If you know a way of having many many more objects in view without loosing performance you know something nobody else has figured out

Well my experience thus far with flight versus FSX is that it can handle a much higher object density which is maintained further into the distance and with better performance than FSX. With FSX, no matter what settings I ever used, I would still see objects popping in and out, sometimes at a relatively close distance. With Flight I am not seeing this at all.So in direct answer to the rhetorical question, it would seem that Microsoft have indeed found a way to have more objects in view without losing performance. The scenery in Flight is quite dense, even by 3rd party FSX standards. All with much better frame rates and no popping in or out of view.In any event, I never ignored your points, I simply have a different perspective on the end result than you do.I am fully anticipating that through much better use of multicore technology, performance will not be an issue even with resource consuming features and objects added - at least in comparison to FSX. That is not to say that at some point performance will become unacceptable for many, but at least with Flight users will presumably have a choice of which features they will purchase and which features they will pass on.

Edited March 1, 201214 yr by JonP01

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.versusAnd as such I am not surprised it is fast and smooth.

Hi Mathijs,Good to see you. No disrespect intended, but it seems to me that those two statements you make are contradictory in the extreme. You say you like Flight here and there, but then proceed each time to disembowel it, showing it's inferior comparison to FSX, your addon products, or whatever. Am I reading this wrong?Kind regards,

Well my experience thus far with flight versus FSX is that it can handle a much higher object density which is maintained further into the distance and with better performance than FSX. With FSX, no matter what settings I ever used, I would still see objects popping in and out, sometimes at a relatively close distance. With Flight I am not seeing this at all.So in direct answer to the rhetorical question, it would seem that Microsoft have indeed found a way to have more objects in view without losing performance. The scenery in Flight is quite dense, even by 3rd party FSX standards. All with much better frame rates and no popping in or out of view.In any event, I never ignored your points, I simply have a different perspective on the end result than you do.I am fuly anticipating that through much better use of multicore technology, performance wil not be an issue even with resource consuming features and objects added - at least in comparison to FSX. That is not to say that at some point performance will become unacceptable for many, but at least with Flight users will presumably have a choice of which features they will purchase and which features they will pass on.

With all due respect, you DO ingore arguments. I fully agree with your observations, I just offer an explanation for them! Just check the multicore use (Windows has all the tools for that) and you see FSX seems to use more cores (certainly in weather and while turning). Check GPU load and see that FSX seems to match FLIGHT. Check memory use and see that FLIGHT uses less because it is just a much simplified game.You seem to expect that Microsoft found some magical way of handling things that avoids all these things. I say there is no such way out. I will even go so far as saying Prepar3D shows more objects (if you see memory load on GPU) at the same FPS as FLIGHT does. Not as smooth though and that makes a BIG difference.

and you see FSX seems to use more cores (certainly in weather and while turning). Check GPU load and see that FSX seems to match FLIGHT

This has not been my observation. I have found that Flight is making consistently more use of the cores (and at higher percentages for cores other than the "main" one) and that the GPU load is much higher than in FSX. I agree with overall memory use though.

Edited March 1, 201214 yr by JonP01

Hi Mathijs,Good to see you. No disrespect intended, but it seems to me that those two statements you make are contradictory in the extreme. You say you like Flight here and there, but then proceed each time to disembowel it, showing it's inferior comparison to FSX, your addon products, or whatever. Am I reading this wrong?Kind regards,

You are right. These statements are not compatible.Yet from a commercial point of view (and all I own is paid for by flight simulator enthousiasts) it does make sense. See, while we do not got the impression that our current customers will be using FLIGHT seriously or spend money on buying addons like the Maule that sells for $15 without working radios or autopilot, we do see that people who used to be not at all interested in flight simulators seem to like it.My daughter is now using it and she thinks it is a cool game. And she is 14 and more interested in her horse then in me (because the horse understands her and I do not of course). I am blown away by the fact that people like her like a flightsim that is the topic of a discussion here!The fact that there have been hardly any new people entering this hobby is what scares a company like Aerosoft most. Our average customers is as old as I am. Just 5 years ago we used to have loads of boxed add-ons in the shop and we saw that people got interested that way. Now the US retail market is totally gone, the Asian retail was lost 8 years ago and Europe is not doing great there. So we are more and more send to the Internet. But on the internet people buy what they want. They do not browse, they hardly see stuff the did not know existed. And that was what helped us so much. Aerosoft is doing very well, we are still growing and in this market and in this world that means a lot. But if we do not get new customers, young people interested in the serious stuiff we sell, it is a dead end.And if FLIGHT! can get new people interested, I don't care at all if it is not a simulator but a simplified game. If mama Microsoft can have it downloaded to 2 million people and only 1% of those look for something more challenges it is my favorite game ever. The fact I personally think it is a nice way to spend an hour at most does not matter. I am not a hard core simmer, FS is not my hobby anymore because it is my job. But if I buy the FLIGHT Maule for $15 and find its radio not even work I start to wonder what MS was thinking. See that not a free sim, that a $15 add-on that would be considered hopelessly faulty if it was an FSX add-on. Yet many people here seem to accept all of that with hardly any comment. Blows me away. Perhaps Aerosoft should start to sell those kinds of add-ons for FSX.

