Flight have gone the right path for me. I want GA and terrain details.if the flight model and terrain are betterthan fsx, Im in.Pierre

Correct me if I'm wrong.FS9 & FSX work well together because some users feel that they get better performance from FS9 when flying airliners than they do with FSX.Some love bush flying in FSX and others love the sceneries and new airplanes not available in FS9. The same can be true with FS9.However, MS Flight is just Hawaii with a couple of planes where one collects coins for points. If you dumb down FSX to just Hawaii and two airplanes, what do we have?

Honestly I love GA flying in Hawaii. I wish more planes would have been offered at launch though.

However, MS Flight is just Hawaii with a couple of planes where one collects coins for points. If you dumb down FSX to just Hawaii and two airplanes, what do we have?

I'm currently flying both FSX and Flight. But am spending most of my flight time using Flight.I only fly 3 or 4 aircraft in FSX 99% of the time. I currently have 4 aircraft in Flight (all of which are at least as good as the aircraft that I fly in FSX). FYI: you don't have to collect "coins" for points, the aerocaches are totally optional and many are used to give you some interesting facts about the scenery that you are flying over ... such as old WWII abandoned airfields.Give Flight some time. If the DLC sells well, we'll soon have more than Hawaii for scenery, along with more aircraft.

Edited February 11, 201214 yr by Arwen

I currently have 4 aircraft in Flight (all of which are at least as good as the aircraft that I fly in FSX).

I only have two; that horrible flying car thing and the Steerman, which I don't like flying because I can't see out of it!

Edited February 11, 201214 yr by Tom Wright

I actually like the Icon (which is an amphibious Sport Aircraft, not a "flying car"). It is currently the only aircraft in which you are able to land and take off on water, and it has a basic GPS/Moving MapIf you lean out from the cockpit a bit (Hold down the middle mouse button, and drag your viewpoint), just like you have to in real life, you can see just fine.

Give Flight some time. If the DLC sells well, we'll soon have more than Hawaii for scenery, along with more aircraft.

Yes. If the DLC sells well, then Flight will have a great potential.

However, MS Flight is just Hawaii with a couple of planes where one collects coins for points. If you dumb down FSX to just Hawaii and two airplanes, what do we have?Correct me if I'm wrong.

Oversimplified - but you have a free "base-pack". Then you can start the expansion.RPS asks: - "Do you think Flight will have anything to offer the Microsoft Flight Simulator hardcore – the people with simpits and hundreds of pounds’ worth of high fidelity third-party aircraft and sceneries on their HDs?"Joshua Howard said: - "Microsoft Flight leverages the best of what core fans have always loved about the franchise; there are a variety of ways to fly with better aircraft models and better graphics than ever before.It will also evolve over time through game add-ons, giving sim fans a rich experience. We’re aiming to honor the legacy of the Flight Simulator franchise while also expanding the experience to brand new audiences. It’s about growing the experience, not watering it down. Many of the hardcore beta testers tell us that once they fly in Flight (especially with the flight assists turned off), they can’t imagine going back – the authenticity of the flight model is better than it’s ever been."Joshua Howard said: - "We will be managing all of the add-ons, at least for the foreseeable future, whether we build them in house or partner with external developers.To enable the needed improvements in performance, visuals, and new experiences, Microsoft Flight is a completely new product with an entirely new code base, architecture, toolset, and even a new distribution model. Therefore, add-ons developed for FSX will not be compatible with Microsoft Flight.One of the biggest frustrations for our customer base has been locating new content online and finding where the top quality products can be purchased. By consolidating all of our new content under one roof, we can simplify the process for the customer and deliver a consistent level of quality through all of our releases. As a result, we will be taking the lead role in new downloadable content for the initial launch and first months of content deployment.As we gain more experience with the distribution model and gain better insight into how our users are enjoying the experiences, we will explore opportunities to grow our content offerings."How i wish you could see the potential. But I guess some need a little more time. :(

"It will also evolve over time through game add-ons, giving sim fans a rich experience. We’re aiming to honor the legacy of the Flight Simulator franchise while also expanding the experience to brand new audiences."

Wow! That excites me! But, how come devs like PMDG, Aerosoft, and ORBX have already ditched?

Well, if MS wanted to rile avsimmers then focusing on the strange car/plane thing that Arwen calls an 'Icon' was a pretty good way to do it. Obviously they've wanted something original and non-threatening to the new target audience. If I was them, I would have been a bit more scared of youse all and focused mostly on the DLC planes - like the Vans. Probably what both aviation fans and newbies would be most interested in.Although to be honest when I say MS 'focused on', it's actually really 'what the beta testers uploaded to youtube', which I guess is something different, and not really MS's fault!

Wow! That excites me! But, how come devs like PMDG, Aerosoft, and ORBX have already ditched?

Orbx and Flight seem to me to be likely to compete directly for market share - for the 'low and slow' audience.PMDG would be limited by the small areas proposed which don't obviously encourage tubeliners (although I've spent plenty of hours in my NG flying between Hawaian islands decked out in FS Dreamteam/megascenery etc).Aerosoft is a publisher predominantly, and has the most to lose with a single pipe distribution model.Just my thoughts...What I'd love to see is all three of those developers getting on board and see what magic they can work with the new(ish) graphics engine. I love my FSX payware, and the devs you mention make FSX shine, but the skeleton they're working with is showing its age.

thanks guys for a good insight into flight.some things i didn't know some i did.Jim I'm going to find the post where it mentioned the seattle area.could be wrong.also the point of having to unlock free flight .seems that is wrong as no beta tester has mentioned it.unless it's in the release version. :sad:steve-0

Wow! That excites me! But, how come devs like PMDG, Aerosoft, and ORBX have already ditched?

Business decision that makes sense when you dont know what will be the user base and if you can make profit out of it. Best move is to say you dont support so you dont erode your fsx sales and dont create expectations. Then wait and if it makes business sense flight customers will be more than happy to see big name endorse the product.Business often prepare business plan for the next 3 years to have the big picture.... Then rethink everything each year or whenever necessary to respond to market change.I'm not too worried about the sdk and who endorse or not a product before its launch. Just the time will tell big players strategy.

Wow! That excites me! But, how come devs like PMDG, Aerosoft, and ORBX have already ditched?

Maybe they didn't want to share a piece of their pie with MS?

Well, if MS wanted to rile avsimmers then focusing on the strange car/plane thing that Arwen calls an 'Icon' was a pretty good way to do it. Obviously they've wanted something original and non-threatening to the new target audience.

It has a reason = $.Quote: - "In real life, the Icon A5 is a consumer aircraft that is easy to fly. Dubbed a “Jetski for the sky,” it will cost about $140,000. Production starts at the end of 2012."Keywords : "is a consumer aircraft".Can you imagine a better marketing for a consumer aircraft ? (ICON Aircraft get their product shown all over the world).Marketing = $ (for Microsoft) - lower cost price for Flight.

Maybe they didn't want to share a piece of their pie with MS?

Maybe all the things MS was asking them to do was too much?