Help me understand the 'hate' for Flight?

[fastcarfastplane 0]

Hi guys, new member here...I recently tried this game, like many of you, and i thought it was quite fun or w/e for a game that tries to capture flight sim.... from what i've read (on here and in other places) a lot of people really dont like this new game....can you help me understand why? It feels like FSX, with much better visuals...its definitely lacking...everything else (planes, america, eurpoe, lol everywhere else) but i'm sure they'll come in time.so what is the big deal that i'm missing?I'm guessing most of the people on here, are real pilots, as well as video game enthusiasts...so what's not to like?also worth noting that a valid argument for your side would be that I personally have never experienced FSX in it's full potential(and i feel like i'm missing out)....for whatever reasons, it decides not to run at a good FR despite having a powerhouse gaming PC, so i never got into getting extra planes, scenery(though i have seen videos on youtube, and while it becomes greatly improved, it still is not even on the stock level of Flight)....also Xplane 9 was a complete joke....in every aspect imaginable, so i immediately removed that from my pc.

[MD11Captain 0]

Hi there,I'm guessing you're fairly new to FS (sorry about how patronising that sounds, I can't find a less ghastly way to phrase it), I think people's main gripe regarding default features is the lack of navaids (VORs and NDBs, and what many, including myself were hoping for, TACAN), but that's not the real problem... It's that MS are not (initially at least) allowing add-on developers to independently market their products, with companies like PMDG being more important for their simming than FS itself for some people (Inc. me), the lack of AI also bugs some people (although me not so much).I'll say that you're spot on in saying that many do hate it, but I'm not one of them, when it comes to base sims, as far as I'm concerned, the more the merrier, FSX has tonnes of mileage left in it and X-Plane has a great future too.Thanks,CharlieOops, just realised FLIGHT does have navaids... (still no TACAN though)

Edited March 1, 2012 by MD11Captain

[peterb 0]

The short version is "On the Internet, everyone hates everything."I think it's a charming successor to FSX, especially when you consider that the alternative is "no successor to FSX at all." But some people just hate and fear change.It's certainly a lot less 'simmy' than FSX was. But fundamentally I think it's reasonable to assume that if this succeeds, and if there's a market for more simmy features, Microsoft will add them.If, on the other hand, there isn't a market for them, then it's pointless to complain about it.My $0.02.

[N330DG 44]

I think, the main reason for the heavy critics is, that Flight is no "operating system" for flight simulation like FS was. At least not at this moment and with a very uncertain prognosis for the future. It is no longer an open system whereeveryone can try to improve our ecosystem of flight simulation. No aircraft, no sceneries, no repaints, no ai-traffic-plans, no ATC/pilot utilities for VATSIM etc, no weather engines, no general environment tuning, no utilities, ... . It's a tightly closed system where we can just consume whatever MS sells in its app-store. Has MS the right do do so? Absolutely, it's their software. Do we have the right to be very unhappy with that? Absolutely too.

[Tom Wright 438]

Because it wasn't what many were expecting. People were expecting (or hoping for) a transition not dissimilar to FS9 - FSX back in 2006. FSX basically retained FS9s core features with either improvements or new stuff bolted on. With Flight they've opened a whole new kettle of fish. It's a completely different approach from anything they've ever produced before. They've closed off third party development, which has arguably kept previous versions living for years after launch, by not producing an SDK and replaced it with a new centralised, in-house produced DLC model.I understand that, but I also understand why Microsoft did it. I personally think Flight is quite good for what it is. It's something fresh and new, and FSX is still right where it was when I want to use it.

[japascoe 98]

Many people thought / hoped that Flight would be FS 11, a true successor to FSX that would keep all the features FSX had and make them better. The early Flight press releases implied that this would be the case.When Flight came out it turned out it was missing a lot of features that FSX had, such as being able to visit any of 23,000 airports all over the world, jet planes, AI traffic, ATC and I'm sure people around here can name more. This, combined with the early press releases, caused some people to feel betrayed and rather upset.If you approach Flight with the mindset it's going to be FS11 you will be disappointed. If you judge it on it's own merits it's really good at what it does.