Its 2 different markets. The people being drawn in by flight are drawn in precisely because it does not (at this point) present them with zillions of button mashing options. They simply want to fly.The market of enthusiast simmers on the other hand, has completely different expectations, and I daresay would never be interested in a $7 dollar airplane with no cockpit.MS seems to me to be, like any company, exploring its market and the prices that market will bear.

It sounds to me that 3rd party devs would only love to see Flight fail !Let's face it, they are still really ###### with MS for "locking" them out.I tend to agree with MS on this one. It's payback time ! The Free For All is over !!Fred.

Edited March 1, 201214 yr by RYR738

But if I buy the FLIGHT Maule for $15 and find its radio not even work I start to wonder what MS was thinking. See that not a free sim, that a $15 add-on that would be considered hopelessly faulty if it was an FSX add-on.

On the contrary, if I bought the Flight Maule and the radio did not work, I would simply conclude that it did not work because Flight does not (yet) have ATC integrated. And I would also conclude, quite logically I feel, that uncontrolled communications would also be handled by the same add-on module. I would, however certainy consider such a product "faulty" in FSX, because FSX does have these functions built-in.I am not sure your comparison is fair in any case. The Flight Maule is a $15 aircraft. I can hardly remember the last time I paid $15 for an add-on 3rd party aircraft for a Microsoft simulator (my most recent FSX add-on aircraft purchases ran to about 3 to 4 times that much each), but can remember well enough to say that it was extremely basic and no where near the quality of even the RV I downloaded for Flight yesterday (and which came with a large number of well-produced bonus airports).

Edited March 1, 201214 yr by JonP01

And I still have not seen a serious answer to that.

Mathijs,Have you been reading my posts? That answer has been provided numerous times by me in both this forum and it's predecessor.

Mathijs,Have you been reading my posts? That answer has been provided numerous times by me in both this forum and it's predecessor.

Evening Tom, I was incorrect saying there was no serious answer to that and I apologize for that. The fact I cannot agree with the arguments should not have led me to say there was no serious answer. Next time we meet I'll buy the Belgium beer.

You are 100% right about the two markets. So why are we talking about it on AVSIM (he said, bring the topic back to it's origin)? The questions that started it all was why AVSIM spend attention to what many people think is not a serious simulator. And I still have not seen a serious answer to that. None is due of course, certainly not after a kazillion posts about FLIGHT, it obvious IS a topic. But the original question remains valid.

Be that as it may I don't think it is helpful to challenge AVSIM to a duel of words and justifications for being supportive of a wider group of simulation products. AVSIM is about being a forum for related user groups that is supportive of many different platforms and the companies like Aerosoft who build upon them. It seems hugely unfair to me for anyone to take advantage of a certain reluctance we have to enter into a public argument with widely known public persons like yourself. Kindly stated, Mathijs, there is a line here of good decorum, and your toes are up against it. Please be considerate of the most difficult position you are putting me in to moderate this forum. Respectfully, please step back and do not pick a fight. Thank you.

Evening Tom, I was incorrect saying there was no serious answer to that and I apologize for that. The fact I cannot agree with the arguments should not have led me to say there was no serious answer. Next time we meet I'll buy the Belgium beer.

