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

[UtahJazzfan8 0]

hubs and popular places rather than minimal coverage of everything down to emergency landing strips in the middle of nowhere.

Then try FS95.

[simmerhead 885]

Where was that ever stated? I need to see an actual quote.

Who cares what is stated. Things change and MS like most other companies change direction if they find it profitable or in other ways worthwhile. I just remember what Phil Taylor said about FSX and FS11 just before he left the building (he left ACES before it was shut down mind you):The future of the franchise is secure. Period. Any “discussion” about the demise of FS is just plain wrong. FS11 planning is in full swing, which means there will be an FS11. Guaranteed, unless we now do something wrong internally. Can we stop the idle and baseless negative speculation now? Please?To me the speculation is a s valid as nitpicking whatever statement Joshua Howard or the MS Flight website has to offer. In the end thinigs might go wrong and become subject to change.

Phil Taylor did what he could to salvage FSX and got beat up BADLY. The bashing of FSX's initial release was well-deserved.

Probably some suit who set an unrealisitic deadline without knowing anything about coding software...

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.

It's not about actually going there, but having the opportunity to. It also made a great foundation for developers to build on. FSX is great because it allows almost anyone to fly in their own country. Sure ORBX looks great but I'm not that interested in flying the PNW, Australia, New Zealand or Hawaii for that matter. Edited February 10, 2012 by simmerhead

[DAD 2,660]

Who cares what is stated.

well, I do. because I can still imagine (no, not know, expect or demand) that MS offers some generic world coverage, either in a complete package or various ones by say continent to close gaps between their detailed sceneries. for 2 reasons: 1) they already have all the data they need, adjusting some landclass or whatever is needed to make such data compatible with Flight could at least give us a plausible world we know from XP; I would not need more for some flights at FL300 and above; and 2) offering such packages would indeed close the 'gaps' between detailed regions and thus enable longer flights. I can just imagine that once they possibly offer manhattan/ny, british columbia, miami/florida or innsbruck/the alps that they also offer some coverage 'in between', whether detailed or just plausible. only this would enable long haul /intercontinental flights and keep up the interest in flight. other than that flight would just become a sightseeing package for some nice destinations sponsored by the tourist industry (hey, actually a good idea if that keeps prices down; though I would not want to see tripadvisor popups when exploring a destination :-)) because if you like collecting coins it does not really matter whether you do so between empire state buidling and central park in NYC, over south beach in miami or a narrow valley in austria. Edited February 10, 2012 by DAD

[newthog 0]

Who cares what is stated... (portion removed)... I just remember what Phil Taylor said

can you clarify if you care what is said or not?

[simmerhead 885]

can you clarify if you care what is said or not?

I care and I don't care. The portion of my quote that you deleted takes me not caring out of context.I care about FLIGHT, but I don't put more value into what is being said by Microsoft than I do of some people's musings in these forums. Microsoft can say something, then change their mind about it and do something completely different. But mostly their statements are so vague that they don't make much sense. Hence, I don't care! Edited February 10, 2012 by simmerhead

[newthog 0]

The portion of my quote that you deleted takes me not caring out of context.

Thanks Simmerhead - hadn't had any coffee when I read your post the first time...appreciate you clarifying for my non-caffinated brain! I went back and reread it - with your further explanation, it clarifies what you're saying.I'm in concurrence with you - I care about Flight, and hope it succeeds. I also agree that putting value in either "corporate speak" or "forum speak" are both equally dangerous if all the facts are not known.

[simmerhead 885]

The proof is in the pudding...

[trevorbee 0]

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.

corinocoVery much with you on this.

[Attila 2]

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.

Isn't Flight doing the same thing? There are far more dirt strips in Hawaii than airports with any sort of nav aids. Unless you wish only to fly in fair weather, these airports are a "waste" as you put it.

