who here owns Railworks Train Simulator 2012, this sim is awesome from the get-go but the company decided on dlc which reaches to over $1000 in downloads from Steam and other sites. Flight will be the same and it will be amazing as long as my loan was approved by my bank :LMAO:

Its a greedy and flawed business model. MS Flight's target audience (from what I can tell) is primarily children and maybe young teenagers. If the DLC for flight really will add up to hundreds or even thousands of dollars, I can imagine them not selling much of anything, I mean, kids don't have money for stuff like that, their parents do, and I'm pretty sure no parent would spend that much money on some overpriced game addons for their kid.FSX at the time of launch was what, $60? And for that, you get global land coverage, thousands of airports, loads of aircraft, AI aircraft, and all the other little things that make FSX great. For flight, you pay $20, 1/3 of the FSX retail price, for a few small islands that aren't even completely custom modelled. If that isn't a scam, I don't know what is.

Its a greedy and flawed business model. MS Flight's target audience (from what I can tell) is primarily children and maybe young teenagers. If the DLC for flight really will add up to hundreds or even thousands of dollars, I can imagine them not selling much of anything, I mean, kids don't have money for stuff like that, their parents do, and I'm pretty sure no parent would spend that much money on some overpriced game addons for their kid.FSX at the time of launch was what, $60? And for that, you get global land coverage, thousands of airports, loads of aircraft, AI aircraft, and all the other little things that make FSX great. For flight, you pay $20, 1/3 of the FSX retail price, for a few small islands that aren't even completely custom modelled. If that isn't a scam, I don't know what is.

Good point

FSX at the time of launch was what, $60? And for that, you get global land coverage, thousands of airports, loads of aircraft, AI aircraft, and all the other little things that make FSX great. For flight, you pay $20, 1/3 of the FSX retail price, for a few small islands that aren't even completely custom modelled. If that isn't a scam, I don't know what is.

It's not a "scam" because you know what you're buying ahead of time, and if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it.For me personally, I'd rather pay $20 for terrain, in an area that I care about, that feels fairly bespoke than $60 for an entire world of flat, boring, featureless junk. And yes, I consider the FSX included scenery to be mostly junk. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

Edited March 2, 201214 yr by peterb

who here owns Railworks Train Simulator 2012, this sim is awesome from the get-go but the company decided on dlc which reaches to over $1000 in downloads from Steam and other sites. Flight will be the same and it will be amazing as long as my loan was approved by my bank :LMAO:

You somehow "forgot to say" that new RW3 is back compatible with RW2 and open for 3rd party addons...

Edited March 2, 201214 yr by g_precentralis

And yes, I consider the FSX included scenery to be mostly junk.

A surprising amount of the scenery in Flight are actually FSX models, Im spotting more any more things (e.g. the cruise ships, jetways, some house/building textures). Scenery in Flight isn't really an improvement over FSX, it just blends with the terrain better

It's not a "scam" because you know what you're buying ahead of time, and if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it.For me personally, I'd rather pay $20 for terrain, in an area that I care about, that feels fairly bespoke than $60 for an entire world of flat, boring, featureless junk. And yes, I consider the FSX included scenery to be mostly junk. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

You can have both in FSX. The world and even more detailed scenery that dwarfs the size of Flight's Hawaii. It's called Orbx. FSX default wad never mostly featureless anyway though.

A surprising amount of the scenery in Flight are actually FSX models, Im spotting more any more things (e.g. the cruise ships, jetways, some house/building textures). Scenery in Flight isn't really an improvement over FSX, it just blends with the terrain better

As a user, I don't really care whether it has 23.4% more polygons or whatever. What I care about it is that it looks better. On my very high-end system, Flight looks much better. I have to believe that that is because of effort put into making Hawaii feel plausible. Whether that was done by changing the models or simply by having the visual designers focus on topology more, I don't particularly care.

You can have both in FSX. The world and even more detailed scenery that dwarfs the size of Flight's Hawaii. It's called Orbx.

(1) I'll point out that a lot of the silly internet rage against Flight is because people are mortally wounded that they have to "buy" new scenery. Why is it any better if I have to buy that scenery from a third party instead of Microsoft?(2) I'll risk invoking even more internet rage by saying that I like being able to buy the stuff in-game. Every time I dealt with an add-on in Flight Sim X it ended up being, frankly, a pain in the butt.(3) We'll have to agree to disagree about the FSX scenery. As far as I'm concerned, the default scenery was all garbage. The best thing you could say about it was "Well, it exists. Barely."

