Question for all the pi##ed 3PD about Flight...

[Guest jahman]

Ok I'm sorry if i'm coming across as aggressive, I guess the heat of the debate is getting to me a bit. I'll try to keep it in check.

OK, no problem, mate! (We´ve all been there...)

However I do want to ask why you feel so left behind by Flight specifically?

Because we´ve been faithfully riding the MSFS sim franchise for so many years and Flight is the natural successor (incorporating tons of FSX code.)

Aerofly FS won't cater to your style of flying, and neither will any of the DCS flight sims, or TakeOn Helicopters. Yet it's Flight specifically you're complaining about, is it because it is published by a company that has previously published flying programmes you happened to like and buy?

Yes, exactly!

Look at your response when I asked about Aerofly FS. You didn't complain it didn't meet your needs, you simply stated you weren't interested and wouldn't buy it.

I did say Aerofly was Switzerland only, so again no world cruising.

Why is it that it's OK for Aerofly to not meet your needs, but not Flight, or to put it a different way, why are you being left behind by Flight, but not by Aerofly FS?

Because "my" simulator is FSX, and if the past is any guide, FSXI would have respected most of my (very $ignificant!) investment in aircraft and especially scenery add-ons. So switching to a different simulator from a different software developper, even if it met my needs, would still cost me a ton of money.

I brought up Fly and Red Baron because they were programs that targeted specific sub-sets of FS users (limited-area GA, in the case of Fly, dogfighting in the case of Red Baron), yet they did not fracture the flight sim community. I'm questioning what's so different about Flight that it will fracture the community in ways those programs didn't.

It's that FSX is the principal simulator for most folks and by a wide margin. So any hiccups in moving on to a successor will send waves throught the community.

Finally this isn't about minimising your needs (though I think need is a rather strong word for your wishes for a new flight simulator).

Well, I spend thousands on this hobby on the thought it would endure. Note that to many of us "this hobby" means flying complex airliners around the world. I do enjoy flying GA for the scenery and fun, but only as a rest in between flying large complex airliners.

Saying that Flight doesn't meet your needs has nothing to do with minimsing them. I too would love to have a shiny new flight sim that will support IFR airliner flight (which is most of my flying as well), but Flight quite obviously isn't that new sim. I get you are disappointed about that, I really do, but I'm not sure what you want me or anyone else on this forum to do about it.

Unfortunately there is not much at all anyone of us can do, except certain folks who keep telling our lot we are whining for no reason at all because we still have FSX. Now while it's true we still have FSX, at least for now our needs for improved performance and features will no longer be met. Unlike the folks comfortable with Flight and who will be getting shiny new software shortly, the only improvements we'll get from now on will only come via faster hardware.

How do I show that I get it, while also expressing the opinion that Flight looks like something I might enjoy as a diversion every so often?

By acknowledging that for some of us Flight is not what we want and that we are therefore being left behind, even though we still have FSX, and that complaining about this does not make us whiners. That's all I'm asking for, really.

You are being offered a free game,but you don't want it,because it doesn't come with free airliners OOTB ?Who are you to demandwhich aspects should be included in that free game ?

Paul,Why not just read along my exchange with japascoe? You might see all your questions answered.Cheers,- jahman. Edited February 15, 2012 by jahman

[Attila 2]

Ok I'm sorry if i'm coming across as aggressive, I guess the heat of the debate is getting to me a bit. I'll try to keep it in check. However I do want to ask why you feel so left behind by Flight specifically? Aerofly FS won't cater to your style of flying, and neither will any of the DCS flight sims, or TakeOn Helicopters. Yet it's Flight specifically you're complaining about, is it because it is published by a company that has previously published flying programmes you happened to like and buy?Look at your response when I asked about Aerofly FS. You didn't complain it didn't meet your needs, you simply stated you weren't interested and wouldn't buy it. Why is it that it's OK for Aerofly to not meet your needs, but not Flight, or to put it a different way, why are you being left behind by Flight, but not by Aerofly FS?

Clearly, a company that improves its products by adding something "more" to it and keeps it up-to-date is to be applauded. No one is going to blame Aerofly for not including world coverage, because they never had it, but may one day. Their current product does more than their previous one and so it is a step forward.Flight is the opposite. A product existed that needed to be brought up-to-date and the company abandoned that product. Instead it made another product, that has very little in common with what it used to make. Clearly, there cannot be any comparisons between MS and Aerofly in this respect.

