doom Okay folks, get a grip time is upon us

[Attila 2]

It is an unfortunate limitation of forum software that despite ignoring other selected user's posts, if they are subsequently qouted by other users you are going to read their original posts anyway. I am now using a "skimming" approach. The trolls are easy to remember, so as soon as I see the name, I now just gloss over the post till I get to the next one.

You say this as if people posting the same thing over and over (positive about Flight mind you) cannot be trolls. Especially the ones that keep referring to their beta test experiences, which no one can refute for fear of being banned from these forums.

[JonP01 104]

You say this as if people posting the same thing over and over (positive about Flight mind you) cannot be trolls.

Well, get it off your chest then. Report me to Tom and have me banned. Problem solved for you and everyone else. I don't need to post here to enjoy playing with Flight, but I sure much prefer to be around positive people than negative people. Maybe that's just a personal quirk of mine though.

[beoingrocks 0]

I hope flight will run ok on my laptop. I get an average 10 to 15 fps in the ngx in fsx

[Arwen 289]

Flight runs well on my laptop. I have most of the graphics set on High (one step below Maximum)- Computer: Dell Studio XPS 1645- Operation System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit- Processor: Intel Core i7 CPU Q 720 Processor at 1.6GHz (4 cores, 8 threads), 1.33MHz Bus, 1MB X 2 Cache- Memory: 6 GB DDR3- Graphics Adapter: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5730 1.0 GB- Monitor: 15.6" Widescreen (1920X1080) Active Matrix LCD

[maxter 0]

Thanks Tom, timely words indeed.Much appreciated.

[eSimmer 10]

I have already recieved hate PM's that call into question my birth status...

This type of misbehavior is unacceptable: how did we get to this point?BTW your synopsis is totally reasonable.P.S. In my opinion "never quote" someone with whom you disagree: this is the first step to confrontation.Cadle Edited February 12, 2012 by eSimmer

[Tor 0]

Let´s welcome Flight as a good opportunity to maybe re-learn what the experience of flying can be...There´s too many "hardcore" Sim people here with cold hearts and sharp brains, enough of that, please?My fascination with flying began by reading Richard Bach:http://richardbach.com/tag/flying/- and the books:http://richardbach.com/books/"A cloud does not know why it moves in just such a direction and at such a speed, it feels an impulsion....this is the place to go now. But the sky knows the reason and the patterns behind all clouds, and you will know, too, when you lift yourself high enough to see beyond horizons."Happy Flight! :(

Edited February 12, 2012 by Tor

[moggel 0]

I'm getting back to simming after a year or so and I find the negativism concerning 'Flight' baffling. It's pretty clear to anyone that Microsoft could not move on with FSX tech-wise. The sim engine needed a complete rebuld to meet the expectations of a modern "game". But even more important was the poor business model. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that ORBX has made more $ from FSX than Microsoft has. I love ORBX's products so I don't mind but I have no problem seeing the problem. I've spent a LOT more money add ons from various "sim markets" than I have on the core product.I'm just returning to FSX after a year and I find my self iterating the reading-installingand-tweaking process several times before flying is as enjoyable as I want it to be. The end result is just as good as the weakest add on. If there's an issue with some add on somewhere I'm left to roam the forums and spend time trying to isolate and resolve the problem. I cannot call Microsoft support because, well, there isn't any. I'm an IT professional and I've done it a few times by now so it's acceptable. But I can honestly say I have spent more time fiddling with the sim than I have flying it. Clearly this is not optimal. Just imagine what it must be like for a new flight enthusiast to get FSX up and running with all the bells and whistles in place (improved whather, improved ATC, a few products to improve environment, a bunch of sceneries, one or two realistic aircrafts and so on). Learning to fly is fun and that's what I would like the sim to be. Instead, learning to assemble sim is what a new enthusiast is faced with. There's hours upon hours to be spent on this as he or she gets in to this hobby. As a simmer I would welcome a business model where I can expand the sim as easily as clicking an icon and submit my consent for payment to get a new expansion installed and done with. With FSX its a matter of tech know how, "community smarts" and keeping an archive of license and order numbers around for safe keeping so I can reiterate the assembly process the next time I'm upgrading my computer. I have seen some statements that leads me to believe that Microsoft won't let ANY third party companies into the 'Flight' product. That would be a big mistake from Microsoft's part and let's hope this isn't the case. That if anything would loose many of the hard core flight enthusiasts. I'm sure Microsoft realizes the value of having ORBX, PMDG and all the other quality vendors on board, marketing their products through "Games for Windows Marketplace" (what a clunky name that is ;-) ). That would make the sim more enjoyable, easier to get into for first time armchair pilots and it would make for a much better ROI for Microsoft. That's money they can put to work expanding and improving the product for many years to come.Needless to say I'm downloading 'Flight' on the 29th of February and I'll fly it as a complementing sim until I'm proven wrong. FSX isn't going anywhere...unfortunately.Kind regardsJonas