[Guest jahman]

Yup, Flight is a game-changer (pun fully intended). We're done, Josh. You just don't understand that the miracle of flight does not lie in looking at pretty scenery. If that were the case, you should have made a hot air balloon simulator to enjoy the natural beauty of Hawaii. And, no, it wasn't about the Wright Brothers travelling a hundred feet or so. The miracle of flight is about freedom and the amazing power to make the world smaller. It's about the astounding feat that a heavier-than-air craft can start in one corner of the world and take you some tens, hundreds, or even thousands of miles away in a matter of hours while you are able to witness the beauty of said world from the same point of view as the birds. And, to unravel the mysteries, to fully appreciate how this is possible, you need to understand and be able to recreate the science and the process that is making an aircraft fly. And, if you can't witness this miracle yourself, you can imagine it. No, we're lucky, because we can go a step further, we can simulate it. And, that I will argue is why some of us love flight simulation. It's not about collecting coins, it's about the freedom to go anywhere we choose to go on this earth from the amazing vantage point of our computer screen.

Exactly!

It *is* a very odd marketing choice - going after the gaming crowd and then not giving them a real game. I mean, how long can flying through hoops and getting into an airport in bad weather keep a crowd like that? If instead they had made an immersive combat flying game using the Acceleration FA-18 and carrier landings in the Persian Gulf, along with (say) an F-14 and had Top Gun at Miramar in San Diego - all in high detail and looking as good as Flight does - perhaps they would have had a winner? Adding DLC to such a game would be very easy - just add another scenario (i.e. F-15's in Afganistan, Japanese Zero's attacking Pearl Harbor, etc.). I just don't get it...

Exactly!

25,000 airports for the whole world is a waste of development

You're obviously clueless: All those thousands of small airports were generated automatically based on the Jeppesen airport diagrams. They were most definitely not individually developped therefore there was no waste of time involved. Period.Cheers,- jahman. Edited February 10, 2012 by jahman

[xplanery 250]

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.

There is Flight Simmers outside USA, Western Europe and Australia & NZ too. Forgetting them would be just totally idiotic and selfish. I would never buy any flight simulator where I cant fly where ever i want. Even if they modeled whole USA or Australia in extremely high quality I still would not have any interest to fly there because these places do not interest me in real life any way.Flight will not have any future as serious simulator for flying with jet aircrafts. FSX and X plane do it right, they provide you whole world in low quality and then you can make places you like to fly better looking with addons.Its not away from you that we flight simmers who like to fly outside mainstream areas have at least some kind of possibility to do so. Generally everything in gaming industry is already way too focused on western world. Edited February 10, 2012 by FScamp

[simmerhead 885]

I just don't understand why anyone would take away features just because they themselves don't use them. Hasn't part of the appeal of the FS franchise since FS98 and onwards always been that it has something to offer everyone...?

[Arwen 289]

Who cares what is stated. Things change and MS like most other companies change direction if they find it profitable or in other ways worthwhile. I just remember what Phil Taylor said about FSX and FS11 just before he left the building (he left ACES before it was shut down mind you):The future of the franchise is secure. Period. Any “discussion” about the demise of FS is just plain wrong. FS11 planning is in full swing, which means there will be an FS11. Guaranteed, unless we now do something wrong internally. Can we stop the idle and baseless negative speculation now? Please?To me the speculation is a s valid as nitpicking whatever statement Joshua Howard or the MS Flight website has to offer. In the end thinigs might go wrong and become subject to change.

I care. Too many people in the forum keep making statements about Flight that are presented as fact . . . but are more often nothing more than their opinion.What if Flight is a step in the process of creating FSXI? Edited February 10, 2012 by Arwen

[simmerhead 885]

I care. Too many people in the forum keep making statements about Flight that are presented as fact . . . but are more often nothing more than their opinion.What if Flight is a step in the process of creating FSXI?

I regard everything ever written as someones opinion. Nobody knows the facts, not even the Microsoft folks as they could be shut down in six months just like ACES once were.If flight is a step towards FS11? GREAT!

[xplanery 250]

I care. Too many people in the forum keep making statements about Flight that are presented as fact . . . but are more often nothing more than their opinion.What if Flight is a step in the process of creating FSXI?

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. Edited February 10, 2012 by FScamp