My personal problem with Flight is that they promised that "hardcore simmers will be pleased with what they see" - and didn't deliver a SINGLE thing that could make me pleased.

My personal problem with Flight is that they promised that "hardcore simmers will be pleased with what they see"

Where did that quotation come from?

Edited February 10, 201214 yr by mgh

seem to remember that from the Q&A on the official site. Sure enough he's right, it IS pleasing to look at - sadly that's as far as anything for the hardcore goes.It really will be a long wait and see for us - the bottom line will as always determine Flight's future.

seem to remember that from the Q&A on the official site.

Watch, the next questions are going to be: "What exact date, page, paragraph, and sentence did MS say that? Who wrote it, what was their intent, and what did they have for breakfast that day?"Anything less will be discounted as rumor, lie, marketing spin, and a total mis-understanding.

Jim. MS is giving a way free content to beta testers :)

seem to remember that from the Q&A on the official site.

Just so.

My personal problem with Flight is that they promised that "hardcore simmers will be pleased with what they see" - and didn't deliver a SINGLE thing that could make me pleased.

Then you are not a hardcore simmer! Seriously: Flight is trying a different approach to make itself as accessible as possible.Quote: - "You may have played some previous products where you're at the end of a runway with a set of complex panels in front of you. That may have been real, but it wasn't a lot of fun," explains Howard. "We're going to bring the joy of flight to audiences by making it a better game."Now (2012) - is the target: The non-hardcore simmer!!Microsoft know very well about the HARDCORE simmer. But they are not the target NOW.Now - is it very important that Microsoft can reach new customers! If they succeed, and the customer base increase - THEN - they will turn to the hardcore simmer (their "safe" waiting customer base).More customers = more Flight-addons = more hardcore customers = more $ . And Flight - "will live another 30 years" said Executive Producer Joshua Howard.

It really will be a long wait and see for us

It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. But an alternative flightsim-product would in any case given long waiting time. Therfore - "they would rather launch now and not have everything than wait and let the product age."A good decision.

Quote: - "You may have played some previous products where you're at the end of a runway with a set of complex panels in front of you. That may have been real, but it wasn't a lot of fun," explains Howard. "We're going to bring the joy of flight to audiences by making it a better game."

With respect, and with the clear understanding of Mr Howard's intent, this is abject nonsense. The simple answer is to add the Icon or some other simple aircraft to the default stable, not dumbing down the ENTIRE platform.MS has better arguments for re-targeting than this - Howard should stick to those.

Edited February 10, 201214 yr by MarkRey

Then you are not a hardcore simmer! Seriously: Flight is trying a different approach to make itself as accessible as possible.Quote: - "You may have played some previous products where you're at the end of a runway with a set of complex panels in front of you. That may have been real, but it wasn't a lot of fun," explains Howard. "We're going to bring the joy of flight to audiences by making it a better game."Now (2012) - is the target: The non-hardcore simmer!!Microsoft know very well about the HARDCORE simmer. But they are not the target NOW.Now - is it very important that Microsoft can reach new customers! If they succeed, and the customer base increase - THEN - they will turn to the hardcore simmer (their "safe" waiting customer base).More customers = more Flight-addons = more hardcore customers = more $ . And Flight - "will live another 30 years" said Executive Producer Joshua Howard.It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. But an alternative flightsim-product would in any case given long waiting time. Therfore - "they would rather launch now and not have everything than wait and let the product age."A good decision.

IMISO, just another example of speculation without proof to back it up. Torium, go back and read the last interview with Joshua Howard. Based on the answers to his questions, where do you draw the conclusion that MS is EVER going to 'go back' to a software model that they freely admit is outdated and does not conform to their current market strategy? They have already said it; Flight Simulation based on earlier models is "crazy" and 'not what the enthusiast wants to see."Flight and DLC is the model MS has chosen. No amount of wishful thinking or hateful correspondence is going to change that.

Yeah, certainly Flight will not be anything like FSX in terms of coverage of planes and scenery. Its meant to be like it is, mostly general aviation simulator with smaller but good looking areas, it wont change to anything else no matter how many customers it reaches. Of course I cant be sure about this, but only this option seems logical to me.

