It might be Japan. It might be an area like France or the UK. The Seattle area may make sense on some levels but I just dont know.

1-Grand Canyon2-Las Vegas3-.........Questions : when do you think LOWI, LSGS, LFMN, LFPG or whatever you want will be released ? Some weeks, months, years... ?Richard Portier

Edited February 10, 201214 yr by DrumsArt

I love all the flight phases of FS except the enroute portion - Maybe that admission takes me out of "hard core" status (and that's OK), the point is, even if we could fly from HI to CA would *that* many people really want to (and actually do it) without slewing/time multipling.

There is a function to skip to the the next waypoint. If there is going to be long distance flight implemented in Flight, I suspect there is going to be at least some sort of flight planner as well, in which you can lay out your waypoints.

Questions : when do you think LOWI, LSGS, LFMN, LFPG or whatever you want will be released ? Some weeks, months, years... ?

Years is my opinion. Or maybe never at all.

Years is my opinion. Or maybe never at all.

Thank you,that's exactly what I believeRichard Portier

Edited February 10, 201214 yr by DrumsArt

Years is my opinion. Or maybe never at all.

Hello JimI agree, they lost the chance to have those done when Aerosoft declined to be involved, instead they will be in XplaneA team of fifty is going to have a hard time producing enough DLC to keep everybody interested.Over the years when my interest in FS9 or FSX began to falter there was always something new to buy which drew me back in.without a constant steam of new content and no freeware I doubt this will hold much interest long term.I do see a future where a lot of new blood seeks out more sophisticated addons through FSX, and that is a positive for all of us.

Questions : when do you think LOWI, LSGS, LFMN, LFPG or whatever you want will be released ? Some weeks, months, years... ?

When do I expect the area I want the most to be released in HQ? I'd wager big money that answer is never. Simply not enough interest. I do think there will be somewhat steady stream of large-appeal areas released at a rate that corresponds with the decline in sales of the previous release.

Edited February 10, 201214 yr by Rush1169

I do see a future where a lot of new blood seeks out more sophisticated addons through FSX, and that is a positive for all of us.

Well said! Only time will tell...but one of my hopes for Flight is that the (from what I've read) easy and scaleable degree of difficulty will give new people "the bug" by removing some of the initial barriers to computerized aviation, and expand our niche market.

Well..............in a certain file in a certain folder it mentions California and Mexico just after Hawaii.I have no idea if that file means anything.Next on that list is Toronto Canada...........................Fred.

Edited February 10, 201214 yr by RYR738

I'm not do sure about the team size. What surfaces are developers/distributors that declined offers or/and are not interested, however there are a lot of them that are quiet. It could be interesting for a producer to build a DLC for flight specially if they already have a product that fits.

There's also nothing to stop Microsoft from using outside dev teams (not our current 3pds) to generate a lot of the structural models. Terrain, mesh, it's not a complex thing to program to get results. It will be the little touches that add value to a region, such as seeing the USS Missouri sitting in Pearl Harbor.Planes? I'm betting on a nice Cessna. But only time will tell. I'll need something to get me off of The Big Island, so I wonder where that could come from?

Planes? I'm betting on a nice Cessna.

I would vote for a 172 too, curious to see much improvement they have gotten over FSX.

Edited February 11, 201214 yr by sibtiger

Umm, didn't Howard say that they will concentrate on small areas. Just what would SoCal cost? $150? Hawaii is mostly trees and old lava flows with one major airport and one city. There are, however, tons of scenic waterfalls, deep valleys and other similar attractions. How does SoCal compare to this?There is LA, which by itself is far more work to create than the entire state of Hawaii. Then there is San Diego with a military airport there as well. I am pretty sure there are tons of small airports all over the place and they are not a building-less remnant of a dirt road, like they are in HI.I can see MS doing part of Alaska or Washington, but not the entire state. Still, what's the geographic attraction? Mountains and that's pretty much it. Where are they going to hide their aerocaches and what are the points of interest? There are a ton of them in Hawaii, so the next DLC will have to have some of the same attributes. It has to be cheap to make and it has to look like a lot.If MS sells airports and surrounding city buildings, then my bet is on the ones they already had as high detail airports in FSX. But then how much to charge for the NYC scenery if HI is $20?Btw, I bet that NYC in HI detail would bring Flight to its knees and so it isn't going to be high on the list or perhaps the detail will be reduced by a step or two.

My bet:Other Hawaii islands (has it been announced already, I havent been following very well), some scenery area from Alaska, Grand Canyon, some other Pacific Islands, part of California (part of coast probably)...

The HI to CA scenerio certainly seems like a strong possibility (with a capable plane). . .but something to consider: It may be that many people are not interested in making a 5 hour flight between the two. I know I've never done a 5 hour flight, in real time with any version of FS. I'm sure some people have, but I'd bet that's a very, very small percentage of users. Yeah, I've slewed between or used the time multiplier, but never real time. Heck, anything more than about 20 minutes of straight-and-level and I'd rather do something else. Matter of fact, for me, the enroute portion is so incredibly boring that most of my virtual flights are to the next closest airport that's large enough for my plane. I love all the flight phases of FS except the enroute portion - Maybe that admission takes me out of "hard core" status (and that's OK), the point is, even if we could fly from HI to CA would *that* many people really want to (and actually do it) without slewing/time multipling. If you do use slewing/time multipling, why not just pick a closer destination, that's a bit more "real" anyway?

RUSH1169 - this is another of your posts that I find myself in agreement with. A while ago I worked with an ex First Officer of a Middle East airline. I was curious why he had given up that apparently glamorous role for a mundane desk job, after going through all of the intense training to become a commercial airline pilot. He said that quite simply spending hours and hours on the flight deck between destinations bored him out of his tree.My personal feeling is that the DLC will be based more on themes rather than locations i.e. perhaps a good bush flying area or a good mountain flying area. But there again, sounds like Fred may have some in-side knowledge i.e.

Well..............in a certain file in a certain folder it mentions California and Mexico just after Hawaii.I have no idea if that file means anything.Next on that list is Toronto Canada...........................

Cheers - Trevor