Flight Review

[ahuimanu 50]

The Flight Review was thorough and certainly covered all the main aspects. However, the tone was very biased and bordered on patronizing to many readers. Furthermore, the review takes a "knowing" tone that most newcomers won't understand. The review is good if the editor could have tone down the scolding language which belittles the opinions of some readers.

[Andrey 12]

Fix please "Download Size: 71 MB"

[JonRD463 146]

The Flight Review was thorough and certainly covered all the main aspects. However, the tone was very biased and bordered on patronizing to many readers. Furthermore, the review takes a "knowing" tone that most newcomers won't understand. The review is good if the editor could have tone down the scolding language which belittles the opinions of some readers.

Your post and a rather showstopping thread in the pre-release era Flight forum by the review's author (http://forum.avsim.net/topic/362431-tom-please-is-it-time-yet/ ) are enough to convince me to not even read it. I'll wait for something that's going to be a bit more objective.

[simmerhead 885]

Microsoft closed down the ACES studio, put all the great developers out of work, threw away a fantastic simulator, and then slapped together this game for kids, an arcade game at that! It shouldn't deserve a review so what is this all about? That is probably what many people are thinking now. Right?Well, they are completely wrong, wrong on all counts. Thank you for telling me how wrong I am - on all counts. Very informative.

Edited March 1, 2012 by simmerhead

[petedob 3]

The Flight Review was thorough and certainly covered all the main aspects. However, the tone was very biased and bordered on patronizing to many readers. Furthermore, the review takes a "knowing" tone that most newcomers won't understand. The review is good if the editor could have tone down the scolding language which belittles the opinions of some readers.

I agree with Jeff about the review, it's presumptuous and contradictory. The article should be edited to alter the author's bias. Edited March 1, 2012 by petedob

[darem 84]

I enjoyed the review, but I feel it is based on hopes and not what there is. Talking about future AI traffic or other regions of the world, when neither of it has been announced or even talked about by the devs in any way, seems pretty pointless and misleading to me.I agree that this is a biased review - but on the other hand I have to say that most of the reviews here on AVSIM come to a way too positive conclusion.

[Rimshot 1,143]

This review is biased in the sense it takes a positive approach. I like that.

[LuisFelizTirado 33]

My forum preferences block a large number of people's comments - they are the ones who have shown themselves in their true light in the Flight forum. I can only see Bert's comments here and do not doubt that the others reflect their intolerant and unpleasant remarks that they have already made numerous times - it is all rather tiring.Thank you, Bert, that was my intention. There is nothing to be gained by negativity, and Microsoft is not going to change anything. Either we enjoy what they give us, or we go away and enjoy something else. Except that what some enjoy is to be rude, disrespectful, and tiring.

[BritishEagle 0]

I'm not going to diss it, its great for the X-Box generation but for someone like me it left me looking where I should insert my 20c/10p, The disposible income of the youngsters will be drained away through this portal into Microsoft's coffers and good on them. I didn't like it. I have other flight sims on my pc to play with and this wont be one of them. I guess I like the feel and awkwardness of the old FS series, FS95 was just waking up to better graphics on computers, now we have 3d and Orbx scenery that makes flying in our own little worlds somewhere to go to after a s**t day at work and use our imaginations, not asked to buy addons for the greater good of Microsoft. I got a little bored after flying around the baloons, it may be that my grandson will love it when he's a little older, but for this older guy, I will stick with what I love best about Flight sim - escapism.

