I don't think that this discussion works if you concentrate on the word game. I think the main issue are the worlds.A worldwide simulator can't work without a SDK and a community. There is no way to programm the whole world, if you have to earn money.And that's what every company HAS to do. If a few people want to land on their own, small local airport there has to be a possibility for them to add this airport, even if no one else wants to land there. Otherwise, they wouldn't use this simulator.These things can only be work with object libraries and a SDK.Payware, as well as Download content can only generate small islands (not necessarily surrounded by water, but most major airports are such islands in FSX or X-Plane. There are enough people that fly around in these islands, that a company might earn money with it.If you only concentrate on these islands, they only work locally. In thew long run you might be able to establish bigger planes, if these local islands have bigger airports, but how many people would pay several of these islands in one go? Then you will need ATC and so on.But I don't think that this will work on a bigger scale. The more locations you have, the fewer pilots would be active in the payware islands, they simply spend their time somewhere else.

I'm not "concentrating of the word game." I was merely trying to show that FSX can be viewed as a game (and often is), just as much as Flight can be. A LOT of members on this forum have made up their minds that Flight is nothing more than an arcade game, even though most of these people have not had any first hand experience with Flight. My main point is that all 3 flightsims each have their own strengths and weaknesses as simulators.X-Plane 10 uses what Austin calls " the plausible world model" . . . which I personally didn't find to be all that plausible (when I tried out the demo).FSX's default scenery doesn't do a very good job of recreating my local area (northern NH) . . . adding GEX and UTX improves this quite a bit, but it still leaves a lot to the imagination . . . and there is NO add-on scenery for my home area that I can add to improve this.I would love to have my home area released as Flight DLC . . . but that may never happen (although I haven't totally given up on the possibility). But I will still use Flight, as I'm more interested in flying in plausible scenery that is 5000 miles from my home, than I am in flying in a not so plausible recreation of my home area.I'm not privy to what Flight's DLC plans are for the next year. I have no idea what will even be offered next for scenery (after Hawaii). There's like no chance that the next DLC scenery is going to include Northern NH, but that doesn't mean that I won't purchase it, if it happens to look like scenery that I might enjoy spending some time flying in.

Edited February 12, 201214 yr by Arwen

Mmh, area where I fly in fsx ( mostly around Thailand & other Southeast Asian countries) default scenery is really horrible. That area should be full of tropical rainforest, but in FSX it looks more like some dry Southern European islands that I have visited in real life. Of course I have tileproxy which pretty well turns that area nice and green, but I believe that in some areas X plane 10 looks a lot better, at least in terms of having ground with right colors.

Albert, hopefully you feel better now you've got that off your chest...deep breaths now :)

A forum is about voicing and sharing different opinions - right ? What's the point of trivializing other people's opinions with that "hope you feel better now - deep breaths"-nonsense ?

A lot of your points have been raised and raised again over the last few weeks. In general, I think the Flight community has moved on from overly focusing on non-relevant negatives (coins etc) and is trying to work out how to best use this new tool.

That's the point - there is nothing to work out. You have two planes and one island - what would you like to work out there ? It's not a tool. A tool is used to make something new - you can't because you have no SDK. FS9 and FSX are tools to build a huge living world of aviation. In MS Flight you only can use what MS gives you. I say it again - if that makes you happy I am fine, it's a matter of personal preferences.

Simulators don't need to have whole world coverage and sdks - real level D sims don't have this stuff!

If you don't need that that's fine. Please accept that others may see this very much as a necessity. I enjoy the freedom to do what I want when simming, and not what MS wants me to do.

P.s. i did laugh at you giving PMDG major kudos for delivering the NGX late. That's glass half full for you!

Not sure what's so funny about it. They delivered late because they added so much extra stuff for their customers' enjoyment. They would have been better off financially if they had released it without the extra goodies and invest the time in their next project instead. Would have saved them a lot of money. They didn't because they're enthusiasts about their work. MS is not. They will sell you what gives them maximum profit = half ready incomplete buggy crap.

And I want to make very clear that I did not insult you are anybody else, at least it was not my intention. When I say "reality check" I mean that some of the supporters here need to open their eyes to see the differences I tried to point out. And no matter what your personal preferences are in regards to flight simulation - you can't deny the differences, which are as obvious as the difference between night and day.

Albert, while you say you don't intend to be insulting, you are implying that those of use who do see some potential for Flight are ignorant rubes, too blind to see the obvious, and that we need some received wisdom to be passed to us from on high......and I find that highly offensive. Some of us like myself have been around for many, many years now and have devoted a large amount of our time in various areas of development. In my case I began with FS98 modeling and gauge/systems programming. I've also spent a significant amount of time learning about scenery, mesh, autogen, and flight dynamics. Most of my time was invested working with my fellow developers to discover new ways to enhance and expand on the base platform's capabilities. In some cases, what we collectively discovered and/or invented was incorporated into FSX and the two Service Packs.I can assure you that I for one am very much aware of what Flight lacks with respect to FS's many iterations. I'm also very much aware that Flight is something entirely new, and it's manifestly unfair to compare the new "peach" with the old "oranges."The great unknown as far as I'm concerned is what MSGS decides to do insofar as the entry path for "Development Partners" and what the cost of admission will be. Until they deign to provide that information, I'll be exploring on my own to see what -if anything- might be possible.In short, I'm not the least bit interested in "what Flight isn't."I'm only interested in discovering for myself what Flight is!

