Many seem to be missing the point. There's no need at all to "go back to FSX (or FS9)" because......there's nothing making you leave it behind!Flight simulation is not a zero-sum game nor even a binary choice. I freely use FS9, FSX and Flight as my whims dictate. :Peace:

Bill, you know well that there are rendering advantages in the MS Flight engine that most of us, even you by your own accounts here, would love to see in FSX. We want to wear the new clothes too.

It's still a civilian flight simulator, so why not support it?And I agree that Flight doesn't preclude FSX. Many people still use FS9 alongside FSX. A decade ago we had two Combat Flight Simulator versions, which were derived from FS98 and FS2000 and were too "dumbed down" versions of MSFS.AVSIM has a lot more to lose from Flight than we users. If Flight gets real popular and Microsoft keeps producing good content while keeping it closed to third party add-ons, the add-on industry will die out and AVSIM will lose all advertising revenue. So I very much appreciate AVSIM keeping us informed (even though I don't like what I see in MS Flight myself) despite this risk.

Bill, you know well that there are rendering advantages in the MS Flight engine that most of us, even you by your own accounts here, would love to see in FSX. We want to wear the new clothes too.

Well heck! So would I for that matter. I'm trying my hardest to see if I can't re-engineer some of the lighting shaders to update FSX's rather anemic vc lighting system. I've made great progress, but am still not quite there yet... :dance:In the words of a famous -albeit fictional- Shaolin priest, "Patience Grasshopper!"

As it should. It is the "nanny state" writ big on the Flight Simulation / Gaming / Ad Nauseam community. It is an unacceptable attitude as far as I am concerned and I suspect that there are far more that agree with me.

Gentlemen, I would respectfully submit that your dismissal of expressionso of disappointment as "elitist" is unfair. Microsoft made MANY remarks which would lead a reasonable person to believe that we were entitled to expect Flight to carry on with much of the legacy features we have come to enjoy with the flight sim franchise. In fact, their remarks indicated, very clearly, that flight will appeal to a broader audience and still provide the same experience more "advanced" simmers have dome to expect. This clearly has not happened. We are entitled to yell "foul" as we have been, at the least, misled. We have a legitimate gripe, and it's not that Flight is far short of FS11. It's that we were told it wouldn't be. The elephant in the room is that we knew they were spinning instead of delivering. To express frustration at being told to expect something far more than was actually delivered is not elitist. It's normal.

It's still a civilian flight simulator, so why not support it?And I agree that Flight doesn't preclude FSX. Many people still use FS9 alongside FSX. A decade ago we had two Combat Flight Simulator versions, which were derived from FS98 and FS2000 and were too "dumbed down" versions of MSFS.AVSIM has a lot more to lose from Flight than we users. If Flight gets real popular and Microsoft keeps producing good content while keeping it closed to third party add-ons, the add-on industry will die out and AVSIM will lose all advertising revenue. So I very much appreciate AVSIM keeping us informed (even though I don't like what I see in MS Flight myself) despite this risk.

Great points. I had variations of this thought today, but I am too reticent to delve deeply into my opinions as it is all shaky ground right now. I saw a post where the new Library Manager was hailing Flight - a closed environment - and chuckled (to myself) at this very irony.Even 3PD developers are in here praising a closed ecosystem that spells trouble for their own business model. In the end, the antiquated visuals of FSX will make it another Falcon 4: a dead-end relic with no paths forward. However, even Falcon 4 would be better because at least that code base was leaked to the public, allowing for an extension of its life.I did just fly around Oahu and I am stunned at how many details have been omitted, but also enjoy the details that are present. With an open 3PD world - with both freeware and payware - there is some recourse to correct these problems or otherwise customize. With this closed world, WYSIWYG.

I will not be purchasing any DLC for Flight in the foreseeable future but that does not mean I'm not a supporter of Flight. I'm glad AVSIM has chosen the path it has regarding Flight (although I do not agree with closing/locking/deleting threads, but it's not my house so I'll respect the decisions.) Should Flight bring just one person to AVSIM who would otherwise never have come here, and said person discovers FSX/FS9 and the possibilities of creating content for FSX/FS9 and this person takes it upon himself to make revolutionary addons for FSX/FS9, then we all win and we have Flight to thank for it. So, go get 'em Flight and bring your 30 million customers over to AVSIM and let the library be filled with an ever increasing supply of quality addons for those of us still hanging on to the past.

Gentlemen, I would respectfully submit that your dismissal of expressionso of disappointment as "elitist" is unfair. Microsoft made MANY remarks which would lead a reasonable person to believe that we were entitled to expect Flight to carry on with much of the legacy features we have come to enjoy with the flight sim franchise. In fact, their remarks indicated, very clearly, that flight will appeal to a broader audience and still provide the same experience more "advanced" simmers have dome to expect.This clearly has not happened. We are entitled to yell "foul" as we have been, at the least, misled. We have a legitimate gripe, and it's not that Flight is far short of FS11. It's that we were told it wouldn't be. The elephant in the room is that we knew they were spinning instead of delivering. To express frustration at being told to expect something far more than was actually delivered is not elitist. It's normal.