[ahuimanu 50]

Hollywood DivorceFlight, for many of us, now represents a break-up/divorce after growing and maturing with a partner for over 20 years. Now, that our partner has a new style, and new tastes, is it not understandable that those of us jilted are not anguished? Is it not feasible that we will bicker with our wayward partner's new suitors?I was not selected for the beta, but I have eyes and ears and I can spend some time adjusting to the news that the divorce is fairly final. We were told to look out for a flying game, but we wanted to believe that we'd be getting our old partner back. This doesn't seem likely.Since the forum is about what our old partner is becoming, rather than what we like for that partner to remain as, I suppose the detractors should be "sushed" and muzzled. However, let us NOT delude ourselves that the marketing strategy, if it can be called that, did keep us strung along, and continues to do so. Now that the Flight project manager makes it clear that we are to have "Disney planes," that ruse is spent. I do think that only leg that we, the nasty dwarves of toxicity, have to stand on is that we at upset at being had. Its fine for those attracted to the new Flight to come and develop a cozy place to discuss their newfound love, but the record should show the history of the title and what has been lost for the "gains" that are attracting new blood. I think Tom's point, which I accept, is that this message has been presented. But the message we are also tacitly getting is: the "fun" of flying loop-de-loops from the exterior view is all that matters to the new comers and "pipe down" to those of you disenfranchised by flight.Fine. As ever, the freedoms we have to express ourselves, yea or nay, are bounded at the discretion of those that run Avsim, and we must abide by this.A Parting ThoughtThe worst part of the "let's-give-FLIGHT-a-chance-as-it-might-draw-the-new-crowd-back-into-the-old-model" is that it too is based on conjecture. Just because the "drug pusher"/DLC model has worked in other realms does not necessarily assure its success in the context of a flight simulation, or a flying game. The basis of a great deal of human endeavor is conjectural: in many cases we just lack the stochastic probability by which statistics can let us say something is likely to be true.While Microsoft has all the cards in this game, the "duck test" that many of us have learned to apply to situations of logical probability tells us that there are MANY obstacles to overcome before we can take Flight seriously. However, I suppose that there are many who will also find the new flying game to be just their thing. Out with the old, in with the new. What's old is new again. Yadda, yadda...If those of us who are scorning the product based on our smell test are to be chaste, then why not also aim at those whose mouths are over-flowing with the "kool-aid" of their Beta experiences?Is it not also tiring to tolerate these "winks of knowing" from beta testers who should be mute? Or, does this "wide beta" NDA allow this behavior? There are two sides of the street here, but it seems like we're to go into "contra-flow" for the rush hour anticipated with the product release. I will agree that these infractions have also been called to task, but they exist in this very thread.It is clear that Flight is not a successor to FSX, and thus, perhaps it is best that we leave the flying game to those that are fine with it. I get it: while our partner was changing to the new reality, it was still "cooing" to us that "things are still the same baby... trust me."Trust seems to have been broken and it'll be interesting to see the trial begin on 02/29/2012. I can certainly see that some "jurors" have done a 180 so far, so who knows.So where shall the curmudgeons be given a platform? Hangar chat?This is my last "detractor" post until widely-released empirics are available.