I don't think that this discussion works if you concentrate on the word game. I think the main issue are the worlds.A worldwide simulator can't work without a SDK and a community. There is no way to programm the whole world, if you have to earn money.And that's what every company HAS to do. If a few people want to land on their own, small local airport there has to be a possibility for them to add this airport, even if no one else wants to land there. Otherwise, they wouldn't use this simulator.These things can only be work with object libraries and a SDK.Payware, as well as Download content can only generate small islands (not necessarily surrounded by water, but most major airports are such islands in FSX or X-Plane. There are enough people that fly around in these islands, that a company might earn money with it.If you only concentrate on these islands, they only work locally. In thew long run you might be able to establish bigger planes, if these local islands have bigger airports, but how many people would pay several of these islands in one go? Then you will need ATC and so on.But I don't think that this will work on a bigger scale. The more locations you have, the fewer pilots would be active in the payware islands, they simply spend their time somewhere else.

I hope an FS11 or 12 is better than that. Instead of an SDK I'd like user friendly tools to draw coastlines, construct buildings, add objects, trim mesh, add roads, editable AI etc. Imagine a world sim with flight, car, motorbike and rail capability.

X-Plane 10 uses what Austin calls " the plausible world model" . . . which I personally didn't find to be all that plausible (when I tried out the demo).FSX's default scenery doesn't do a very good job of recreating my local area (northern NH) . . . adding GEX and UTX improves this quite a bit, but it still leaves a lot to the imagination . . . and there is NO add-on scenery for my home area that I can add to improve this.

Exactly tht's the point. It is impossible to add such a huge amount of data, that you can find thwe whole world inside. It doesn't work. So these simulators have the capabilities to read scripted data dormats. No one is forced to add object code, instead they allow the input of additional data. As an example: the plausible world of X-Plane 10 gets much more plausible if you feed in europe additional OSM data. While i was able to identify the roads by default with the additional OSM data I was able to identify the houses. While they didn't always looked like the original you were able to see buildings that represented them and were not to far off. But while the OSM maps for western europe are pretty good these data bases have only limited value in other parts of the world. But that's mainly a question of users who input additional informations in these databases. In the long run there will be many additional object types, that will be placed but in a world simulator it is totally impossible to add special graphics for every building.In something like flight it is mainly a question of money.

I hope an FS11 or 12 is better than that. Instead of an SDK I'd like user friendly tools to draw coastlines, construct buildings, add objects, trim mesh, add roads, editable AI etc. Imagine a world sim with flight, car, motorbike and rail capability.

While I have severe doubts if there will ever be a FS 11 or FS 12, you totally missed the point. SDK are only descriptions how files have to look 6that their content can be interpreted as an object and what its capabilities are. In fact, this is one of the features that they want to use in X-Polane 10 but the tools and documentations are simply not ready yet. Al6though there will be strong limitations. I think these limitations are one of the basic reasons why they decided to simply drop the concept of a world simulator from Flight. If you drop the no longer supported areas you can use these resources for other parts of the program. I think a lot of the adventages from Flight compared to FSX are mainly based on these reallocations.. 50 people is a pretty small project for a company like Microsoft.But there budget will be pretty limited.In the next few months they will have a moment of truth, when they will know if Flight might stay alive. If they don't sell enough DLC Microsoft will end this project pretty fast.

But where Flight fails to interest me is lack of whole world coverage. I rather have whole Earth modeled in some quality than areas that do not interest me covered in high quality and other areas not at all. Thats why X plane 10 and FSX are awesome, I can build my own scenery to areas I like most (or buy it), and still same time able to fly all other areas too. Flight will never be longhaul sim, thats for sure.

Edited February 12, 201214 yr by FScamp

Albert, while you say you don't intend to be insulting, you are implying that those of use who do see some potential for Flight are ignorant rubes, too blind to see the obvious, and that we need some received wisdom to be passed to us from on high......and I find that highly offensive.

Instead of reading something into my post I never, not even remotely, said you better had replied to the points I really made.If you had answered to my posts you would have had to explain how you, with your proven track record in flight simulation, can see a potential for Flight when comparing it to the previous standard. FS never was perfect. I use MSFS since V4 and there always have been glitches, necessary workarounds, frustrations etc - I never did care too much, because MSFS offered what I wanted - an open world with almost unlimited (in the confines of a computer game) possibilities. And these unlimited possibilities were made possible by a HUGE community of talented individuals providing an incredible amount of content.Looking at MS Flight there are probably 10% left of what made MSFS what it was up to FSX. And that's based on what MS and the Flight team announced ! There is not more to it ! You have GA flying in isolated scenery patches with added gameplay features - thats it.They have not added any potential - they have taken away everything that could make it a possible successor of the franchise.

