So much to do

[Rush1169 0]

i wont be so sure about that .

Hi rtodepart - No really, it's true - haven't you read these forums at all? No jets ever, no ATC ever, no 'real' weather ever, no AI traffic ever, no SDK ever, no 3PD ever, only Hawaii ever, no TrackIR ever. Although Flight can be played with a simple joystick, it really shines with a mouse or Xbox controller with the motion thingy strapped to you head and it's best played with a carplane. Even though a 'hard core' FSX user will fork over $2,000+ for add-on FSX content, MS has no interest in that market. Nope, MS wants the occasional $15 plane sale and that's about it. . .And that'll last about 10 months and then Flight will go 'off line' and everyone will have wasted all their $15 purchases for nothing. It obvious.

[xplanery 250]

If MS gets mainstream interested in Flight they will get more money by selling cheap toy planes with 15$ to many people instead of selling 2000$ worth of area to small minority of hardcore users that are actually willing to spend that much. Anyway it would be fun to see how they are going model some small village in middle of rainforests in DRC Congo with quality that we have in Hawaii. I mean, data would be kind of hard to get.

[OzWhitey 3,353]

Rush, i'm sick of all this negative energy you're exposing us too. I'm going to push the 'ignore' AND the 'ban' button for you.Tom - can we get a ban button installed? Maybe you could use it once every 300 posts or so. :) Money: don't discount the value of the hardcore sim market. Ms knows it's plateau-ing, and they need new players who haven't been through the whole 28 year evolution. But i'm sure ms noticed there's a lot of flightsim stores around. Anyone ever see a 'half-life' store? Hmmm

Edited February 13, 2012 by OzWhitey

[Rush1169 0]

Rush, i'm sick of all this negative energy you're exposing us too. I'm going to push the 'ignore' AND the 'ban' button for you.

Hi Oz,I *totally* understand why you'd want to. You see, not too long ago I thought Flight would be more than a carplane, coin chasing game. You can see here: http://forum.avsim.n...-never-grow-up/ and here: http://forum.avsim.n...cassette-tapes/ when I posted what I thought Flight would be. However, I learned from other, much more astute forum members that both of those thought-processess were nothing more than a pipe-dream. I was quickly corrected by many people on this forum that Flight is just a silly toy game produced for kids to play Xbox style. I being facetious again. . .On a serious note: I think Flight will be good and am very excited for Feb 29th. Edited February 13, 2012 by Rush1169

[Attila 2]

Hi rtodepart - No really, it's true - haven't you read these forums at all? No jets ever, no ATC ever, no 'real' weather ever, no AI traffic ever, no SDK ever, no 3PD ever, only Hawaii ever, no TrackIR ever. Although Flight can be played with a simple joystick, it really shines with a mouse or Xbox controller with the motion thingy strapped to you head and it's best played with a carplane. Even though a 'hard core' FSX user will fork over $2,000+ for add-on FSX content, MS has no interest in that market. Nope, MS wants the occasional $15 plane sale and that's about it. . .And that'll last about 10 months and then Flight will go 'off line' and everyone will have wasted all their $15 purchases for nothing. It obvious.

lol, your little attempt at satire is going to put you on some people's ban list.The funny thing is that your satire can be turned around, word for word, and it would represent your true feelings about Flight and it would be equally outlandish and wrong.If and when MS changes some of its current policies and strategies, then you can write that satire, until then you are the one fanning the flames at every opportunity and you should be the one squelched.

[gtrbarbarian 1]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzSome things never change....One hope I have is that they someday implement Kai Tak, but since it's a defunct airport, I doubt it. No prob though, I can always fly it in FSX

[Rush1169 0]

The funny thing is that your satire can be turned around, word for word, and it would represent your true feelings about Flight and it would be equally outlandish and wrong.

I agree - My mind has gone overboard with the possibilities of what Flight could be some day (I mean really, why would it ever have jets, ATC, weather, AI, 3rd party stuff via an SDK, additional scenery, or TrackIR support? That's truely outlandish thinking!). When I post that enthusiam (ie 'fanning the flames'), the response is that none of it could possibly be true. Many of the posts here seem to be very intent on only allowing "facts" - speculation is met with anti-speculation, so I'm just sticking to the 'facts' - which encompass all the things not found in Flight as we know it today. And the anti-group is technically correct - Flight is nothing like FSX and is so lacking in content that it really can't be seen as anything but a toy as compared to FSX. Edited February 13, 2012 by Rush1169

[SamYeager 245]

No jets ever, no ATC ever, no 'real' weather ever, no AI traffic ever, no SDK ever, no 3PD ever, only Hawaii ever, no TrackIR ever. Although Flight can be played with a simple joystick, it really shines with a mouse or Xbox controller with the motion thingy strapped to you head and it's best played with a carplane.

Nobody can fault your imagination. :( Such a pity that you can't provide a link to anywhere Microsoft has stated any of the things that you claim in the first sentence.

[OzWhitey 3,353]

lol, your little attempt at satire is going to put you on some people's ban list..

Satire? What's that? I'm pretty sure that's illegal in America.P.s. i still want the 'ban' button in though - that's a nobel-prize winning idea right there. Would make Avsim more like 'Survivor' I was thinking.

[OzWhitey 3,353]

Nobody can fault your imagination. Such a pity that you can't provide a link to anywhere Microsoft has stated any of the things that you claim in the first sentence.

