase scheme and Microsoft is no exception. The guys at MS do read these posts as a competent vendor should. But they do not respond because they are corporate "old school" and will continue to be. But as a flight sim vendor like Microsoft I would like to ask all of you these questions.1 Why don't you just buy another flight simulator program? It's the only game in town.2 Why should I make and sell a product for you in the first place? It's a trade and we both get what we want.3 Do you think I'm producing something that is not the best I can do? Why would I do thatMy point is, you guys (and girls) want something better and you probably won't get it with MS Flight.4 Do you expect me to believe that someone can't produce a better flight sim program? With 300 sales waiting someone could get rich.If it sounds like a whiner it is :)

What I want to know is is there the core of a real aviation simulator hidden under there? I'm cautiously hopeful that there might be.

If I answer, you will probably not believe me.I therefore repeat:RPS asks: - "Do you think Flight will have anything to offer the Microsoft Flight Simulator hardcore – the people with simpits and hundreds of pounds’ worth of high fidelity third-party aircraft and sceneries on their HDs?"Joshua Howard said: - "Microsoft Flight leverages the best of what core fans have always loved about the franchise; there are a variety of ways to fly with better aircraft models and better graphics than ever before.It will also evolve over time through game add-ons, giving sim fans a rich experience. We’re aiming to honor the legacy of the Flight Simulator franchise while also expanding the experience to brand new audiences. It’s about growing the experience, not watering it down. Many of the hardcore beta testers tell us that once they fly in Flight (especially with the flight assists turned off), they can’t imagine going back – the authenticity of the flight model is better than it’s ever been."Joshua Howard also said: - To enable the needed improvements in performance, visuals, and new experiences, Microsoft Flight is a completely new product with an entirely new code base, architecture, toolset, and even a new distribution model."

Edited February 11, 201214 yr by torium

I am a third party developer and a 3PD too. One of the new ones who is in it for the money.Arwen, I'm used to getting bashed at forums and now I like, and expect it.I am not a true simmer because I don't sim very often. I once used FSX to supplement my flight lessons and I made some photoreal for my own use. I saw huge numbers of flight sim forum members and assumed it was a large cottage industry, at least a million strong.A 1% market share would make me a rich man. It did not happen. My 300 sales were to hard core simmers found at forums like this one. I have never been able to reach the larger market of consumers who just want to fly easily without much knowledge. Microsoft Flight is an attempt to do just that. It is also common practice these days to hook a customer into a continual purchase scheme and Microsoft is no exception. The guys at MS do read these posts as a competent vendor should. But they do not respond because they are corporate "old school" and will continue to be. But as a flight sim vendor like Microsoft I would like to ask all of you these questions.1 Why don't you just buy another flight simulator program? It's the only game in town.2 Why should I make and sell a product for you in the first place? It's a trade and we both get what we want.3 Do you think I'm producing something that is not the best I can do? Why would I do thatMy point is, you guys (and girls) want something better and you probably won't get it with MS Flight.4 Do you expect me to believe that someone can't produce a better flight sim program? With 300 sales waiting someone could get rich.If it sounds like a whiner it is :)

You sure make it sound as if you should have checked FIRST with some experienced publishers and fellow deveopers before jumping in and believing you can make a living out of programming add-ons for ANY flight simulator ;-)