Why no cockpit on Mustang?

[Guest russellbdavis]

I bet those who download the Mustang will expect full armament as well. Just another topic for disappointment after release.

[Glynn 405]

Just another topic for disappointment after release

HelloExpect it as DLC soon after release , $15.00 KaChing

[Guest russellbdavis]

I have it already in the beta. Haven't even flown it.

[RamonB 449]

I also had the P-51 during the beta, and did several test runs with it.I agree with Arwen’s comments, and it is not for me either. but as some of you posted earlier, there might be a huge market for it.I can give more info on my experience as soon as game is Launched

Edited February 16, 2012 by Kabronicus

[sddjd 117]

HelloThat is my worry too, and if it does it will set the direction that the MS Flight team take with future DLC.

+1 And just like that we'll be off to the races with Blazing Angels 3 (without guns) instead of a flight-oriented experience.

[Glynn 405]

+1 And just like that we'll be off to the races with Blazing Angels 3 (without guns) instead of a flight-oriented experience.

HelloNo we will be off to the air races in our chase view mustang, that will be another $15.00 Thanks

[corinoco 22]

Anyone else find it strange that a cockpit for the DLC Mustang isn't going to be available?

I think what you meant to ask was: "Anyone else find it strange that a cockpit for the DLC Mustang isn't going to be available AT LAUNCH?"I can't work out why so many people don't seem to be able to understand what DLC and an 'app store' business model entail.MS have never said that they are banning VCs from P51s. MS have never said that all DLC is static and unchanging. MS have never said that 3PDs are excluded from the Flight Store. (Please, do correct my if I am wrong on this! - but only with direct quotes)What is known is that the core of Flight and DLC can be upgraded automatically - just like Steam does, just like Android does, just like Windows does, just like OSX does, just like the iOS App Store does, just like Linux does... can you spot a pattern here?What I am guessing is that MS will follow the same business model the Xbox Live App Store uses, which is based on the XNA coding toolkit. This means paying a $99/yr access fee for the SDKs and publishing rights, with MS taking a 30% cut on sales. That is roughly comparable to what you would pay to be an iOS or OSX developer, and is a lot less than a full MSDN subscription. (By the way, if you set your sale price to $0, MS will take 30% of that too! :( )My reasons for that guess are the statements about Flight on 'other platforms' - not the current Xbox360 but Tablets. Tablets are a huge focus for MS in the upcoming Windows 8, with MS following Apple's lead in unified code. Windows 8 is designed to be code-compatible with Windows 8 Phone and whatever variant is being developed for tablets. A successor to the Xbox360 has not yet been announced, but rumours abound of an 'Xbox-NEXT' project, which would also presumably be code compatible with the Windows 8 core. Why? It makes good business sense.It is therefore entirely logical that Flight would be coded to take advantage of this unification (and appears to be so, based on comments from the developers of Flight) - and therefore my guess is that Flight is either re-written from scratch in C# / XNA or is a port of the FSX code to C# / XNA.Following from this premise are the concepts of a continuously updated 'core' for Flight - added features and modules as they are developed (exactly like iOS / OSX/ Windows, etc...) while allowing an early release of stable code (what we will see on the 29th Feb). DLC will likely follow the same principles because that is what this development model allows. It is my guess that any DLC you purchase will not be a 'static' purchase but will be updated, patched and added to over time.Hypothetically MS can add a VC to the P51 model whenever they want - assuming it sells well, or there is a major call for it from the community.

set the direction that the MS Flight team take with future DLC

There will be core DLC from the Flight Team, and there will be DLC from 3PDs.Note - I am not on the Beta, and I am not under any NDA. I am an architect who has experience with developing addons for CAD software, and have some exposure to modern software development business models through contacts at Autodesk. My guesses are exactly that - guesses - based on the premise that MS are not out to insult or hurt or 'rip-off' Flight Sim fans, they are out to make a profit on their investment in software development, production and marketing. Clearly FSX was not proving profitable; MS Flight is a far more profitable model based on where the entire software industry is headed.If you personally don't like the idea of DLC or micro-payments, fine. Stay with FSX. With decent hardware in runs well, and 3PDs will support it as long as the support remains profitable. Once developing for MS Flight proves to be profitable they will develop for that too; eventually FSX will go the way of Windows 95, 98, 2000, XP and Vista and will drop off in popularity as it ages and other applications, such as MS Flight, exceed the capability FSX had.I never gave up flight simming because my FS4 addons were made obsolete by FS95. I never shouted that MS had killed flight simming when FS95 models were made obsolete by FS2002 (or was it FS2000?) I learned to love FSX despite it being a bit of a slideshow when it was released.I'm really excited by MS Flight - another new flight simming world to explore, and create!

[Glynn 405]

I'm really excited by MS Flight - another new flight simming world to explore, and create!

HelloJust stop!You are starting to get even me excited now.Seriously on the 29th I am going to reinstall FS9 in protest, but I will make the effort to brush up on my TXT_ speak to welcome all the new Flight! guys aboard.

