...which is why we've seen disagreement in this forum about Luis's review. His writing suggests Flight is an evolution that flight sim enthusiasts should accept.

Absolutely! .... Well said Pete, that is what people are missing here...... the review author chose to directly compare Flight with FSX, to refer to Flight as the evolution in Microsoft's Flight Simulator series, and to degrade FSX fans who "resist change" by not wanting to move to Flight.Robert, I agree with your view over the true definition of the word "bias" however there is also a de facto definition of the word Bias, and this review perfectly fits that definition!I am not against Flight, and it is still on my HD and there are elements I like about it (Such as the scenery). I am also genuinely not anti-MS ..... it is this review that I take objection to as it disregarded, patronized and down-sneered at a huge cross section of this hobby. To be completely honest it just read as an immature piece of writing.

Please explain the meaning of that.. I can interpret it a couple of different ways.

Well, at least Microsoft had the basic decency not to call it Flight Simulator 11

Well, at least Microsoft had the basic decency not to call it Flight Simulator 11

Great twist of perspective - I like it.

I'm confused now! Your now saying this is his own opinion, not AVSIM's, yet it's in the form of an official AVSIM Commercial Review? If that's the case wouldn't the Readers Product review section be the more appropriate place to post this then?

He is a contributing reviewer, as it says on the review. This means it's not done by an Avsim staff member, but by an outside party.

The review should have stopped at the first paragraph:"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?"Because that was bang on.

And why is a review of an entire flight-sim platform, not even addressing something as fundamental as FPS ** / performance issues ?This is, arguably, THE most important aspect of this as a direct competitor/alternative to FSX/FS9.It also seems to be becoming de rigour for pretty much ALL reviews - even the 'professional' ones.(And, for crying out loud, DON'T use 'absolute numbers' if you do include this vital information. Use 'relative' values: compare a similar situation and aircraft for example, to that in FSX.It's not 'rocket science' guys, yet 90% of reviewers - that actually do us the the courtesy of providing such information - always make this fundamental (if not 'school-boy') error !).

And why is a review of an entire flight-sim platform, not even addressing something as fundamental as FPS ** / performance issues ?

Because xBoxes dont have FPS issues.

All Microsoft had to do was to take FSX, use 5 years worth of improved hardware to jazz up the graphics, fix the bugs and performance issues (it's ridiculous that 6 years after release you need top of the range hardware to run it properly) and hey presto! The perfect sim. Instead, they have given us a product that has limited appeal to flight simmers (and, as a South African, I'm fairly certain that my part of the world will be happily ignored by Microsoft), and no appeal whatsoever to "normal" gamers (I enjoy all types of games, not just Simulators - FPS, RPG, RTS, any acronym you can think of, and I have pretty good idea of what gamers want, and MS flight isn't it). So who, exactly, do they think is going to buy their product. I'm sure plenty of flightsimmers will download the MS Flight demo, and play with it every few months when bored, but I can't see large numbers of people forking out money for it. Such a waste.

I'm sure plenty of flightsimmers will download the MS Flight demo

I dont even think that will happen. Not any serious flight simmers.

Because xBoxes dont have FPS issues.

Hehe.... best place for it

Who on Earth does Luis think he is speaking for, in believing those elements of FS are what none of us wanted anyway?

You have to take that paragraph in context with the next. Maybe you just stopped reading the review at that point in horror! He's being deliberately provocative for effect here, making an outrageous statement then explaining why it's not so outrageous at all, merely highly optimistic. He says people often ignored those MSFS default features (because they were flawed) and installed addons which worked better. He hopes that MSG will add the missing features or allow 3PDs to create addons for them. I don't subscribe to that optimistic idea at all, but there is a certain delusional logic to it.