Hi there,I'm guessing you're fairly new to FS (sorry about how patronising that sounds, I can't find a less ghastly way to phrase it), I think people's main gripe regarding default features is the lack of navaids (VORs and NDBs, and what many, including myself were hoping for, TACAN), but that's not the real problem... It's that MS are not (initially at least) allowing add-on developers to independently market their products, with companies like PMDG being more important for their simming than FS itself for some people (Inc. me), the lack of AI also bugs some people (although me not so much).I'll say that you're spot on in saying that many do hate it, but I'm not one of them, when it comes to base sims, as far as I'm concerned, the more the merrier, FSX has tonnes of mileage left in it and X-Plane has a great future too.Thanks,Charlie

Flight does in fact contain VORs and NDBs as default features (even as scenery objects), it just so happens that the two free planes don't have the instruments required to actually make use of them. If you get the RV-6 or the Maule (apparently, don't have that one myself) you can track radials to your heart's content.

[Joseph29 225]

No aircraft, no sceneries, no repaints, no ai-traffic-plans, no ATC/pilot utilities for VATSIM etc, no weather engines, no general environment tuning, no utilities, ... . It's a tightly closed system where we can just consume whatever MS sells in its app-store. Has MS the right do do so? Absolutely, it's their software. Do we have the right to be very unhappy with that? Absolutely too.

And if all that is added in the future we will have to pay for it. Sure we all bought lots of add ons for FS9 and FSX, but all the stuff you mentioned we got right out of the box.

[MD11Captain 0]

Thanks japascoe, you might have noticed I updated my reply having seen another conversation, at least some good things remain, but I'm damned if I'm buying what's basically an FSX default plane :)Thanks,Charlie

[alepro 15]

I have recently read a very nice opinion piece on flight written by Mathijs Kok (from Aerosoft, formerly Lago). Sums it up nicely for me:http://asn.aerosoft.com/?page_id=3585

Edited March 1, 2012 by alepro

[n4gix 4,949]

The single biggest reason is that many have simply refused to accept that MSGS is starting out by attempting to build a solid, reliable core platform, as well as get the new distribution and installation system to work smoothly for everyone, and do so using a small, but very tightly integrated geographic area. This minimizes for them the number of problem areas to deal with.Once the core is deemed reliable and solid, then they (MSGS) can begin the process of bolting on new modular bits with increased functionality.Flight is version 1.0 of an entirely new paradigm for MSGS. It really is that simple.

[Capt Mac 0]

I think this flight sim will attract folks who like arcade type games. The graphics look really cool. I, however have been spoiled with third party software, ATC, flexibility of flying my own assignments with the planes I like to fly. For me the whole thing is too structured and lacks the wide open options you get with FSX. I for one will be staying with FSX and the load of addon software I've been using and enjoying in my flying experiences. I don't think this one will fit in too well with flightsim hobby community.Anyway, just one persons opinion.CaptMac

[n4gix 4,949]

I have recently read a very nice opinion piece on flight written by Mathijs Kok (from Aerosoft, formerly Lago). Sums it up nicely for me:

I read that, as well as the 8 comments to it. With only one exception, mostly what I read were the same untruths and outrageous claims that've polluted every flight sim forum on earth for the past year or more.

[Attila 2]

Since the OP is asking and this thread has not been deleted yet....Things not to like about Flight...Limited area to fly inLimited number of planes to chose fromLimited type of planesLimited weather selectionLimited controller configurationLimited avionicsetcLimited information about the futureSo I guess the bottom line is that Flight is just too limited in every way.Edit: BTW, there is no "hate" for Flight in any of my posts.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Attila

[N330DG 44]

The single biggest reason is that many have simply refused to accept that MSGS is starting out by attempting to build a solid, reliable core platform, as well as get the new distribution and installation system to work smoothly for everyone, and do so using a small, but very tightly integrated geographic area. This minimizes for them the number of problem areas to deal with.Once the core is deemed reliable and solid, then they (MSGS) can begin the process of bolting on new modular bits with increased functionality.Flight is version 1.0 of an entirely new paradigm for MSGS. It really is that simple.

10 years ago it was possible to build an relatively open and complete "operating system" for flight simulation. Today with all the computing power and dev-tools we have to scale down to a closed system with a couple of ga aircraft and a few islands? oh boy!

[Shaka 2]

These are all good comments.I would say that my opinion is similar. I actually like Flight for its pure entertainment value. But I am still disappointed that it doesn't offer much of what was available in FSX and previous versions. It is worth noting that the hate probably goes both ways - posting anything critical of Flight could earn you the contempt of other users who felt no reluctance to voice thier disgust. The tone of this forum has changed, probably due to the extra policing that the moderators have been doing, and peoples opionions seem less polarized than before.I would say that my list of things I like is longer than the list of things I don't like.