Edited February 10, 201214 yr by FScamp

where do you draw the conclusion that MS is EVER going to 'go back' to a software model that they freely admit is outdated and does not conform to their current market strategy?

This must be a misconception? Sorry if I am unclear.What I said was: Now (from the starting-point) - is it very important that Microsoft can reach new customers! If they succeed, and the customer base increase .....- THEN - they will turn to the hardcore simmer (their "safe" waiting customer base).Meaning: THEN - they will give priority to the hardcore customers' wants and needs for Flight-addons (such as ATC, etc.).FLIGHT is a "base pack" for both the beginner and advanced user.I never talk about - 'go back' to a outdated software model. I'm talking about FLIGHT.What can I do to make this clearer?

Yeah, certainly Flight will not be anything like FSX in terms of coverage of planes and scenery. Its meant to be like it is, mostly general aviation simulator with smaller but good looking areas, it wont change to anything else no matter how many customers it reaches.

Then enjoy your good old FSX-game.Joshua Howard said: - "We also found that some of the hardcore users were not realizing there was as hardcore a simulator as there was...that in some sense, they were being turned off by how easy to use the product was. While easy to use is part of our vision for the game, we didn't want that "simmer" to think that this product was less than something they were interested in."

Edited February 10, 201214 yr by torium

Yeah, I will enjoy my FSX very much. Kind of funny by the way how I cant find Microsoft itself to be very reliable source of information about what Flight really is. Reminds me how Codemasters tried to market their Operation Flashpoint Red River as something realistic that would apply for hardcore realism seeking players when in fact it was some kind of mix beetween COD and Battlefield minus all fun.Also if they happened to release good quality GA aircraft and ATC (which I doubt), then maybe they could get some general aviation hardcore flyer interested. However I like to fly in areas which will surely never be included in Flight as they are far away from western viewpoint, so I would still not use it.

This must be a misconception? Sorry if I am unclear.What I said was: Now (from the starting-point) - is it very important that Microsoft can reach new customers! If they succeed, and the customer base increase .....- THEN - they will turn to the hardcore simmer (their "safe" waiting customer base).Meaning: THEN - they will give priority to the hardcore customers' wants and needs for Flight-addons (such as ATC, etc.).FLIGHT is a "base pack" for both the beginner and advanced user.I never talk about - 'go back' to a outdated software model. I'm talking about FLIGHT.What can I do to make this clearer?

Nope, no matter how big customer base Flight gets they wont turn to hardcore simmers. They will going to make addons for Flights INTENDED customers, mainstream users, not to small hardcore community out there.This is just totally obvious thing to me, I see no future for flight as serious hardcore simulator. Also Microsoft will never be able to produce anything near PMDG quality for Flight. I do not believe that Flight is very high budget game anyway so why would they waste their time on that? And why I think that Flight is low budget game? Well, obviously because it still uses pretty much same old engine and its graphics are not up to todays standards at all (if we compare to AeroflyFS which looks awesome, comparing to X plane 10 is not fair as it includes whole world.)

Edited February 10, 201214 yr by FScamp

FSX introduced "MIssions" -- FSX's (Mission Guy) pushed "Missions" and Missions were a FLOP (putting it nicely)It would seem that FLIGHT is even more geared towards the "Mission" theme. (Hardly suprising -- what is the Guy that was pushing mission so hard in FSX doing now ??) roflIt seem quite clear that FLIGHT will be an even bigger FLOP.Personally, I'm already fed up and bored with it, and it hasn't even been released yet.Whatever FLIGHT ends up being, it's already "outdated", as it is based on old legacy FS*, FS9, FSX code, that is far behind current gaming software, and it's use of modern hardware. It's going NOWHERE in it's present state, without a MAJOR re-design, and corresponding major investment.I see FLIGHT as an attempt to squeeze the last few dollars out of a dying codebase. Probably makes good business sense in the short term -- which is really what American Business is all about .. Short term profits to make the shareholders happy.

Personally, I'm already fed up and bored with it, and it hasn't even been released yet.

:( :( :(