In short, I'm not the least bit interested in "what Flight isn't."I'm only interested in discovering for myself what Flight is!

That's fine - the bad thing is that Flight is 10% of what FS9/FSX are. So the relationship of what it isn't to what it is is about 90/10. Have fun discovering.Maybe I am blind - so I would be grateful if you could point out where you see the potential of MS Flight as a true successor of the franchise.

Edited February 12, 201214 yr by AlbertM

But where Flight fails to interest me is lack of whole world coverage. I rather have whole Earth modeled in some quality than areas that do not interest me covered in high quality and other areas not at all.

I would have much preferred that Flight had used this approach, and lobbied for this on the Flight Beta Discussion forum. But Microsoft didn't happen to agree with me.I could have stomped off mad, refused to use Flight, and spent my days telling everyone on these forums how bad Flight is . . . just because they didn't make the sim exactly as I wanted them to. But my ego is not that big, and that didn't seem very productive to me, so I went with Plan B:I'm giving Flight (and MS) a chance, to see where this Free Core / Purchaced DLC marketing/development strategy goes. And for now, I'll continue to enjoy Flight for what it currently offers . . . most of which is very well done in my opinion. So I'm using Flight to fly around in Hawaii, and if I want to fly somewhere else, I'll fire up FXS or X-Plane 9. Flight has added to my flightsim experience, by increasing my choices.

Flight will never be longhaul sim, thats for sure.

Almost nothing about Flight is "for sure," simply because there is so much about Flight that we don't know yet. Flight could easily become a long haul sim.

While I have severe doubts if there will ever be a FS 11 or FS 12, you totally missed the point.

You said a worldwide simulator can't work without a SDK (and a Community), and I said it can. You don't need an SDK if you have tools instead. What point did I miss?

I can assure you that I for one am very much aware of what Flight lacks with respect to FS's many iterations. I'm also very much aware that Flight is something entirely new, and it's manifestly unfair to compare the new "peach" with the old "oranges."

:(

The great unknown as far as I'm concerned is what MSGS decides to do insofar as the entry path for "Development Partners" and what the cost of admission will be. Until they deign to provide that information, I'll be exploring on my own to see what -if anything- might be possible

MSGS plan is to deliver a consistent level of quality through all of their releases. It means a kind of standard. Products from the "kitchen table" (meaning "non-standard") will not be accepted. For MSGS it is crucial to maintain control. Not prevent the inventive ideas and freeware will reach the users. Therefore MSGS have confirmed that they will explore opportunities to grow their offerings. For MSGS will need many "Development Partners" if they are to achieve their goals.Still keep the faith!

My belief is that happened because Microsoft reviewed what ACES was doing (as most companies review their operations from time-to-time) and decided it didn’t like it. What Microsoft saw was ACES adding more and more detail and refinement to FSX that would appeal only to a relatively small number of enthusiasts while ignoring the wider market potential. To coin a phrase, ACES had gone native – paying too much attention to the enthusiasts and not enough to the wider needs. Forgetting technical changes at the SDK level, what were the more general real improvements, as opposed to cosmetic ones in FSX compared with FS9? Its performance disadvantage was obvious – just re-read the posts in these forums at the time!

In other words, FSX was too intelligent, and that won't do will it? Needs to be diluted for the dumbed down masses like everything else.Regarding "real" improvements that FSX has over FS9, how about the graphics? I don't regard that as cosmetic. More airports. Better scenery. Moving jetways. Pushback controls. View sub-categories. More variables -- with Acceleration we even have turbo-charger variables. Generally more open ended for developers - particularly with engines.Also I wouldn't use the phrase "wider needs". What people want and what people need are too very different things. You are suggesting that people know what's good for them. I would argue that the world needs intelligent games, along the lines of FSX, that are open-ended and allow creativity anmd encourage development. The world does not need games were the producers control the playground and everything else related to it - in my opinion.However, what the world wants is another matter. Let's just be clear one one thing. Microsoft are trying to appeal to wider audience, and pursuing the new business model of owning add-on and social content, for ONE reason. The reason? To milk as much money as they can out of a predicted, potential market. That is the ONLY reason Flight exists at all. The scary thing is that many people think that is the way product development should be approached. You can see people here at AVSIM supporting it.Quality products don't happen that way. The late Steve Jobbs has explained this many times, and criticised Microsoft for doing what they do. Quality products aren't born from the clipboard of a market researcher.

You said a worldwide simulator can't work without a SDK (and a Community), and I said it can. You don't need an SDK if you have tools instead. What point did I miss?

If you have tools that allows the total redefinition of the internal data structures (which can save and load objects you are using a SDK!These tools use an API that a SDK would define, nothing more, nothing less. But if you want to have universal tools they would be very expensive and hard to use, so you normally only offer an SDK!

I would have much preferred that Flight had used this approach, and lobbied for this on the Flight Beta Discussion forum. But Microsoft didn't happen to agree with me.

Hardly surprising. I think they had such a discussions internally several months before and I would be surprised if they won't have lost some team members as a result.