Worth reading if you haven't already. Some insight into Microsoft and their decision to cut ties with FSX. http://www.geekwire.com/2012/microsoft-flight-a-step-previous-effortsYou can draw your own conclusions... :(

Quote from the article..."I’ve got somebody working on the next release, I’ve got somebody working on the release after the next release and I’ve probably got somebody planning the next big expansion” after that."I've I said that Hawaii was the starting point??....Oh that's right, I'm not a beta tester so what do I know....

Thanks for posting the link - good read! 21 days until we can see for ourselves...

They were told time & time again. They ignored us. They deserve to fail & it certainly is starting to look like they will.

But it as much of a simulation as Flight Simulator X?“Even more so,” Howard said. “It’s a more robust flight model under the covers than FSX ever had. The airplanes in this are more finely tuned than any of the airplanes in our products have been. We’ve had the luxury of time and a better engine.”source: http://www.geekwire.com/2012/microsoft-flight-a-step-previous-efforts

They are certainly better than most the FSX default aircraft. Except maybe the default 172 which is still pretty good.The RV-6A isn't bad but compared to Carenado etc, they are nothing special worth being imprisoned in Hawaii for.FLIGHT's aircraft are VERY easy to fly. Too easy. I think many of the old timers here are mistaking easy to fly for being realistic.It'll take them years to get any significant new scenery content out. They always take ages to do even simple tasks. FLIGHT took two years for a few islands & a few little planes. I'm a beta tester & was bored of it after 2-3 days. I've not run it for nearly 2 weeks now.

The default 172 is god awful.Ehh.... Most of the development time was likely spent re-doing to internals of the engine. I doubt that it took them 2 years to do that little.

But it as much of a simulation as Flight Simulator X?“Even more so,” Howard said. “It’s a more robust flight model under the covers than FSX ever had. The airplanes in this are more finely tuned than any of the airplanes in our products have been. We’ve had the luxury of time and a better engine.”source: http://www.geekwire....revious-efforts

He is comparing Flight planes to FSX planes. Doing a better job than the default FSX planes on a few simple aircraft that not many people have ever flown is nothing to crow about.

Thanks for posting the link - good read! 21 days until we can see for ourselves...

You're welcome!

The Flight models feel off to me. The RV floats down the runway forever. It never seems to loose speed. Too little drag or still generating trust at idle.

Every plane handles differently, unless you have flown in a RV before, how can you make judgement about its handling characteristics?

He is comparing Flight planes to FSX planes. Doing a better job than the default FSX planes on a few simple aircraft that not many people have ever flown is nothing to crow about.

Yeah right, every positive things about Flight can be rendered to nothing by your infinite wisdom. LOL, don't take it too personally, I had too much fun watching you and Arwen arguing so I just couldn't resist trying to sound a bit like her.

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by sibtiger

can be rendered to nothing by your infinite wisdom.

Kind of like all your 50 posts.

Kind of like all your 50 posts.

LOL, now I'm getting your joke.

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by sibtiger

Kind of like all your 50 posts.

I just laughed my tail off.. LMFAO... :( :( :(

"I’ve got somebody working on the next release, I’ve got somebody working on the release after the next release and I’ve probably got somebody planning the next big expansion” after that."

Interesting article, and provides more evidence that the Flight store paradigm will support continual upgrades & improvements over time. There is a reason why this will succeed - the same reason the Apple App Store is a success, Valve's Steam is a success and Amazon's Kindle is a success, and the same reasons other big software firms like Autodesk are moving towards the same model.There may not be an SDK on the 29th. There may not be one for 6 months. It might be free, it might not. Maybe it will be available through TechNet, maybe through XNA.I can think of some really good reasons why there is no console release yet... for a start it will be Xbox only, the people who keep mentioning the PS3 are ignorant of the console economy. The Xbox is approaching the end of it's lifespan, and as current specced would really struggle with Flight in even the most minimal way. We all know the sims need raw CPU power and RAM as critical resources, and the Xbox360 just cannot provide that - it wasn't designed to. A future Xbox - touted as the Xbox-next with rumours of a 2013 release - might have the grunt to do it justice... and it is very easy to port XNA developed apps from PC to xbox & vice versa. Lets not forget tablets here - over the next few years we will see a MASSIVE push into tablet devices, and MS are investing heavily in this area. I would be amazed if there WASN'T a plan to produce a tablet-based version of Flight within 2 years, or at least some offshoot of the same tech. Reading that article only makes me more confident that MS are heading down the right path to revitalise the FS community.

copied from wikipedia....

Xbox 360 games written in XNA Game Studio can be submitted to the App Hub, for which premium membership is required, this costs US$99/year. All games submitted to the App Hub are subjected to peer review by other creators. If the game passes review then it is listed on Xbox Live Marketplace. Creators can set a price of , 240 or 400 points for their game. The creator is paid 70% of the total revenue from their game sales as a baseline. Microsoft originally planned to take an additional percentage of revenue if they provided additional marketing for a game, but this policy was rescinded in March 2009, leaving the flat rate intact regardless of promotion.

Does this sound like a viable model for the Flight Store? It does to me...Is this the big break from FSX? XNA is pure C#, FSx was, what C+? With the air files still in a runtime-compile form of Assembly?Guess what can plug into XNA - HAVOK! If that doesn't excite you I don't know what would - CUDA acceleration for the physics, anyone?Better start reading up on XNA.... $99/year to join the dev list? Count me in!Now, are there MAx plugins for this, or is it native? (ooooh that would be nice!)

Wisdom maybe, but certainly not infinite.

Certainly not either wisdom or infinite wisdom.

Certainly not either wisdom or infinite wisdom.

LOL, I think I got your joke wrong the first time around.

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by sibtiger