[UtahJazzfan8 0]

Selling exterior only models for $8 is a bigger money maker than aircraft with a fully functional cockpit for $15. I bet they can make 3-4 exterior model only aircraft in the time they can make one that is fully functional.

[JonP01 104]

I agree the aircraft is there to essentially test the potential market and intended price point. I believe it will have strong pre-purchase appeal to both very young, new gamers as well as the established gamers who have shown time and time again to prefer external views. If you hang around other forums such as the Steam ones, you will see how incredibly price-sensitive younger generation gamers are. They will often make a big thing out of DLC that costs $20 versus $10 or even $5. Many of them expect everything to be free, winging and moaning abut anything costing more than a few dollars. I can actually see these sorts of gamers putting forward precisely the opposite arguments to those put forward here - they will be complaining that they have to pay $15 for an aircraft with a cockpit they will never use versus $8 for - what is to them - the exact same thing in terms of visuals and functionality. Yes, I think anyone who uses external views only is completely nuts, but that is how gamers like to play their games. I share the concerns regarding buyers possibly expecting to be able to shoot at targets as well as issues that may arise for those wanting to upgrade to a future fully-feaured model. The fully featured model will have to be priced as an upgrade such that owners of the cockpit-less model pay no more for it overall (in total) than those buying the full featured one only.I don't share the concerns that simply because the aircraft will likely sell extremely well compared to cockpit aircraft, that this in itself will cause Microsoft to neglect the more detailed aircraft. They have said many times the aim is for broad appeal. Whilst it may at worst cause them to favour the production of external-only aircraft, I cannot possibly see them forgoing standard aircraft. At release time the game will have four fully-modelled aircraft to one external model aircraft. Whilst that ratio will not necessarily remain consistent, I am fairly certain there will always be new fully featured aircraft being developed and sold.For those who think the cockpit-less Mustang is a bad idea, I could not disagree more. I think it is an exceptionally shrewd tactic on the part of Microsoft and will only help bring much more revenue in from the game, generate more interest in the game and give them a better idea of the type of market they are dealing with and what price sensitivities exist.

[xplanery 250]

I am still waiting for them to make a Ferrari.

[Rush1169 0]

There have been some excellent possible reasons presented for the Mustang - well thought out and presented and the the real reasoning is surely a mix of most everything said. I'll just add, people love to 'upgrade' their stuff. If one buys the Mustang for $8 and in a little time you can 'upgrade' it to a deluxe model for $7, Microsoft will *most likely* make more money overall than had the released a $15 deluxe version only. You'll have $8 buyers, $8+$7 buyers, and $15 buyers from all three groups of users (ie exterior view gamers, upgraders, and traditional virtual pilots) rather than sales to just the 3rd group. The more DLC sold, the more likely we get FSXI. . .Go MSFT go!

[Bray 1]

As long as MS clearly gives the user all the information on what is or is not included at time of purchase...when I got the Mustang in the Beta I was excited to get something that could perform as opposed to the other two planes. I was totally shocked that there wasnt a cockpit and had to fly with outside view or the blank cockpit view. No amount of begging me one with a cockpit. Maybe its not made it...

[xplanery 250]

There have been some excellent possible reasons presented for the Mustang - well thought out and presented and the the real reasoning is surely a mix of most everything said. I'll just add, people love to 'upgrade' their stuff. If one buys the Mustang for $8 and in a little time you can 'upgrade' it to a deluxe model for $7, Microsoft will *most likely* make more money overall than had the released a $15 deluxe version only. You'll have $8 buyers, $8+$7 buyers, and $15 buyers from all three groups of users (ie exterior view gamers, upgraders, and traditional virtual pilots) rather than sales to just the 3rd group. The more DLC sold, the more likely we get FSXI. . .Go MSFT go!

Oh yeah, lets thank MS for asking us money for every piece small piece of addon aircraft. There is no logic behind assumptions about Flight developing to new FSX if we buy enough DLC´s for it. Thats just total nonsense. If Flight is not meant to be new FSX it would already have whole world modeled in poor quality and then you could add some areas in way better quality with DLC´s. Making whole world in small DLC´s and in same quality that we see in Hawaii would take tens of years.

[Arwen 289]

Oh yeah, lets thank MS for asking us money for every piece small piece of addon aircraft.

We don't know it you will be able to upgrade the Basic version of any aircraft to the Deluxe version . . . you probably will have to pay the full price for it (but this is just a guess)

There is no logic behind assumptions about Flight developing to new FSX if we buy enough DLC´s for it. Thats just total nonsense. If Flight is not meant to be new FSX it would already have whole world modeled in poor quality and then you could add some areas in way better quality with DLC´s. Making whole world in small DLC´s and in same quality that we see in Hawaii would take tens of years.

I'm not assuming that Flight will grow into a FSX replacement (FSXI?), but I do feel that Flight has the potential to do this (as in one possible scenario). This is certainly a logical possibility. What is not logical is ruling this out, based on the little bit that you think we know about Flight. I don't know MS long range plan for Flight ... do you? Edited February 16, 2012 by Arwen