[WarpD 824]

The review most definitely comes across as biased. Notice I didn't state anything about it being inaccurate or anything like that. It was patronizing and somewhat belittling towards anyone who would disagree with the reviewer's conclusions. Not a very professional review because of that aspect.Oh, and intolerance works both ways... not just to your point of view. You are being extremely intolerant towards those who completely disagree with your conclusions.I will point one thing out regarding Flight that you and a great many others have apparently missed. Microsoft is not know for in-depth, complex anything when it comes to flight sim. Everything that made the original product more complex came from third party developers, with zero exceptions. Microsoft's development model is based strictly on profit, no more, no less. It is very, very well known by developers that complexity in FS is not cheap and rarely has a ROI in the strictly financial sense. Because of that, the expectations that Microsoft will do for Flight what third party developers did for Flight Simulator is based on nothing but conjecture. At no point in the history of the Flight Simulator franchise did Microsoft make a complex aircraft. Not once. The scenery in Flight is bare bones when compared to such products as OrbX. I could go on and on... but the end result is that Flight is not FS-vNext nor shall it ever become that. Microsoft has made that crystal clear in their statements, actions, etc.

[Stick 0]

Firstly, as I have proven in other threads, I am most certainly not "anti-Flight" and indeed am having a moderate amount of fun in the game.But in my view, this "Review" is very inappropriate and disappointingly lacking in credibility IMHO. As a retired AVSIM Reviewer, and knowing Robert's usual high standards, I am amazed this work of bias and disregard of how any other simmer may see things, was published.I mean, this comment:-

First of all, there are no jetliners, in fact, no jets of any sort. No helicopters, no sailplane, no Extra aerobatic airplane. No Cessna, no training syllabus, no Rod Machado jokes. No Artificial Intelligence (AI) aircraft traffic, no Air Traffic Control (ATC), no Flight Planner, and no Real Weather. No worldwide coverage with 24000+ airports. How's that for radical change? It's almost as if MGS had taken a close look at what we used and what we did not use and gave us a sim that reflected that.

....is bordering on the outrageous!Who on Earth does Luis think he is speaking for, in believing those elements of FS are what none of us wanted anyway?I guess my comments mean that Luis will set his forum settings to "ignore" my posts, as he has (very immaturely) above implied that anyone other than those who say nice things will be ignored. Contrary to what some people have said; The release of Flight is not a low point for our hobby in my view. But I'm afraid this 'review' is a real low point for this wonderful community and forum.Just my opinion - and it will be only stated once ;) Edited March 1, 2012 by Stick

[TedG 1]

I am not really fussed about Flight.....it is what it is.I chuckled a bit when I read this:Yes, we can display all Navaids, they are all there. And if you mouse-over any of them on the Map, you will see the Nav frequencies and hear the Morse. Now why would the developers have bothered putting Navaids in an arcade game for kids? They are all operational and you can fly all published approaches with IFR-capable aircraft, although the Icon and the Stearman are not.How does the reviewer know if you can actually "fly all published approaches" if the aircraft provided are not IFR-capable?The piece is generally well-written...but....and a rather large but.....I too found it rather patronizing and condescending.It is also biased to the point of being an opinion rather than a review. A lot of pure speculation as well (unless the writer is in the know and being annoyingly coy).I also find it interesting that there is no "What I Like/What I Dislike". Overall it is a departure from the usual objective nature one finds in reading AVSIM reviews past and present-although in fairness Luis did chuck himself under the bus by actually writing the article in the first place. I wouldn't have taken it on....but I have no real interest in the product.I have to agree with Stick (although the "low point" is more the childish antics displayed by forum members in recent weeks).And to echo Stick...it's just my opinion. And now I'll duck back under my customary X-Plane/FSX protective shell :Peace:

[armchairpil0t 0]

Contrary to what some people have said; The release of Flight is not a low point for our hobby in my view. But I'm afraid this 'review' is a real low point for this wonderful community and forum.

I fully agree. My first thought after seeing this "review" was that it was a part of a paid advertising campaign by Microsoft disguised as a review.But on the second thought, MS would treat their customers with a little more respect.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Folks, it is a contributed review. One from a long standing and respected member of this community, who was a BETA tester and with his view of the product. If you have contrary, adjacent or parallel conclusions with a different nuance about FLIGHT, please write a review and place it our review system. I am sure that they community would love to see varying opinion and insight.

[DShutt 14]

Flight is FREE. Download and try it out for yourself.