Besides this forum I frequent other forums and I notice more and more people are joining in with MS Flight. I also noticed a LOT of them, if not all, say they fooled around with flight sims in the past but somehow it was too hard to get things working and it didn't look good and they didn't know what to do... But NOW things are different. MS Flight is easy to install and it looks and runs awesome out of the 'box' and it is FUN! No problems, no difficulties, lots of eye candy, things simply work, etc. etc. Some people already are interest in buying DLC!I really think that MS was completely right when they decided to use another strategy for their flight sim. A lot of people stop trying if something still doesn't work after 5 minutes or if it runs crap, like FSX. But getting into MS Flight is easy and rewarding and I am 100% sure it will get a lot more people interested in flight simming!!!But... I am also pretty sure that this doesn't mean people who are 'really' interested will move to FSX... simply because FSX does NOT run well out of the box and it looks awful out of the same box... But that's okay with me because this means people will stick with MS Flight and buy DLC for it and that will make MS create even more DLC.I think MS has a winner. Despite all the negativity of some hardcore simmers. The market they are going to reach now it a LOT bigger then the 'old' hardcore market. Clever move...!

Besides this forum I frequent other forums and I notice more and more people are joining in with MS Flight. I also noticed a LOT of them, if not all, say they fooled around with flight sims in the past but somehow it was too hard to get things working and it didn't look good and they didn't know what to do... But NOW things are different. MS Flight is easy to install and it looks and runs awesome out of the 'box' and it is FUN! No problems, no difficulties, lots of eye candy, things simply work, etc. etc. Some people already are interest in buying DLC!I really think that MS was completely right when they decided to use another strategy for their flight sim. A lot of people stop trying if something still doesn't work after 5 minutes or if it runs crap, like FSX. But getting into MS Flight is easy and rewarding and I am 100% sure it will get a lot more people interested in flight simming!!!But... I am also pretty sure that this doesn't mean people who are 'really' interested will move to FSX... simply because FSX does NOT run well out of the box and it looks awful out of the same box... But that's okay with me because this means people will stick with MS Flight and buy DLC for it and that will make MS create even more DLC.I think MS has a winner. Despite all the negativity of some hardcore simmers. The market they are going to reach now it a LOT bigger then the 'old' hardcore market. Clever move...!

Why are you attacking fsx so much, where are the MODS on this one.

Why are you attacking fsx so much, where are the MODS on this one.

Do you by any chance remenber how some simmers where looking at FSX when it was release??? they were doing the same they were attacking it and yet somehow we got used to all the work that had to be done for FSX to run in a way that we could enjoy it and today it looks like everyone forgot about those first few days of FSX .

Unless your computer is a dinosaur, there's no reason to have FSX running like crap.Any quad core system with a decent graphics card (we are talking a cheapie $500-600 computer with tech that's been around for 3-4 years) will take 95% of what FSX will throw at it, even with plenty of add ons running.

Do you by any chance remenber how some simmers where looking at FSX when it was release??? they were doing the same they were attacking it and yet somehow we got used to all the work that had to be done for FSX to run in a way that we could enjoy it and today it looks like everyone forgot about those first few days of FSX .

While accurate on a very generalized level, there's really no logical comparison. FSX had somewhere to go because it was still built on what FS9 was, was a deep game, was global, had realistic features of navigation, etc. etc. etc.With Flight the future is extremely cloudy. There has to be something to fix before it can be fixed. In FSX, performance was the issue but the gameplay was still there to be molded. By virtue of tweaks (which today can be boiled down into a single click on Bojote's site) and hardware advances we've overcome that.For Flight performance isn't the problem, it's content. Knowing the direction the developer has said he wants Flight to go, who he wants to market to primarily, and what his vision is does anyone really see them releasing an "ATC" DLC or a "United States" DLC? That's not going to make them money with the market they are targeting (by their own admission). What you are likely to continue to see is limited regions, aircraft, and missions. That's fine, but it's certainly different then what most on this site seek. There appears to be no longterm vision for Flight to include anything that would allow anything past casual short hop flights that are mission based vs. player driven with ATC, flight planning, and the like. That's why you see disdain. If Flight were just broken technically, there'd at least be somewhere to go in the future.

Edited March 2, 201214 yr by bonchie

Unless your computer is a dinosaur, there's no reason to have FSX running like crap.Any quad core system with a decent graphics card (we are talking a cheapie $500-600 computer with tech that's been around for 3-4 years) will take 95% of what FSX will throw at it, even with plenty of add ons running.

bonchie i see that you been here in the forum for a while since 07 and you should know that the problem back in FSX when it was release was that a decent machine was not able to do Nothing at all with FSX . it takes a todays PC to get FSX(2006) to run smooth .