How I wish everyone understood that this is where alot of are coming from.Lethu Vilakazi

Flight simulation is not a zero-sum game

Yes it is!MS developed Flight, so it didn't develop FSXI.If MS had developed FSXI, it would not have developed Flight.Cheers,- jahman.

The thread lasted longer than he did.

Tom, whilst I agree that the OP was at best naive and at worst flaming for a reaction, I do find comments that you make such as above a little to the effect of treating your members as 'disposable'. It should surely never be a good thing that you need to delete a user whose chose to come to your community.I guess what I am saying is that I feel you often trivialize your power to ban users in a heartbeat. ...We all respect you lead this community, and I personally respect the fact that you are open to feedback. But comments like above can contribute to some users feeling that if they in anyway challenge you, they will find their account banned........ To me that's not healthy.Kind regards, and thank you for providing this forum.

Bill, you know well that there are rendering advantages in the MS Flight engine that most of us, even you by your own accounts here, would love to see in FSX. We want to wear the new clothes too.

Mmmmm... FLIGHT has removed a lot of options FSX has (a lot that are hard on FPS in FSX like traffic), simplified weather a lot, has short sight ranges. So expecting good framerates and some nicer render options is the least we can expect. I dare to state that FLIGHT with all the bells and whistles of FSX will not be a lot faster or better looking.

This does not have to be a monogamous relationship!

Best simmer's way of life ever :LMAO: ( and good point too )

I don't get all these posts.....These posts are the same as going over into the X-Plane subforum and saying "X-Plane is crap". The FSX subforum, the FS9 subforum, the X-Plane subforum, etc, is still there.

Fact is that those forums do not see a lot of these negative posts and the FLIGHT forum does. That is at least an indication that this product does not match the users that frequent these fora. In my not so humble opinion FLIGHT is simply not a serious flight simulator at this moment. And I find the question why AVSIM supports it valid. The fine people at AVSIM however make upo their own mind and decided to add it to the products they like to see discussed in the forums. A decision not to support it would not have surprised me at all btw.

So expecting good framerates and some nicer render options is the least we can expect. I dare to state that FLIGHT with all the bells and whistles of FSX will not be a lot faster or better looking

I don't see how it could not be better looking, since I dont see why the image quality would go backwards as bells and whistles are added. On a modern machine the difference in performance between low and high settings is quite small so long as one uses a good GPU. We don't know what is going on under the hood of Flight, but I would have thought it is making much better use of multicore CPUs than FSX ever did. I suspect that as part of the evolution of flight, the old features were stripped out and will be re-engineered from the ground up so as to impact performance minimally compared to FSX. So I am actually optimistic that a version of Flight with ATC and AI, for example, would still run better than FSX.

I don't see how it could not be better looking, since I dont see why the image quality would go backwards as bells and whistles are added. On a modern machine the difference in performance between low and high settings is quite small so long as one uses a good GPU. We don't know what is going on under the hood of Flight, but I would have thought it is making much better use of multicore CPUs than FSX ever did. I suspect that as part of the evolution of flight, the old features were stripped out and will be re-engineered from the ground up so as to impact performance minimally compared to FSX. So I am actually optimistic that a version of Flight with ATC and AI, for example, would still run better than FSX.

You simply ignore many of the arguments I posted.If you double the sightline (so you have to draw stuff twice as far away) you increase the amount of objects tremendously. Just set ideal visual conditions in FLIGHT and fly away form the islands. See when the islands are no longer seen (without any nav aids you got to guess the distance). Now do the same in FSX and see how far away you can see the islands. If you know a way of having many many more objects in view without loosing performance you know something nobody else has figured out. Now add a dozen aircraft that fly around (not static objects but they got to behave more or less realistic), clouds that move with the wind and you are looking at some serious increase in load.And that simply will reduce performance. I now have about 25% better fps in FLIGHT then in FSX with roughly simular visuals. Those 25% will be eaten up with any add-on that is more complex then the Maule that has not working radios and a non working autopilot. FLIGHT as it is now is perfect for ultralights. If I am correct you can fly those in the US without radios under some conditions.Don't get me wrong, I still like FLIGHT, but lets see if for what it is. It's 1/3 of a full flightsimulator. And as such I am not surprised it is fast and smooth.

Count me among the less than enthusiastic re Flight (in it's current form), but the premise of this thread is so devoid of even the most basic understanding/appreciation of the spirit, history and role of Avsim it's.....astonishing.