Nothing wrong in having both is there?

[P47D 5]

I plan to have both. And if they come out with something I want, scenery / aircraft I might buy it even at 1600 MSP. I think the default scenery is as good as other payware programs for FSX. Had they released the whole world in similar detail I think a good majority of the negative posts would have gone away.

[torium 207]

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?

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

Perhaps some relevant quotes:Joshua Howard said: - “This model allows us to release high quality new content much faster than a typical retail distribution model, and most importantly, to offer a preview of the game so that customers can decide what to purchase and when.”But where does it leave third-party content firms?"Some expert flight game developers were the first to express their frustration over the situation. Orbx is one studio that is now embracing Prepar3d – a new game that uses the X engine. Microsoft has licensed this engine as a commercial product."(But do not be surprised if MS bring back the license at a later date).John Venema said: - "A closed environment with an in-game app store does not appeal to us since we cannot generate income from such a proprietary arrangement. We’re porting all our stuff to Prepar3d over the coming months. We see no reason why anyone would walk away from five years of investing in Flight Simulator X add-ons to a new simulator."Mastertronic’s operations director Dermot Stapleton Said: -"We wouldn’t have a problem with making DLC for MS Flight. We think freemium is the way the games industry is going."Stapleton Said: - "We hope that Microsoft doesn’t try to control the market by insisting all add-ons are sold through an exclusive marketplace. From a third-party perspective, if Microsoft try to control it, then to me that’s a bad move. As a consumer I’d have to go to Games for Windows Live, but if all my other games are from another digital distribution service such as Steam, Origin, Direct2Drive, Get Games or GOG, why would I want to have to play some place else?Stapleton Said: - "If they try and keep a walled garden around MS Flight I don’t think it’ll be a bright move. That’ll close out millions of Steam users. But it would certainly swell the Games for Windows Live userbase to give away a product for that quality.””Contact Sales MD Robert Stallibrass said: -"It’s all very well to put everything online, but a high percentage of people still like to buy boxed games."

[OzWhitey 3,353]

I'd fail JV's comment on two counts. Can't make money from an app store-like model? Easy purchasing and a large installed userbase has proved a brilliant model to get sales happing for apple's 3pdevs.And can't see why ANYONE would migrate? Well, first cos most of the world doesn't already own orbx/other payware, and secondly because the tech is both 6 years newer and also being continuously supported.I think MS Flight will get a huge levels of installations, and will sell a LOT of $$$ of DLC by traditional FSX standards (even though only a small percentage of installers will purchase).

[Bert Pieke 7,591]

I'm really in two minds on this...The engine in Flight is indeed very good - very smooth, even with high detail scenery.The add-on airplanes: Maule and RV are as good as anything you would buy for FSX.Hawaii is rendered very nicely, including the airports, navaids and all.However, and this is a big however.. Hawaii gets boring after a few days of excited exploration..There is nowhere else you can fly to (or from). There is no chatter on the radio and no traffic on the groundor in the air.And, the top notch add-ons that we know from FSX, like a Garmin GPS, or a favorite autopilot etcare missing.So, in the future, this could all appear and change the situation for the better - but day one, Flight haslimited appeal for someone who has a full fledged FSX install running well on their PC.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Bert Pieke

[OzWhitey 3,353]

I'm really in two minds on this...The engine in Flight is indeed very good - very smooth, even with high detail scenery.The add-on airplanes: Maule and RV are as good as anything you would buy for FSX.Hawaii is rendered very nicely, including the airports, navaids and all.However, and this is a big however.. Hawaii gets boring after a few days of excited exploration..There is nowhere else you can fly to (or from). There is no chatter on the radio and no traffic on the groundor in the air.And, the top notch add-ons that we know from FSX, like a Garmin GPS, or a favorite autopilot etcare missing.So, in the future, this could all appear and change the situation for the better - but day one, Flight haslimited appeal for someone who has a full fledged FSX install running well on their PC.

Radio chatter can easily be added as ambience using liveATC or such - much more realistic than hearing default fsx atc.Traffic I agree is more of a problem - I want planes, cars, people etc around me to create a living world. Flight sounds a bit sterile at the moment. Would be interested to know if they've started working on a traffic program. I'd also be a bit concerned as MS has never licenced real airlines. 3pd's are possibly small enough they figure they can just add whatever real world paints they want (I presume they don't ask some obscure 3rd world airline for permission first). MS has chosen not to do this previously, but maybe they could do what PMDG do - optional download liveries not part of the base pack.

[Attila 2]

Radio chatter can easily be added as ambience using liveATC or such - much more realistic than hearing default fsx atc.

I wouldn't want to listen to radio chatter that has nothing to do with the situation I might be in. At least with FSX ATC I can hear what runway is active and what other planes are doing. It is not ambiance, it adds to situational awareness and immersion. I would consider liveATC a distraction.

[OzWhitey 3,353]

I wouldn't want to listen to radio chatter that has nothing to do with the situation I might be in. At least with FSX ATC I can hear what runway is active and what other planes are doing. It is not ambiance, it adds to situational awareness and immersion. I would consider liveATC a distraction.

I'll miss rc4 w/ flightsim voices for sure - wouldn't fly without it in fsx. But ambience for atc is the best i'm going to get on the 29th feb, and for me it might add to the immersion a little.

