The Flight concept is a really good idea. Now I will write + and -+Much potential.Added walk-functionEasier to navigate in UI menuCollected all in one place, that it makes less compatibility problem.Easy to start up a AircraftVery, very easy to manage the aircraftMore detailed small VFR items to see that I can find the place through VFR-marks.Better CPU-usage.-Less keyboard keys to assigned with each of functionsNo SDK.It is for the dumb people who dont want a simulation but a toy-game.The big island is nothing to see...Where are the backward compatibilityWHY in HELL make a new code that cannot use add-on from FS2004 and X..The clouds do not have the wonderful effect when the sun go dawn and dusk.Autogen buildings got worse than FSX.FSX will evolve around 2-4 years further with much 3D graphics tricks and optimize, so it will look near as good as Flight in graphics.The physics in the airplane is so bad...The storage size for the Flight is so big that I do not see any point to have it.Must have LIVE, I dont like it.I want see how the Flight code is written. And, I am sure that Microsoft says it need DirectX 11 graphics card, but I wont believe, it can be done in DirectX 10...So.... I already ordered the X-PLane 10 after 2 hours of flying around the big island.

Flight is DirectX 9.Fred.

Flight uses DX9c only. Your positive items are good. The negative items are not really very objective at all. They could not have a new engine and the new online delivery and keep backwards compatibility with FS9 and FSX stuff.

You dont need Live, Its DX9 only, and Flight with ALL the DLC added, is 2.29GB. FSX with no add-on's is around 8-10GB.I question if you really have played Flight at all.

It is for the dumb people who dont want a simulation but a toy-game.

That one did it for me... Needless and provocative. End of this topic. Don't do that again.