Ah yes, my little friend Stella... I welcome your offer.I do not know what there is to disagree with. AVSIM's position is pretty simple.FLIGHT is an aviation desktop game in the flight simulation genre.AVSIM opens its arms to all users of simulations, games, etc. that have anything to do with aviation, flight simulation, add-on's, adjacencies, etc.Ours is a community of over 90,000 people all with different interests and focus in their hobby and perceptions of what is important or not to them.We accept and encourage those differences and the variety and diversity it brings to our community.I think what some people are saying or expecting and are disappointed because it hasn't happened, is that AVSIM has not taken a stand AGAINST FLIGHT. We haven't raised the flags, made the clarion call to the masses, launched a rebellion or a boycott, and some folks are not happy with that. We are not going do any of those, and we certainly are not going to apologize for it.Our view is quite simple and has been stated a number of times. Here it is again...FLIGHT, as with any new product in the flight simulation genre', promises to attract more users to our collective simulation community (not just AVSIM's). A simplistic presentation of flight and the wonder that it could hold for a younger generation is a good thing. There will be some that take the challenge and move from FLIGHT, the simplistic presentation, onward to more advanced simulators and indeed to taking flight training, the ultimate evolution of their interest and the ultimate goal of most who venture into the simulation world in the first place. "What does flying hold for me?"; "Is it something I really would like to do?"; "Is there part of me that can be fulfilled from from 5,000 feet?"This is not the view of MS, nor should it be. This is a business for them. Publishing books is a noble thing when seen only in the context of teaching children and the greater good that that accomplishes for the individual and the society they live in. Book publishers are not in the business to be altruistic - they are in the business to make money by publishing books. The fact that a child gets educated is a corollary benefit. Just as you are in publishing add-on's for FSX, and its previous variants. FLIGHT is a business. The community's view is certainly not that and is certainly skewed by an altruistic component that has been seen to be vented in these forums.Mathijs, you remember as well as I do, I am sure, the meeting we had at Schiphol shortly after the closure of ACES. The primary reason for that meeting was to answer the question; how do we keep flight simulation alive now that MS appears to have abandoned the community?MS has provided part of the answer, as has X-Plane, Aerofly, Flight Gear, FLY Legacy and others that are evolving as we sit here. MS and those others have provided another means to attract users to the part of this hobby that many here are members of - the "make it as real as it can be" crowd (of which I am part of by the way). Those of us at that meeting I think were in partial agreement that if we failed to attract "new blood" to the hobby, in a short period of time, there would not be a community large enough to support the business aspects of it. Microsoft's FLIGHT answers the challenge of "new blood". You and I have no way to predict the number of new users to our community, but MS' marketing department certainly has; and it appears to justify the investment in FLIGHT and the alienation of some parts of this community.My bottom line? I don't care what FLIGHT brings or doesn't bring to our hobby. I only care that it brings more to our community. And from what I have seen, it has the potential to do that. And to really put myself out on a limb here, I cannot for one moment believe that MS will forever have FLIGHT as a closed system. The door will open for all of the commercial interests and FLIGHT will have a new direction. I believe that is unavoidable and that ultimately, it is a good news story for everyone reading this.Is that "Pollyanna" or too positively "biased" as others have accused Louis of being in his guest review? I don't know. Others do, judging from some of the posts here in the last 36 hours or so. I just do not have access to the same crystal balls they do, apparently.

Lets just hope things can turn out the best. For all of us.

Gentlemen: I stopped actual flying in 1980 (too expensive with a family on the way) but have been sim flying since 1984 (Sublogic, Tandy 1000 PC). I currently have a bundle tied up in FSX software and hardware to support my passion, and have, thank God, an understanding wife who hasn't divorced me..... yet. The sad fact,. however, is that my passion is becoming more and more inaccessible to the younger generations, as well as the average computer owner. Tweaks, tips, arcane fixes, config edits, addons that don't work no way no how, graphic card settings, CTODs, BSODs and the Damacles sword of a complete reinstall when the inevitable eventually happens all conspire to bar flight simulation from a far wider and younger audience.I find Flight intriguing. To say it is an arcade game is incorrect. The flight dynamics, scenery and sim smoothness are superior to FSX. Future upgrades, patches and expansions will be available seamlessly through the internet, they will be compatible and relatively hassle free. Reinstallation will be relatively straightforward. A new generation may grow to love flight simulation and then be willing to pay for the scenery, ATC, AI traffic and other addons which would transform Flight into a full blown simulation.Lon Duncombe

I tend to agree with MS on this one. It's payback time ! The Free For All is over !!

Payback? Payback for what? The 3PD's didn't steal anything from Microsoft. They enhanced an already existing product and made it better. I doubt very much that the Flight Sim genre that Microsoft has produced over the years would have survived this long if it had to rely just on the default scenery, aircraft and utilities. The addons that have been produced over the last 25 years are what kept people coming back. What Microsoft has decided to do is to bring it all in house. That is certainly their prerogative. They will either reap the benefits or pay the price depending on how they handle it. If they do their usual disappearing act of fixing a couple of things and then saying "You're on your own", FLIGHT will have the same lifespan as some of the posters that get wacked around here. They are also going to have to make DLC available on a fairly regular schedule.If they don't, the boredom factor will kick in pretty quickly and the younger folks they are counting on to carry this product will leave in droves. Fred, the airline industry in the United States tried to do the same thing in the eighties by buying into hotels and rental car companies figuring that they could control the whole travel industry. They failed miserably at it because they didn't have the expertise to do those things,( Hell, most of them don't have the expertise to run an airline!) and they lost their shirts. They had spread themselves too thin. I own FLIGHT, bought the Hawaii pack, and was even a beta tester for it. Don't tell anyone, but I even enjoy flying in it. I just find it a little disingenuous to imply that the 3PD's have been ripping off Microsoft for all these years. If MS had a problem with it, they would have had their legal department on it very quickly. They also could have stopped releasing SDK's at any time.

Edited March 1, 201214 yr by mwilk