[JoeD 0]

Flight has taken a lot of flak since it's announcement.I understand why.my intention is to download it and see what it's all about over the coming year.there has been disappointment with every new version since FS1.expectations are always very high.now i could be very wrong .but i intend to give Flight a chance.these MS guys are not stupid people.I want to see what happens and how it evolves over a year or so.At the same time continuing to use FSX and still purchase addons for it.from companies like PMDG,Aerosoft,GEX,REX,FSDT and all the other fantastic developers out there.I'm expecting some flak but there are people who still have both FS9 and FSX on there rigs.steve-0

Exactly.As I said in other threads, I will DL the "demo".However, I wiil not spend a penny on Flight unless sometime in the future Flight goes in a sensible direction. Edited February 12, 2012 by JoeD

[Jayskits 0]

I wiil not spend a penny on Flight unless sometime in the future Flight goes in a sensible direction

And why would you start spending money on the DLC as it slowly comes out, only to find out a year or two from now that MS has suspended further development on it because it didn't live up to their revenue projections. Where would that leave you? You'd have spent hundreds of dollars on DLC, but be left with a flight program that doesn't cover the whole world, or doesn't yet have ATC, or AI, or whatever other feature MS hadn't gotten around to offering yet. So you'd be left with a flight program that never fulfilled the promise of the marketing hype, and does not satisfy you in certain respects. And no 3PD would be able to fill in the blanks.It might make more sense to wait before taking the Flight plunge, and let MS develop the DLC catalog to a point where it satisfies your particular needs in a flight program. If they eventually do, then Flight becomes a mature platform, and you get the thing you want complete with the features that are important to you.If MS doesn't, then you save yourself a lot of money.

[P47D 5]

I wouldn't want to listen to radio chatter that has nothing to do with the situation I might be in. At least with FSX ATC I can hear what runway is active and what other planes are doing. It is not ambiance, it adds to situational awareness and immersion. I would consider liveATC a distraction.

I have been watching some u-tube videos of flights and training during flights. I agree with you for the most part but many radio communications don't have anything to do with the plane I am flying. They are giving clearances to other planes hundreds of miles away... well at least on the center freq's. I think mostly where you would miss this would be tower and appr/depart freq's. I agree that FSX chatter is better than some random stuff from another state or something but I wish there was a decent sounding ATC program available. I've heard some of whats available and it's really not that good.

[Arwen 289]

And why would you start spending money on the DLC as it slowly comes out, only to find out a year or two from now that MS has suspended further development on it because it didn't live up to their revenue projections. Where would that leave you?

I don't see Flight as an all-or-nothing sim. If a person spends $20 for "Flight's Hawaiian Adventure Pack," they get to fly in scenery that covers the 8 major Hawaiian Islands (which means much longer flights), and they get the RV-A6 (which is a better aircraft than some third party aircraft that I have spent more than $20 on). If that is all that is ever released for Flight, you still end up with more than what you get from some games (and sim add-ons) that cost twice that amount.

You'd have spent hundreds of dollars on DLC, but be left with a flight program that doesn't cover the whole world, or doesn't yet have ATC, or AI, or whatever other feature MS hadn't gotten around to offering yet. So you'd be left with a flight program that never fulfilled the promise of the marketing hype, and does not satisfy you in certain respects. And no 3PD would be able to fill in the blanks.

Every person has to make there own decision on what they will spend their money on. I won't be spending "hundreds of dollars on DLC" . . . at least not right off. But I will likely buy some.What flightsim has ever "fulfilled the promise of [ALL] the marketing hype?" Edited February 12, 2012 by Arwen

[Attila 2]

I have been watching some u-tube videos of flights and training during flights. I agree with you for the most part but many radio communications don't have anything to do with the plane I am flying. They are giving clearances to other planes hundreds of miles away... well at least on the center freq's. I think mostly where you would miss this would be tower and appr/depart freq's. I agree that FSX chatter is better than some random stuff from another state or something but I wish there was a decent sounding ATC program available. I've heard some of whats available and it's really not that good.

I agree. I was looking forward to a new sim with a better SDK for ATC so I or the sim community could have developed better AI handling and better ATC communications. In FSX I have the tower calling my plane as Air Attila :) and that gives me pretty good immersion when I fly the heavies.

[JoeD 0]

And why would you start spending money on the DLC as it slowly comes out, only to find out a year or two from now that MS has suspended further development on it because it didn't live up to their revenue projections. Where would that leave you? You'd have spent hundreds of dollars on DLC, but be left with a flight program that doesn't cover the whole world, or doesn't yet have ATC, or AI, or whatever other feature MS hadn't gotten around to offering yet. So you'd be left with a flight program that never fulfilled the promise of the marketing hype, and does not satisfy you in certain respects. And no 3PD would be able to fill in the blanks.It might make more sense to wait before taking the Flight plunge, and let MS develop the DLC catalog to a point where it satisfies your particular needs in a flight program. If they eventually do, then Flight becomes a mature platform, and you get the thing you want complete with the features that are important to you.If MS doesn't, then you save yourself a lot of money.

That's want I meant ....to see if the whole world would (mostly) be covered, etc. In other words I really have no plans to spend any money on flight.I wiil only DL Flight out of curiosity.. Edited February 13, 2012 by JoeD

[ViperPilot 81]

... and they get the RV-A6 (which is a better aircraft than some third party aircraft that I have spent more than $20 on)...

Arwen,If I may... which 3PD airplanes do you think the RV-6A compares to or is better than (using FS 9 and GA airplanes as the benchmark... no tubes)?Just curious how they stacked up to Carenado, Flight 1, Eaglesoft, etc.Thanks!Alan :(

[Arwen 289]

I'm not going to post the specific 3PD aircraft that I have spent $20 that I personally feel was not as good as Flight's RV-6A, since my intent was not to tear down any third party product (you get what you pay for).I would compare the quality of Flight's RV-6A (aircraft exterior and interior details, and flight model) to Carenado's Stationair and A2A's Piper Cub . . . both of which are very well done products (and cost me more than $20 each).