I think the next DLC will be Alaska and that it will come bundled with the Maule at a special deal. 20USD for alaska if you have the Maule already and 30USD for Alaska and Maule, saving on the price of both seperately. When you download the Alaska pack then it will unlock a mission, where you have to take a Maule to Alaska and when you start the mission, two fuel trucks will be attached to each wing so that you have enough fuel to get there. :)Of course I am not being serious but most of that might be like that, possibly, maybe.Craig

Edited March 2, 201214 yr by ckukmale

Why are you attacking fsx so much, where are the MODS on this one.

Unless your computer is a dinosaur, there's no reason to have FSX running like crap.

I am sorry but I am not attacking FSX. And I also didn't say FSX runs crap on my computer. If you read my post well you will see that I am talking about FSX OUT OF THE BOX. If someone who is new to flightsimming would receive FSX and MS Flight at the same time, I am pretty sure they would go for MS Flight because it works a lot better (out of the box!) and looks a lot better (out of the box!) then FSX.I didn't simply say FSX is crap. I have it running very well on my pc but that took quite some (or better said years) tweaking and testing and trying and a WHOLE lot of money on addons and whatnot...!!! It also took a few new pc's before FSX ran satisfactory. MS Flight runs well right away. FSX did NOT run well right away when it was released. I have spend zillions of happy hours flying in FSX and I am grateful for what it gave me, but out of the box MS Flight beats FSX hands down for newbies. That's my point.The fact that people who tried FSX and turned away from it are now very satisfied with MS Flight proves my point.So sorry if my post offended you, that wasn't my intention, but I am simply stating facts.

I think the next DLC will be Alaska and that it will come bundled with the Maule at a special deal. 20USD for alaska and 30USD for Alaska and Maule, saving on the price of both seperately. When you download the Alaska pack then it will unlock a mission, where you have to take a Maule to Alaska and when you start the mission, two fuel trucks will be attached to each wing so that you have enough fuel to get there. :)Of course I am not being serious but most of that might be like that, possibly, maybe.Craig

I don't think the next region will include the Maule for a special price. That would be killing. You don't sell a plane for a specific price and then include it in another deal shortly after that. I am certain MS will not make that mistake and that for quite some time we will only get new DLC and not combined deals.

Edited March 2, 201214 yr by J van E

There appears to be no longterm vision for Flight to include anything that would allow anything past casual short hop flights that are mission based vs. player driven with ATC, flight planning, and the like. That's why you see disdain. If Flight were just broken technically, there'd at least be somewhere to go in the future.

i undestand where you are coming from but. if that was the idea to forget about us the older users of flight simulator i figure they would of just got ready of any realistic instrument , any jetways in the airport any ILS VOR , taxiway sign any ground vehicles that are not need it for GA and instead we would of got a unrealistic world with a runway . just a runway where jhony blow the xbox player can take of and land from . Now that would of been a good reason to be mad and think flight was a arcade game .

Hey JeroenWell it was meant to be taken in jest a little bit, even if its so hard to read peoples emotions at the time of writing, but II am sure that if they do bring out an Alaskan DLC pack, then it would be good if they have some aircraft that are quite common in that region. Does depend on the licensing but would be nice to have a Beaver or a Cessna Caravan for example.CheersCraig

Edited March 2, 201214 yr by ckukmale

20USD for alaska if you have the Maule already and 30USD for Alaska and Maule, saving on the price of both seperately.

I'm afraid, you are too optimistic on the price tag. At the current sq mile per $ rate, alaska would amount to $1.789.

Of course MS have succeeded at this point. They have generated talk amongst people about a very well polished FREE product. That is the easy part. The question is how will people swallow it when they start rolling out more paid content. Average gamers are going to balk when they realize they've already spent $100s on a few basic planes and small content additions. How is this different than FSX you may ask? Well, because in FSX, I could spend that same couple $100 and have world coverage, AI, ATC, RW weather with REX, a fidelity airliner or GA, etc. That would still leave money to fly across 2 of the most popular continents with full coverage of UTX, GEX and FSGenesis.The last "simulation" that attempted this with minor success is Train Simulator 2012. However, it remains the laughing stock of most average gamers because of it's insane cost totals for the DLC content. It's mostly the hardcore fans that buy up the content. I don't see that happening for Flight because the content they release probably won't match up with most hardcore simmers desire's. Not to mention TS2012 is on Steam which gets much more exposure in the PC world than MS Live.Don't get me wrong, I'm having a bit of fun with Flight myself sort of like I did with the FSX missions for the first couple months. But for it's long term success, it is going to have to strike the right balance of content for cost.

Come back in a month or 2 and see how many Hawaii adventure packs had been sold. At 1600 MS points it's very expensive compared to the other free-to-play microtransactions models, especially for a game aimed the casual gamer who doesn't play very much. I wouldn't be surprised if the MS beancounters suddenly decide to change course in terms of DLC content. Perhaps instead of $10 Maules and Mustangs they will have $3 "lite" airplanes with No VC or custom sounds, similar to the used car dealership in Gran Turismo 5.

Of course MS have succeeded at this point. They have generated talk amongst people about a very well polished FREE product. That is the easy part. The question is how will people swallow it when they start rolling out more paid content.

