All of this back and forth is really entertaining, but in the end it's probably a lot of wasted energy. At the end of the day, the market will determine whether Flight succeeds or fails. I was, am a beta tester for FLIGHT. I have been simming since the late eighties so I've seen the tremendous strides that this hobby has made in the last 25 years. Every time a new version of FS was announced I'd wait along with everyone else until it was released. I think, without fail, I bought it on the very first day it was available. This time, I got the opportunity to beta test it. Almost from the start it just didn't feel right. I'm not talking about flight dynamics or graphics or even the challenges or aerocache. It was just something about the way this whole process was playing out. Up to this point, Microsoft released the base software but it was really the 3PD's who enhanced it to the point where it became immersive. Unless something changes, I just don't see that happening this time. A lot will depend on how quickly the DLC is released and what it entails. Is FLIGHT a disaster? I don't think so. The graphics are well done. The shading and lighting is very well done also, but for me it just didn't work. As I said earlier in this thread, we still have alternatives if FLIGHT isn't what you're looking for.

++. Everything.

I never knwe you could add lots of different planes etc to a DEMO ?Fred.

Now you do. :(

Francois,I am disappointed that you would write that.

I too.

Well said.

Good post.

I guess you never seen the pre-release of Windows and Internet Explorer.

You can add planes to these?

IMHO there's a big blind spot about some of the MS-bashing that I've read on this site and elsewhere. It's not MS who monetized "the add-on market", or who turned a hobby into a commercial enterprise. That was done by what we now call euphemistically "third party developers": meaning, people who spend some of their spare time (full-timers are a very recent phenomenon I suspect) in making the sort of product that used be uploaded FOR FREE onto the libraries hosted on this website and others. The last few years have witnessed a massive acceleration in the exploitation of FS for brazenly commercial, non-hobby, purposes - in a way which, I am sure, was never envisaged or intended by MS.I don't pretend that I saw it coming - but, honestly, what were we thinking?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.It will be interesting to see whether they've got the balance right. But FS fans who are sorry about the direction MS have taken are a mere drop in the ocean compared with MS's target audience; and the disappointment of this class is simply not a reliable indication of Flight's likely fate, one way or the other.Tim

Edited February 8, 201214 yr by tfm

Your lofty expectations and misunderstanding of Microsoft's vague media hype misled you.

Your'e right!

You can add planes to these?

Your right I didn't catch that, I was reffering to add-ons and features. :( You could do allot with the pre-release versions of Windows and IE. To answer this directly I believe we could add planes to FSX's demo before it was released as well as X-Plane.

Edited February 8, 201214 yr by Dillon

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?

AAHHHhhhhh. Good one!I can't say much, but I can quote:- "FSX was great, but was not quite hitting the mark and reached only a fraction of its potential audience. 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."

but I can quote

That's about all you can do.

AAHHHhhhhh. Good one!I can't say much, but I can quote:- "FSX was great, but was not quite hitting the mark and reached only a fraction of its potential audience. 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."

Who are you quoting because the product didn't 'expand' it 'contracted'?

That's about all you can do.

Nothing personal but this was funny. :(

Edited February 8, 201214 yr by Dillon

Does everyone remember Sublogic's Flight Assignment ATP? Personally, I started with MSFS 3.0, but Sublogic's ATP is what really sparked my passion. Now that I hve a commercial license with all the bells and whistles, I would rather dial back the clock and fly ATP than waste my time with Microsoft's new arcade game.

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!From that point on, it was obvious that the direction of development would change and any future version would not be targeted at the enthusiasts. The result is Flight. It isn’t and never was intended to be FS11 and Microsoft never said it would be. Too many people chose to believe that it would because that was what they wished. They have only themselves to blame for their disappointment now.

Ummm. ACES was going about FS all wrong, but I disagree with your business analysis. What MS correctly realized is that MSFS was basically a one-time revenue generator that served as a platform for a multitude of third party developers to make a profit. Compare a company like MS to the likes of Aerosoft. A simmer buys FSX once and MS never sees the simmer again. Meanwhile, that same simmer is pouring money down the throat of Aerosoft as he snatches up addon after addon after addon after addon. MS is way too proud to stand the thought.

Edited February 8, 201214 yr by Lawyer+Pilot

Ummm. ACES was going about FS all wrong, but I disagree with your business analysis. What MS correctly realized is that MSFS was basically a one-time revenue generator that served as a platform for a multitude of third party developers to make a profit. Compare a company like MS to the likes of Aerosoft. A simmer buys FSX once and MS never sees the simmer again. Meanwhile, that same simmer is pouring money down the throat of Aerosoft as he snatches up addon after addon after addon after addon.MS is way too proud to stand the thought.

That's the business Microsoft has always been in. :( Look at Windows and applications like Mozilla and Dragon (which is a feature offered already in default Windows). This is what made Microsoft successful while Apple was closed to any outside development on their systems and/or hardware. Apple almost went out of business because of this business model. Microsoft made their stuff work on IBM compatible machines opening the way for many companies to get get a piece of the pie. All Bill cared about was his software was on as many machines as possible, who came along didn't matter. Now certain circles in Redmond want to go back to a model that didn't even work for Apple. I'll say this again when Bill Gates left common since went out the door as well...

Edited February 8, 201214 yr by Dillon

Do you at least understand this is not Pac Man we're talking about here?

Yes, and the games that I mod are not Pac Man either. The developer of the RPGs that I mod for, and their online community showed a great kindness to me when I was recovering from a very rough operation. So those RPGs are a LOT more than games to me.I love flightsims, and they have been a big part of my life for as long as I can remember. FSX is much more than a game to me as well, but it is still classified as a game (even by MS).You may view Flight as just a gutted version of FSX ... as nothing more than an arcade game. But it is more than that to me, and as much as I might disagree with MS development/marketing plan for Flight, I'm still going to support it, because it is still a simulator and it does some things much better than both FSX and X-Plane (which I will continue to support as well).