[gtrbarbarian 1]

@japascoe - as a third party viewer on this thread...yes, your attacks do seem a little personal.I have to agree with jahman... While I will definitely give Flight! a go and I hope it becomes in the future, what everyone considers a "full sim" that supports a large world, jets, GA, and 'copters with real world type procedures, currently we can't tell from the available evidence that that will for sure happen. So, yes, why shouldn't people be upset that Flight! offers at least a better graphics engine that uses CPU and GPU more effectively, but we can't have it for flying jets? Or flying GA in FSX for that matter? While I love flying GA around Hawaii, I'll never stop flying small strips in Alaska, PNW, parts of Europe, Florida Keys etc...It's not really a valid comparison to compare dis-enchanted people to jealous kiddos. That's not what is going on here.I think this whole Flight BS could be solved easily, IF microsoft released a patch for FSX that had the same CPU/GPU usage improvements that FLight has. At least from my perspective, THAT is what I wanted most out of a successor to FSX. And it seems to be there in Flight, out of my reach, at least when I want to fly a jet or GA outside of Hawaii. FSX is awesome in so many ways, if the cpu/gpu useage was fixed, really, I would be completely satisfied. Why should I not be upset about the fact that that will never happen?

[frankla 44]

Both freeware and payware devs have no clear means of modifying content or providing new content in Flight.The Flight apologists do not seem to realize that less is not more, it is just less. Empirical observation suggest that much has been lost in Flight. If some of the apologists have really been around long enough, they'd know that Microsoft's track record in add-on quality has never matched what the true 3rd Party market has produced. It remains to be seen what subcontractors to Microsoft will produce for the DLC market, but it is clear that some degree of oversight and "tether" from and to Microsoft will influence the products that make it. I just don't think that Microsoft has any further commitment to "as real as it gets."In truth, Microsoft probably stands an even chance of succeeding with their "Disney" Flight game. Those of us who relied on the previous product to work at simulating a wide variety of flight profiles to a high degree of fidelity are the most impacted by this. Those who supplied the software, hardware, and general ecosystem which sustained high-fidelity flight simulation are also equally affected.The serious disenfranchisement of a segment of our community is increasingly trivialized by a chorus of the apologists and that is only salt in the wound. It seems as though it would have been possible to please many parties with Flight rather than seriously gutting it on the premise of smoothing the learning curve and providing accessibility.There are many soapboxes to queue up to orate upon in this situation. As such, it is clear that the OP is standing on one of these soapboxes. Moreover, the OP is likely nothing more than an jab meant to incite (as opposed to coax insight). We certainly don't need any more smugness from those of you "in the know." The OP's question seems to have quite easy answers - the DLC business model, coupled with a lack of a widely-available SDK, means that the old paradigm is threatened by Flight. Nobody likes to be on the losing side of change. Lastly, I'm not convinced that we are all bashing the product for what it sets out to be. No, I suspect that we are mourning the lost opportunity for a new chapter; Flight just seems like a tabloid magazine in comparison for some of us.I will not begrudge those that will enjoy the new game, and I really don't wish Microsoft failure. But I am forlorn that the lifestyle I had grown accustomed to does not appear likely to return.

Very Eloquently said. Man I am impressed at your writing skills.

[NismoRR 191]

As you know by now, while FSX supports every type of flying, Flight does not.That means that while the folks enjoying the type of flying suported by Flight will get a new "simulator" (with, for example, a new VC lighting model and better FPS via better use of modern hardware), those of us enjoying types of flying not supported by Flight have been sidelined to FSX and will not be able to enjoy the improvements offered by Flight.It's really that simple.Alternatively, turn the issue around and suppose for a minute Flight was designed only for jetliner world cruising and no GA anything, and only detailed ground textures within a 20 NM radius.

1. How would you feel about MS leaving you behind will we the jetliner world cruising crowd get to enjoy our new software?
2. How would you feel if we jetliner world cruisers told you lot to stop whining since you are perfectly capable of enjoying your GA low-and-slow VFR flying in FSX?

So dear Flight supporters, it's time you "got it". Please try and make an effort to understand why we jetliner world-cruising crowd are upset at being left behind while you all get to play with new software.Yes, we are upset, and yes we are being left behind. Accept that.Cheers,- jahman.

