Second Interview with Joshua Howard... sigh...

[Arwen 289]

There is no evidence to suggest that it will do that. Its just as bad to get false hopes rise and maybe even make people who are looking for whole world simulator to waste their money on DLC by suggesting that Flight would develop to new FSX as long as there is no facts to support that theory.

I see it as ONE possibility. And I personally believe that this is the direction that Flight started out at, but then the bean counters forced an early release, because Flight was taking too long. There's a LOT in Flight's files that are pretty solid evidence that it was/is intended to be more that what we have seen so far.I'm a realist, so I don't have any false hopes for Flight . . . but I do think we should all be a bit more open minded about Flight, as there is still a LOT that we don't know yet.I'm not suggesting that anyone buy any DLC, unless they enjoy the free version of Flight and want to expand that experience.Note that I suggest in my previous post that there might be the POSSIBILITY that Flight is a step in the development of FSXI . . . I didn't state that Flight would necessarily become FSXI (although that is a possibility) . . . there could just as easily be plans to release a totally separate product. Edited February 10, 2012 by Arwen

[Rush1169 0]

There is no evidence to suggest that it will do that. Its just as bad to get false hopes rise and maybe even make people who are looking for whole world simulator to waste their money on DLC by suggesting that Flight would develop to new FSX as long as there is no facts to support that theory

Really? You think it's necessary to "counter-post" against a "What if Flight beomes. . ." proposition to protect people who 'foolishly' purchase a mission+scenery pack on the premise that in doing so they will eventually have a direct FSX replacement? We all know Flight is just a silly carplane game that will never become more significant than a dead pixel in the bottom corner of the mighty FSX theater screen. I know it defies all logic to buy the additional scenery for a product that will never be a simluator, but some of us want to anyway. We don't need 'false hope' protection - that's the point of the numerous recent threads asking the anti-Flight camp to chill out. Edited February 10, 2012 by Rush1169

[ViperPilot 81]

In my humble opinion, the dissatisfaction and disappointment at issue in this Forum is in a lot of ways a self fulfilling prophecy.The rampant mill of speculation, innuendo and misinformation hundreds upon hundreds of people spread in this Forum over the lasttwo years eventually came back and exploded right in their faces. Time and time again it was suggested, "just wait until Flight is released",but people continued to spin every scrap of information, video and rumor over and over again.So, what did that effort gain? A community that is severely divided, a new member base that has been derided and ridiculed, membersverbally attacking others participating in the Forums... nice way to promote our hobby!So, to all of the rumor mongers, conspiracy theorists and spin doctors out there (and you know who you are)... satisfied with your work?You spun it out of control, and in the end, you got exactly what you deserved.If you need proof, just go back and peruse through ALL of the threads in this forum from 2010 until now. The writing is all there, right on the wall. :(

[frankla 45]

He never stated that Flight would NEVER include world coverage. It seems obvious to me that he is plugging only what will be released on the 29th.

The following was more interesting to me:

Q: Is your studio just building this title?

A: I imagine this is a group of people who will continue to bring flying experiences out over time. This is where we are right now.

AND:

Q: Will you sell the game on discs at retail?A: Sometime maybe in the future but right now we're all in online. Retail is not something we're talking about right now.AND:

Howard (left) leads a studio with about 50 employees, a third of whom are veterans of the ACES Studio behind "Flight Simulator" that Microsoft wound down in 2009.

He said world coverage and 23000 is a crazy idea. What else do you need to know to agree he is not planning on it.

[mgh 89]

The writing is all there, right on the wall.

“None so blind as those that will not see.”

[frankla 45]

Why?Did you fly to every single one of them?How many of those 25,000 airports had more than just a polygon or two for a runway?Flight is following a precedent set by ORBX - small areas, LOTS of detail.I do most of my flying on the eastern coast of Australia - it wasn't until ORBX released the Red/Green/Blue/Gold series that there had EVER been good scenery for Australia. Their business is based on good general scenery for a geographic zone, coupled with smaller releases of single airports (pick your favourite!) in extremely high detail. If anything it looks like MS will follow a similar addon paradigm.25,000 airports for the whole world is a waste of development - I would bet good money there are airports in that list that NOT ONE simmer has EVER landed at. I would rather better development of hubs and popular places rather than minimal coverage of everything down to emergency landing strips in the middle of nowhere.