(1) I'll point out that a lot of the silly internet rage against Flight is because people are mortally wounded that they have to "buy" new scenery. Why is it any better if I have to buy that scenery from a third party instead of Microsoft?(2) I'll risk invoking even more internet rage by saying that I like being able to buy the stuff in-game. Every time I dealt with an add-on in Flight Sim X it ended up being, frankly, a pain in the butt.(3) We'll have to agree to disagree about the FSX scenery. As far as I'm concerned, the default scenery was all garbage. The best thing you could say about it was "Well, it exists. Barely."

Because value matters to me.$20 for an decently represented, yet flawed in many places, depiction of the relatively tiny area of Hawaii or $20 for a 1/4 of beautiful tropical Australia that's massively larger in size and higher detailed? Oh yeah, and I get to use that area with AI, with ATC, and I get to fly to it from anywhere I feel like anyway I want.I'd have no problem with buying addons from MS. That never entered the equation. It's what the value of those addons are and how they can be used that matters to me.If you enjoy flying around a single set of small islands in basically modeled aircraft with no other realistic ambient atmosphere (AI, ATC, etc.) then ok.You'll see these same arguments over games like Call of Duty vs. Arma. I prefer the freedom and level of deep gameplay over marginally better graphics.

Edited March 2, 201214 yr by bonchie

I don't see it as being any different than what FSX offers in those terms. Good luck buying all the 'DLC' for FSX as I'm sure $1,000 won't begin to scratch what is available. How much DLC you reckon there is for FSX? Surely more than $10,000?One thing I can say with certainty: What I get with Flight for $35 *blows away* what I get with FSX for $70. But that all depends on what's important. For me, I want the plane to 'feel' as real as possible. The flight dynamics or whatever you want to call it, for me, is job #1. To me, Flight is *vastly* improved over FSX in this department. Because the most important thing to me is to get 'flying a plane' right, FSX 'feels' sterile, pre-determined, and 'slo-motion' compared to Flight. Now that I have the two to compare, the FSX 'flight model' feels very antiquated and now very unrealistic compared to Flight's.I stopped buying add-ons for FSX at about $300 just because of disappointment in what I got: Slideshow framerates, CTDs, feezes, PMDG J41 with crazy graphical glitches in the windscreen, excessive loadtimes, exterior programs to manage, picky installation procedures, dedicated hard drive, re-installations, et al. I was always let down in one way or another. The harder these add-ons pushed, the worse it got. So I stopped. . .I didn't want too, but the stuff just didn't work without spending inordinate amounts of time figuring out why and then breaking something else.I can easily see myself spending $1,000+ on DLC for Flight so long as they give me what I want and it's done well.

Thats fair, everyone spend money on stuff he/she likes. Flight DLC package is too expensive for me, and at the other end, PMDG NGX or ORBX are cheap.

Edited March 2, 201214 yr by g_precentralis

I stopped buying add-ons for FSX at about $300 just because of disappointment in what I got: Slideshow framerates, CTDs, feezes, PMDG J41 with crazy graphical glitches in the windscreen, excessive loadtimes, exterior programs to manage, picky installation procedures, dedicated hard drive, re-installations, et al. I was always let down in one way or another. The harder these add-ons pushed, the worse it got. So I stopped. . .I didn't want too, but the stuff just didn't work without spending inordinate amounts of time figuring out why and then breaking something else.I can easily see myself spending $1,000+ on DLC for Flight so long as they give me what I want and it's done well.

While I really like most of the FSX scenery, I agree with the latter part of your post. I'd happily fork out for DLC if it was desirable and done well. There's just too much hassle with addons in FSX. Sadly for me there is no alternative to FSX, and Flight hasn't offered anyting desirable to buy yet

Edited March 2, 201214 yr by simmerhead

and Flight hasn't offered anyting desirable to buy yet

I totally understand that - it will be nice when there are jets, ATC, and all the other stuff (assuming there will be, and I think there will). *If* MS publishes all that missing stuff and do it on a quality level on-par with what they've done so far, it's going to be a fantastic simulator. Right now it is a fantastic, yet limited, GA flight simulator. If one were to compare FSX default Hawaii and ignore everything FSX offers that is not in Flight, Flight is head-and-shoulders above FSX in every catagory. In other words, only compare to FSX what is in Flight today and FSX will show it's age.

Again, comparison between flight and FSX... 2 different kind of software, different material, philosophy, target audience... no room for comparing in any way.