My first post in the flight forum...was going to start a new topic and still may, but this post is exactly where I have a problem...You say "we are upset and we are being left behind. Accept that."OK, I accept it! Are you happy now? I fully understand where you are coming from too, and I still accept it. Now it's your (plural, as you used 'we') turn to finally accept it. We all know that Flight will not have heavy iron, at least for the forseeable future, possibly never will. Accept it! I don't understand why you (plural) all say the same things over and over and OVER again. No 24K airports, no SDK, atc, ai, real weather, etc. Accept these facts already and move on. I too would like to see some/many of these things, but for the time being, I accept the fact that they are not incuded in the initial build, and I am very curious to see what Flight looks like in two weeks and two years, if it's still around.Now our goals in flight sim are different. I like GA, you like heavies. That's fine. But I'll say this, when all the new heavy iron comes out, the PMDG's, the new 737, etc. I don't feel left behind. Although they sound like fantastic products, it's just not my cup of tea. I fly low and slow over Orbx scenery, and some megascenery, in RealAir scouts, SF260, the both Dukes, Twin Otter and Pilatus mostly. Throw in some REX and few other niceties, and I'm in flight sim heaven. My passion for aviation increased the more I got into FSX, which I love. Went to the airport last year, trained in and got my Sport Pilots license in a Cessna SkyCatcher and I'm out at the airport 3 times a week, flying, hanging out and enjoying the whole deal that aviation is offering me. I'm a GA pilot flying an LSA. (Got the Flight1 Skycatcher the day it came out along with FTX NZ) Awesome stuff no doubt. So, besides being a great sim, FSX spurred my interest in aviation so much that I went out and got a pilot's license. I will always love FSX for that, and for what it is. In FSX, I always wanted to get into FS Passengers or air hauler, but it really wasn't set up for GA. I didn't feel left behind or upset, it just wasn't made for me. I did get invloved with FS economy and it is a blast.You ask "us" to accept that Flight is not for you. Now it's your turn, accept the fact that flight is not for you and stop feeling left out or left behind. Every one of the planes you fly in FSX is a phenomenal simulation in itself, I don't begrudge you from enjoying it or feel bad that I don't. It is what it is. Accept it and move on.

[Gibbage 199]

Everyone fly's there own way. Thats just fine! No single product will be able to fully cater all our needs.

[dmaher 0]

As you know by now, while FSX supports every type of flying, Flight does not.

The thing is MS hasn't said Flight won't support jets.In fact IMO a broader audience will be looking for jets.GA for an extended amount of time becomes a very hardcore sim activity - to support your real GA flying for instance.Otherwise I think the fascination with GA fades.Flight survives on users wanting things, like jets, and then providing them.What the free base package intends to do is plant that idea, 'hey if my Flight had X it would be even better.'

[booterboy 0]

The thing is MS hasn't said Flight won't support jets.In fact IMO a broader audience will be looking for jets.GA for an extended amount of time becomes a very hardcore sim activity - to support real GA flying for instance.Otherwise I think the fascination with GA fades.Flight survives on users wanting things, like jets, and then providing them.What the free base package intends to do is plant that idea, 'hey if my Flight had X it would be even better.'

Good post,think you hit the nail on the head.MS are going to wait and see what the new breed of Flight gamers want.Can see jets being released very soon after the base pack is released.Young gamers will want speed and won't be happy until they get jets.Going to be an interesting few months ahead in regards to how MS expands Flight.Would be very surprised after 3 years of development that they only have Hawaii and 4 or 5 planes made.Will see in a few weeks,maybe we will get ATC,real weather,jets sooner than people think.

[xplanery 250]

The thing is MS hasn't said Flight won't support jets.In fact IMO a broader audience will be looking for jets.GA for an extended amount of time becomes a very hardcore sim activity - to support your real GA flying for instance.Otherwise I think the fascination with GA fades.Flight survives on users wanting things, like jets, and then providing them.What the free base package intends to do is plant that idea, 'hey if my Flight had X it would be even better.'

Probably it will support jets, but I bet that MS is going to make them like their main audience wants, simple to fly. I would be very surprised if there ever is ones with correctly working FMC and such. I expect just jets with about same learning curve that FSX default ones have, or less. Also most people would not be happy to fly beetween few same areas all time, for serious jet flying world coverage is standard.

[EagleSkinner 36]

I realize that this snippet wasn't the major point of your post, but I have to strongly disagree with this statement. While that may be the case with a default installation and appropriate service packs and sliders and stuff turned down somewhat, it breaks rather quickly otherwise. FSX, in my experience, is the least stable, glitchy, app on my computer by far.