None of us flew out of all 25000 airports. But most of us want to fly from the airport in our home town. In that aspect, 25000 was brilliant. Edited February 10, 2012 by frankla

[Arwen 289]

He said world coverage and 23000 is a crazy idea. What else do you need to know to agree he is not planning on it.

This is what was actually written::

Q: It seems like the tradeoff you made - building richer, smaller locales to explore in the game - is the loss of the full, open world that could be explored in "Flight Simulator"?

A: The bet we've made is that to the non-hardcore simmer, flying the whole world isn't as interesting when there's nothing really interesting to see or do. I do get that for some segment of the audience that was one of the values - I can fly anywhere, into any airport, 25,000-odd airports was crazy.

But I think as you try to broaden and you want to bring in not the next million or two but the next 20 million or 30 million people, you say I will err on the side of more interesting area that's dense than the same amount of content spread all over the globe. There's a lot to do in Hawaii, and Hawaii is gorgeous.

The interview was obviously to promote the RELEASED version of Flight (what will be available on the 29th) . . . hence the promotion of the Hawaii scenery. The release version of FSX included world-wide coverage and 24,000 airports (according to my FSX box), and the released version of Flight does not.

He also said at the end of that interview:

I think in the long-run, this franchise will definitely make more money than "Gears." I think Gears is a great. Flight is one of those evergreen franchises in entertainment - this will live another 30 years.

The ONLY way that will have any possibility of happening is if Flight sells a TON of DLC . . . which isn't going to happen with just Hawaii as the only place to fly. The long term plan is for a lot more scenery DLC. Will it ever have world wide coverage? I honestly don't know. But this is still a possibility by my reasoning.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Arwen

[Attila 2]

Really? You think it's necessary to "counter-post" against a "What if Flight beomes. . ." proposition to protect people who 'foolishly' purchase a mission+scenery pack on the premise that in doing so they will eventually have a direct FSX replacement? We all know Flight is just a silly carplane game that will never become more significant than a dead pixel in the bottom corner of the mighty FSX theater screen. I know it defies all logic to buy the additional scenery for a product that will never be a simluator, but some of us want to anyway. We don't need 'false hope' protection - that's the point of the numerous recent threads asking the anti-Flight camp to chill out.

But this is exactly the reason there are so many "counter-posts". If this forum were full of posts from you, Arwen and people who post along the same lines and none from me or any "negative" posts, how would that represent Flight to anyone who stumbles into this forum wanting to know if they should drop $35 on some DLC?One might think that anyone who has been in the beta thinks highly of the game. Furthermore, one might think that the rest of the islands and the RV6 and the Maule are just beyond amazing and pave the way for having the whole world in high detail, with jets and so on.Some of us point out that there are plenty of beta testers, who even have the rest of the islands and the rest of the planes that disagree with the rosy assessment and anyone about to support Flight with their wallet should have both sides of the story.Some of us think that the best way to send a message to MS is not giving them any money if one does not like the direction they have taken. Let the target audience fund Flight. If you find yourself in that group, go ahead and buy every DLC, but don't be surprised if all you'll get is more of the same.It is my opinion that the only way MS will make DLC that I want is if I do not buy things I don't actually want to use. When they do put out DLC I want, I'll buy that and that will send the correct message that I want more of the same. If enough people do this, MS might take notice.Either way, it's not about the $35, it's the principle of the thing.

[ViperPilot 81]

“None so blind as those that will not see.”

Those who choose not to see with an open mind blind themselves with their apathy.

[mgh 89]

Those who choose not to see with an open mind blind themselves with their apathy.

I suppose that might mean something.

[Rush1169 0]

None of us flew out of all 25000 airports. But most of us want to fly from the airport in our home town. In that aspect, 25000 was brilliant.

I agree - on paper having all 25000 airports is kinda cool. Seems like most versions of FS didn't have all airports, but once it did, you bet I went straight to my stomping ground to check it out - the novelty was brilliant and just that one addition to the series made that version purchase a no-brainer. Then I realized all that was there were just the actual landing strips. There was no other semblance between what was in FS and what was in real-life. So, after that initial interest of seeing what was there (nothing) I moved back to the more detailed areas.

It is my opinion that the only way MS will make DLC that I want is if I do not buy things I don't actually want to use. When they do put out DLC I want, I'll buy that and that will send the correct message that I want more of the same.