Ah, I think we've got a little off track with Rush and Oz's attempts at humour. For the recent comers, this is NOT a 'flight is crap. No its not. Yes it is. OK then - I'm hitting ignore AND you're not my friend any more' thread. We have plenty of genuine threads of that variety in this forum if that is what you'd really like to read... :)We were talking about how much we'd invest in top quality scenery that covered the globe.What about the US? What would you pay for the CONUS with Flight level airport detail?

[meshman 109]

What about the US? What would you pay for the CONUS with Flight level airport detail?

I'm not interested in CONUS level scenery, unless there would be a possibility to develop around it. Otherwise, smaller areas of interest suits me just fine.The "I need all 25,000+ airports" crowd is OK with their request. But I can't recall flying in Africa, unless it was once or twice to look at some waterfalls. Asia? Not an interest to fly, as are so many other areas. I've been declared goegraphically challenged in the past. For entertainment purposes I can fly around a nicely done area and not get bored. I'm probably one of the few that will spend a LOT of time flying low and slow around Hawai'i. My dev work started there and I've grown to like the islands.

[Rush1169 0]

We were talking about how much we'd invest in top quality scenery that covered the globe.What about the US? What would you pay for the CONUS with Flight level airport detail?

I'd too pay $2,000 for top-quality global coverage if my hand were forced. . .Where I get 'confused' is what is "top quality scenery that covered the globe?" Hawaii apparently has at least one major city (is there more than one?) and at least one major airport done in HQ and, I assume maybe a port or two. But, when you say "top quality scenery that covered the globe" does that mean including the city structures and detailed airport features or are we just talking about the 'mesh' and 'landclass' features? If the $2000 includes major airports, major cities, and the HQ mesh/landclass stuff then I think $2K is cheap and would nead years to produce and significant bandwidth and maybe even significant storage.Just the US with Flight level airport detail? I'd do $2,000 for that - you're talking JFK, O'Hare, DFW, Atlanta, LAX, SFO, and at leat 50 other airports not to mention all the scenic stuff. . .If they did a 'generic' world coverage (strips + navaids) and 'plausible' landclass with decent mesh as a semi-required download for additional, detailed scenery - along the lines of what included with FSX just to give us a foundation, I'd think $100 is reasonable.That being said, I'm with Meshman - I'd rather have smaller (18,000 square miles in say, 10 different and interesting areas @ $30 each) detailed areas than 196M square miles with 25K airports (strips) for $100. Even if that means there is never scenery available in my neck of the woods - The default FSX scenery that represents my local airports is so generic that it's only distinguishing features are the radio frequencies and placement of the concrete. Yep, other than the novelty of 'seeing' my locale, I'd rather have HQ scenery from anywhere in the world than my area as it's portrayed in FSX. Edited February 13, 2012 by Rush1169

[n4gix 4,955]

The "I need all 25,000+ airports" crowd is OK with their request. But I can't recall flying in Africa, unless it was once or twice to look at some waterfalls. Asia? Not an interest to fly, as are so many other areas.

The problem is that you are looking at this question about having 25k+ airports exclusively from your point of view. The reality has always been that flightsimmers come from all over the world. I dare say that the vast majority of them would want to have an airport from which to base themselves at least in their own country, if not the closest one to where they live!From the perspective of MSGS though, there's simply not all that much data available for many countries, which is precisely why once you leave CONUS or Western Europe the quality and quantity of detail drops drastically and rapidly. For years simmers have complained that FS was too U.S. centric, but truth be told the U.S. has always been the area of highest detail for the simple reason that most of the data required is either free, or relatively inexpensive compared to elsewhere. For many other areas though the data is either non-existent or is horribly expensive to obtain.While I would have preferred that Flight be released with at least the same level of detail world-wide as is in FSX, I also understand that the new method of on-line delivery makes such impossible. They have no choice but to deliver new content in smaller, more easily and quickly downloadable packages. All of which means that even my young friend in South Africa who's only connection to the internet is via a tethered cellphone will be able to d/l Flight and any of the DLC he wants.

[rtodepart 761]

Hi rtodepart - No really, it's true - haven't you read these forums at all? No jets ever, no ATC ever, no 'real' weather ever, no AI traffic ever, no SDK ever, no 3PD ever, only Hawaii ever, no TrackIR ever. Although Flight can be played with a simple joystick, it really shines with a mouse or Xbox controller with the motion thingy strapped to you head and it's best played with a carplane. Even though a 'hard core' FSX user will fork over $2,000+ for add-on FSX content, MS has no interest in that market. Nope, MS wants the occasional $15 plane sale and that's about it. . .And that'll last about 10 months and then Flight will go 'off line' and everyone will have wasted all their $15 purchases for nothing. It obvious.

rush i dont post based on what i read in this forum ,i post based on what im testing and the other info i hab way before the beta was out .i can add more but lets just keep it this way . Edited February 13, 2012 by rtodepart

[trevorbee 0]

That being said, I'm with Meshman - I'd rather have smaller (18,000 square miles in say, 10 different and interesting areas @ $30 each) detailed areas than 196M square miles with 25K airports (strips) for $100.

Count me in too. And I hope that it will be possible to add human activity to the airports and airfieilds eg.servicing and loading aircraft etc.

While I would have preferred that Flight be released with at least the same level of detail world-wide as is in FSX, I also understand that the new method of on-line delivery makes such impossible.

Which certainly adds weight to the theory that it will be small detailed areas rather than all world. Holger's Alaskan scenery comes to mind.