Edited February 13, 2012 by ahuimanu

[Arwen 289]

I'm getting back to simming after a year or so and I find the negativism concerning 'Flight' baffling. It's pretty clear to anyone that Microsoft could not move on with FSX tech-wise. The sim engine needed a complete rebuld to meet the expectations of a modern "game". But even more important was the poor business model. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that ORBX has made more $ from FSX than Microsoft has. I love ORBX's products so I don't mind but I have no problem seeing the problem. I've spent a LOT more money add ons from various "sim markets" than I have on the core product.

Sooo true . . . and is it any wonder that some 3PDs are upset that Microsoft is changing the marketing game with Flight?

I'm an IT professional and I've done it a few times by now so it's acceptable. But I can honestly say I have spent more time fiddling with the sim than I have flying it. Clearly this is not optimal. Just imagine what it must be like for a new flight enthusiast to get FSX up and running with all the bells and whistles in place (improved whather, improved ATC, a few products to improve environment, a bunch of sceneries, one or two realistic aircrafts and so on). Learning to fly is fun and that's what I would like the sim to be. Instead, learning to assemble sim is what a new enthusiast is faced with. There's hours upon hours to be spent on this as he or she gets in to this hobby.

There are simmers that love tweaking as much as sim flying. I'm NOT one of them.

Trust seems to have been broken and it'll be interesting to see the trial begin on 02/29/2012. I can certainly see that some "jurors" have done a 180 so far, so who knows.

Beta testing a Microsoft product is like dating a guy who wants to keep all his "options open." I have at times been totally frustrated and quite upset about some of the dumb things that MS has done during the beta testing . . . but I have also been amazed and enchanted at how well some things have turned out. It has been a VERY rocky relationship on my part. Edited February 13, 2012 by Arwen

[moggel 0]

Sooo true . . . and is it any wonder that some 3PDs are upset that Microsoft is changing the marketing game with Flight?

Well, providing I'm wrong and that MS does provide a place on Games for Windows Marketplace for 3PD's to market their products I don't see why they would be upset. This will clearly be big dent in the body for SimMarket, FlightSimStore and others that no longer gets a cut but that's just the way of business: It changes. If that cut gets back into the continous develpment of 'Flight' it might be a good thing.

[kama2004 74]

@moggelSo true.... The fsx business model was closed years ago and current MS decision are consistent with that decision. They will not do a fs11 at least not with the same business model.MS already publicly described their vision of multiple developpers in a single marketplace. See PC Pilot interview some months ago. I dont expect bignames to jump into the Flight bandwagon until they have demonstrated the potential userbase through download figures. Big name developper will not endorse publicly Flight for now as this will reduce their current bread and butter sales. Their decision will be based on facts. Is Flight as potential to develop better products? Potential for higher sales? Potential for long term stability and support from MS?If MS had not decided to stop development. We would never had the current quality of add-on. You cannot embark on a multi years development effort like A2A or PMDG if a new version of the based product is issued every 2 years with only partial backward compatibility.I welcome the new Flight business model and hope that it will work for the benefit of us and the developpers in the community.

[Arwen 289]

Well, providing I'm wrong and that MS does provide a place on Games for Windows Marketplace for 3PD's to market their products I don't see why they would be upset. This will clearly be big dent in the body for SimMarket, FlightSimStore and others that no longer gets a cut but that's just the way of business: It changes. If that cut gets back into the continous develpment of 'Flight' it might be a good thing.

My theory is that some 3PDs are already working with MS. Flight could be a win:win for everyone . . . but some people don't like change. Edited February 13, 2012 by Arwen

[maxter 0]

My theory is that some 3PDs are already working with MS.

I have to concur, I too believe that there are some developing content already.

[Glynn 405]

Flight could be a win:win for everyone . . . but some people don't like change.

Hello arwen.It's not so much that I do not like change, it's just that flying VFR in small GA planes bores me very quicky.I enjoy all the flight planning, interacting with ATC and all of the procedures that complex addons require.If Flight! could give me all of that I would be more supportive of it, as it stands I do not ever see me being able to do the type of flying I enjoy with this very limited product.The limited hardware support is something I doubt will ever be addressed, and so my interest in that side of the hobby will always keep me away from MS Flight!, the fact that prop and mixture controls were added so late in the development process shows that MS does not understand this aspect of the hobby, very little chance that all of my Goflight stuff will ever work.So it's not resistance to change, it's the unwillingness to settle for less in my case.