Why would anyone "buy things [we] don't actually want to use"?

If enough people do this [don't buy things we don't actually want to use], MS might take notice.

I hope you can see the "sillyness" in your post :)From what I can gather, the agenda from the folks who don't like Flight is to try to get no one to buy anything ever for Flight so that MS will see they made a mistake by not making FSXI from the beginning with the hopes that they do scrap Flight in favor of a 4-DVD boxed FSXI. While I understand the mentality of the plan, the reality of it is that it won't work. I'm sure my perception is wrong and the anti-Flight group is merely looking out for the dumb people who are going to blindly fork over their money on the false hope that Flight may actually be kinda cool, regardless of how it matures (not that it will ever have anything but some basic GA planes and Hawaii).We know Flight is a toy. We know it's just a carplane game. We know it has no jets, no ATC, no weather, no nothing. We get it. Some are still going to buy stuff for it. I know anti-Flight folks would rather we didn't spend a dime on it with their personal hope that Flight gets scrapped, Microsoft apologizes for the toy, and FSXI comes onto the scene, but do you really think there is a chance that's going to happen? Edited February 10, 2012 by Rush1169

[Arwen 289]

We know Flight is a toy. We know it's just a carplane game. We know it has no jets, no ATC, no weather, no nothing

Flight is no more of a "toy" or "game" than FSX is. Both are just platforms . . . tools. How you use a tool is what makes it what it is to you. Granted, FSX is more complete, and Flight is still in development.An Icon is a Light Sport Aircraft, not a "car plane."Flight has weather . . . it is pretty basic at this point, but is still weather.

[torium 207]

He also said at the end of that interview: QuoteI think in the long-run, this franchise will definitely make more money than "Gears." I think Gears is a great. Flight is one of those evergreen franchises in entertainment - this will live another 30 years.

The ONLY way that will have any possibility of happening is if Flight sells a TON of DLC . . . which isn't going to happen with just Hawaii as the only place to fly. The long term plan is for a lot more scenery DLC. Will it ever have world wide coverage? I honestly don't know. But this is still a possibility by my reasoning.

Rational thoughts.Whether we like it or not - when Microsoft give us Flight (base pack) for free - it's a part of a business plan.Microsoft Flight = business (not charity).Joshua Howard said: -"We're rebooting a franchise, and that was really hard. We wanted to this well. We took the time and energy to do that. Now this becomes a platform to keep going.""keep going" = $$ = DLCJoshua Howard said: -"The bet we've made is that to the non-hardcore simmer, flying the whole world isn't as interesting when there's nothing really interesting to see or do." (He might be right?)Keyword = "non-hardcore simmer"."The bet we've made" = Uncertainty!!If enough (break-even?) hardcore-people will pay for all "crazy 25,000-odd airports" = DLC = $.But if Flight isn't business for MS, then they can say to their customers :(

[Tim Arnot 5]

25,000-odd airports was crazy.

Here's to the Crazy Ones. The misfits. The rebels. The trouble-makers. The round pegs in the square holes.The ones who fly into 25,000 airports...BTW, XPX has 33,473 airports! :Whistle:if nothing else, Flight definitely shows a failure of imagination and vision, IMHO.

[MarkRey 16]

In my humble opinion, the dissatisfaction and disappointment at issue in this Forum is in a lot of ways a self fulfilling prophecy.The rampant mill of speculation, innuendo and misinformation hundreds upon hundreds of people spread in this Forum over the lasttwo years eventually came back and exploded right in their faces. Time and time again it was suggested, "just wait until Flight is released",but people continued to spin every scrap of information, video and rumor over and over again.So, what did that effort gain? A community that is severely divided, a new member base that has been derided and ridiculed, membersverbally attacking others participating in the Forums... nice way to promote our hobby!So, to all of the rumor mongers, conspiracy theorists and spin doctors out there (and you know who you are)... satisfied with your work?You spun it out of control, and in the end, you got exactly what you deserved.If you need proof, just go back and peruse through ALL of the threads in this forum from 2010 until now. The writing is all there, right on the wall. :(

MS Flight final meeting prior to release: "ok guys, great work scouring the flightsim forums over the last year or two - we've gutted every last core feature those hardcore whiners ever valued, and shut the door or those pesky 3rd party bloodsuckers - resulting in a game that will produce a DLC revenue stream like never before - congratulations!!" :(