Go to the Gamespot or the IGN forums and ask people there what they think of MS Flight and you'll probably end up getting blank stares. Marketing for MS Flight is non existent and barely anyone in the general gaming scenes knows what this is, apart from some vague connections to Pilotwings.

Edited March 2, 201214 yr by Avantime

i agree and in the next 3 months, Microsoft will announce their 1st piece of dlc. Microsoft ususally releases DLC for it's in-house games at around 3-6 months after release and since FLIGHT is free, i think Microsoft will announce something very soon to get the cash machine rolling again, lol. Flight was released just a few days ago and many people including me are hungry for more dlc. I have a feeling it will be a scenery pack of an area near Hawaii and slowly expand away from Hawaii until the whole planet is created like FSX.

You do know they already released three DLC products for FLIGHT right? Like the $15 Maule that is less functional then the one we got 'for free' with FSX. If that would be released for FSX at that price it would be slaughtered in reviews. And if they expand as you predict this will be the most expensive product ever.At this moment you can spend $40 on FLIGHT, and that will give you get you 4 braindead aircraft, one set of islands and bunch of missions. While I like the free base, the add-ons right now do not even come close to what customers started to expect over the last few years. At this rate it would literally take thousands of dollars to get it into a simulator that can compete. $15 for AI Traffic? $15 for ATC? $15 for real weather? $15 to get the AP's working? And keep in mind that to link Hawaii to any other place you need an aircraft that can fly the distance so it will need to be a bit more complex, so say $25. And you need a big airport to land on at the other end, $20 at least. And then you can fly back to Hawaii. Yeah! And to make matters worse... if you want to yuse your new bigger aircraft to fly to another location you will need to buy a new airport and all the scenery in between (or do with the 500 meter pixels now used). We must be in the $300 now.FSX costs $35 and has far more functionality. They would have to tweak Windows 8 not to run FSX to make that work. So FLIGHT will stay very much as it is. A fine game. We'll get new 'locations' like Hawaii, likely the Seattle area and you will fly around there a bit. In the same braindead kind of aircraft. And that's good, that makes it a good game. But not a flight simulator as the AVSIM visitors have learned to love.Am I the only one who sees the problems here? Again I like the base sim, great fun and a fine game. But just think about the add-ons you need to keep you busy. You will need to pay for every single bit of scenery you see.

You do know they already released three DLC products for FLIGHT right? Like the $15 Maule that is less functional then the one we got 'for free' with FSX. If that would be released for FSX at that price it would be slaughtered in reviews. And if they expand as you predict this will be the most expensive product ever.At this moment you can spend $40 on FLIGHT, and that will give you get you 4 braindead aircraft, one set of islands and bunch of missions. While I like the free base, the add-ons right now do not even come close to what customers started to expect over the last few years. At this rate it would literally take thousands of dollars to get it into a simulator that can compete. $15 for AI Traffic? $15 for ATC? $15 for real weather? $15 to get the AP's working? And keep in mind that to link Hawaii to any other place you need an aircraft that can fly the distance so it will need to be a bit more complex, so say $25. And you need a big airport to land on at the other end, $20 at least. And then you can fly back to Hawaii. Yeah! And to make matters worse... if you want to yuse your new bigger aircraft to fly to another location you will need to buy a new airport and all the scenery in between (or do with the 500 meter pixels now used). We must be in the $300 now.FSX costs $35 and has far more functionality. They would have to tweak Windows 8 not to run FSX to make that work. So FLIGHT will stay very much as it is. A fine game. We'll get new 'locations' like Hawaii, likely the Seattle area and you will fly around there a bit. In the same braindead kind of aircraft. And that's good, that makes it a good game. But not a flight simulator as the AVSIM visitors have learned to love.Am I the only one who sees the problems here? Again I like the base sim, great fun and a fine game. But just think about the add-ons you need to keep you busy. You will need to pay for every single bit of scenery you see.

Hi Mathijs,These are the same themes you hammered on time after time yesterday. Respectfully, I appreciate your opinion, as do most people in AVSIM, and are flattered that you would visit us here, but I hope we do not have a repetition of yesterday that cummulated in you dragging Tom in to defend AVSIM's honor.http://forum.avsim.n...ht/page__st__50This is a forum to support those who support Flight who are already well on the way to building a new positive and helpful community here, like there is for FS9, FSX and X-Plane. Like the others the Flight forum is no longer intended to be a wrestling match or shooting gallery for those who don't like it. Thank you for your consideration.Love your products and am a diehard fan of the Twin Otter, for which I will be thanking you for a long time to come.Respectful and kind regards,

Mathijs, While I agree with your general point, quoting FSX at $35 is highly misleading...FSX when released cost me around $80 and the Acceleration Pack another $50 or soand I just purchased a very nice RV7 for FSX at $40, not to mention Orbx scenery etc..So Flight at $20 for Hawaii and the RV6 included hardly strikes me as over the top..

Edited March 2, 201214 yr by Bert Pieke