Have you tried the ******* Altuvai Bojote tweaks? That guy lives up to his name - I got an instant 50% increase in FPS. My current PC (until tomorrow) is an AMD FX62 / nVidia 8800 GTS combo - six years on the CPU and 4+ on the GPU. I can fly GA with no stutters at 25 FPS all day long - except when I fly near cities. That is my limitation and being a GA low and slow fan, I don't miss that in the slightest. Pac NW, fully FTX'd - no probs. Even my scenery refresh is better than a certain alternative flight program. Oh yes - and I am running FSX with sliders predominantly to the right.I will not deny that I have had problems with FSX in the past. One of the biggest ones has been overheating the CPU - 100° centigrade and above were commonplace. That of course made FSX collapse to blackscreen quite often because the CPU shuts down. Best fix - after market cooler, fresh heatsink paste.Remember - glitches are not necessarily the fault of the software. If your hardware can't handle it, you will think the SW is glitchy.Another serious handicap with FSX is the load time - that does bug me. So I go make a fresh cup of tea.As far as 3PD stuff for Flight (@ahuimanu) - if MS allow 3PD via MS shop, then the 3PD WILL have the ability to modify content. And MS have as much as confirmed that they are using licensed 3PD to create DLC for Flight!. TBH, I think and agree that Flight! will not succeed without 3PD. The fact that it will only be licensed content may put noses out of joint, but do not forget - No one, but absolutely no one has actually lost from MS developing Flight. FSX is still there. ORBX, FTX , Avsim and all the others are still there. I am still producing paints (OK, slowly now, but still...)You won't have to like Flight! but you should not slam MS for trying a different tack. Who knows - we may make many new friends from the Flight community. "We" know their spreadsheet guys got it wrong ;) but never forget the two main MS rules:1. Microsoft is always right!2. When the situation proves otherwise, rule 1 applies...Having said that - I do confess that I am disappointed in MS as well - I really would have liked a sequel to FSX. But it is their trainset. It may turn out that they made a wrong decision - it may not. Let's at least wait for the fun and games...

[Guest dreckman]

Because "my" simulator is FSX, and if the past is any guide, FSXI would have respected most of my (very $ignificant!) investment in aircraft and especially scenery add-ons. So switching to a different simulator from a different software developper, even if it met my needs, would still cost me a ton of money.

jahman,Do you think this is feasible? What I mean is to create FSX11 and maintain backward compatibility with scenery and airplanes from FSX. It seems like with the underlying code issues in FSX it would be best to start from scratch and not have any reliance on FSX code. Maintaining backward compatibility in software products often seems to create more problems.Maybe a 3PD could weigh in on this as I don't know enough about the structure of planes and scenery files.-ed

[dmaher 0]

Probably it will support jets, but I bet that MS is going to make them like their main audience wants, simple to fly. I would be very surprised if there ever is ones with correctly working FMC and such. I expect just jets with about same learning curve that FSX default ones have, or less. Also most people would not be happy to fly beetween few same areas all time, for serious jet flying world coverage is standard.

FScamp I agree with you. IMO what Flight needs to do for jets is focus on mach dynamics and engines. Much like they’ve done for GA. Systems like FMC's and autoflight are attachments, they could be developed by MS or partners. How that might happen is unknown for now, possibly even to MS. It's not an insurmountable problem. But I do agree economically MS would likely need to avoid developing the most complex jet system themselves. From the start MS's plans appeared to include working with partners, they do understand the upsides of that. Over the next year or so I think we'll see if and how such arrangements happen.

[Dillon 2,198]

Why are some of you so mad about Flight been closed to you (3PD), as I understand, from some of your post, Flight will be a BIG flop, so why are you so mad?As some of you also said or think, Flight will only release small regions, so if I take that in consideration, how many of you (3PD) would it take to cover an area like Hawaii, so does MS really need 3PD for such small area like that?Can you not keep making addons for FSX?Why bother with Flight if you all think that it will be dead in the water in a matter of weeks or months, I don't get it......or is it that you may be secretly scared of the fact that Flight may take off (pun intended) and by doing so addons for it will be a hit and you'll be left in the dust?So, if Flight is to be a major flop (according to some of you 3PD) there is no threat to you, so why bashing the product....FSX still there is it not?

For someone who wanted peace in this forum I'm surprised at this one... Edited February 15, 2012 by Dillon

[ViperPilot 81]

I think this thread was about why 3rd party developers are so angry about MS Flight...It's not going to do any good turning this discussion into another battleground, pitting GA enthusiasts vs. airliner enthusiasts.

[Dillon 2,198]

I think this thread was about why 3rd party developers are so angry about MS Flight...It's not going to do any good turning this discussion into another battleground, pitting GA enthusiasts vs. airliner enthusiasts.

I wouldn't say their P###ed but rather disappointed that a more stable platform to develop in is not going to be available. FSX has it's issues even today. As limited as Flight is I don't think 90% of developers even care. And the suggestion that FSX's market is going down is insane. There's so much yet to tap into in that environment. We are just at the point where a reasonable affordable machine can run the sim. It doesn't have half the add-ons FS9 has and freeware developers haven't fully embraced it yet. A comment was made about all airliners have been created for it, I say show me a realistic fully modeled A320 series that's in existence. We'll most likely never see all the GA aircraft out there rendered virtually. Someone is very misinformed or just plain clueless.Reading through this thread I'm finding some shocking comments. Third party developers are now the bad guys even though their the ones responsible for getting this franchise where it is today. Now all they want is money. Forget the hours of research it takes to bring a product to market along the the technical know how. :( Edited February 15, 2012 by Dillon