What part of "There is a difference between posting shortcomings and/or bugs about a sim, and posting the same negative comments (often accompanied with ridicule) over and over again, just because you don't personally like Flight." do you not understand?

You don't need to kick me in the hind quarters on my way out. Way too heavy-handed and patronizing.Best of success with your forum.

Pros:Scenery/Terrain/MeshCon's:Everything else

You don't need to kick me in the hind quarters on my way out. Way too heavy-handed and patronizing.

And I thought I was being nice. :huh:If I wanted to be "heavy-handed," I would have just deleted your previous post, where you basically just ignored what I posted in my previous reply.

Edited March 3, 201214 yr by Arwen

What is your being involved in a discussion about Flight going to achieve?

Meshman, clearly you have a different view of discussion. With that I'll leave you to enjoy Flight. Best of luck with it.

What views Jim ?The sarcastic remarks and totally unhelpful comments ??Fred.

When did you change your name to Jeff?

I'm all for discussion, pro and con. Want me to explain my thoughts on Flight as a developer? Good thing my arthritis is acting up, as it makes typing long tirades difficult?But one of the things about being in a discussion is what is going to be achieved from it? You support FSX, great! What is your being involved in a discussion about Flight going to achieve? What do you want out of the discussion? That's what I'm wondering, both from you and anyone else who wants to come in and beat a drum to the tune of "I don't like it". After a while the tune gets old and I would have to think your arms would get tired. :LMAO:I won't disagree with people who want to point out what Flight isn't. But it my case I'll look at Flight and wonder what it can become, rather than dwell on it not being a full-blooded sibling to FSX. I've been a step-child before and sometimes getting accepted by the step-family can take a while. Poking me (metaphorically) in the forehead every hour to get my attention doesn't bode well for the familial relationship. And yes, I know I can make odd anologies.

Hi Meshman!The main issue of this thread developed to be its public SDK - or the lack of it. It was not about FSX against Flight or about any shortcomings of Flight. Quiet on the contrary. Many see quiet a potential in Flight. No wonder - It's a further development from FSX. It's downscaled in functionality from FSX to make a redesign practicable but that's nothing that bothers me, because I'm sure it can be extended in the future if the software architecure has a sound foundation. So, concratulation on that to you as a developer.But we simply can't deny the effect of the lack of a public SDK on our flightsim community! There will be absolutely no freeware or 3rd party addons in the near future, if ever. I consider this as a big loss. MS has the monopoly of providing content. This is the only thing, that I would personally criticize at this moment.

Edited March 3, 201214 yr by N330DG

I'd be thrilled to death and working my rear off if there was a publicly available SDK. But for right now, there isn't one. Probably won't be one in the future. That impacts me as a developer. Knowing that, I have no desire to go around and openly and freely voice my displeasure for all to read. It's not who I am, as it just wastes my time and won't make me feel any better about the situation.Plus, I'm a horrible typist! And that makes writing programs enough of an aggravation that I don't need to bash MS and their direction for Flight and it's development.

http://www.mcvuk.com...t-flight/091961

Thanks a lot!

http://www.mcvuk.com...t-flight/091961Quote: “Instead of opening Flight up to everything, anywhere, by anybody, which frankly creates sort of a confusing mess for a new customer, we get to manage it more, we get to tell a story, we get to help it grow and get up on its feet. I completely believe that this ecosystem will come to be even larger than the existing product’s ecosystem. And that will be a point where I can’t possibly meet the appetite of a customer base, and I will invest to bring more people in. That’s the future, that’s what success looks like.”Let's translate that into some rational:"I completely believe that this ecosystem will come to be more usable (even larger) than the existing product’s ecosystem. And when more users use it demanding too much stuff that will be a point where I can’t possibly meet the appetite of a customer base (with nothing), and I will invest to produce it into something more usable (bring more people in). That’s the future, that’s what success looks likeSo how are you going to create demand with "nothing"? That's *BS*So that point in time about investing ”was” (is) now. Because it can't grow with no aircrafts, no airports. Where is Heathrow, where is F-16. where is F-35, where is ... hundreds of aircrafts? That’s the fun part – being able to use the product in a rich environment.Flight is a poor environment and can not grow anywhere (real demand beyond trying the demo) before more usable stuff is there for the experience.I.e. people in the UK fly in GB. People in the US fly their state. People in Europe fly their local environment too. A big miss.So it's like localization ... and with respect to aircrafts particalur interest in some special aircrafts.That's the hard part about making a new flight "for all". It needs the particular stuff - or it will fail.With the SDK if a local request is not there, then somebody can do a prototype almost instantly using the SDK. So that totally huge number of addons can be reproduced quickly with the SDK (guess the deals with scenery makers for FSX went up in the air - when they decided to do a new product and so on. So they need to recreate it all from scratch ... so let the 3rd parties get in to get it up to speed ... if Microsoft want's to do stuff themselves ... then speed up ... hire people and do a detail of every major airport in the world in a few months. Hire 300 developers or so just for that ... .or let the 3rd parties get on ... or kill your new product?)Not users will wait a year for MS … that's a lot of waiting for somebody to invest or believe in his own product.Who gonna watch a pilot for a TV series and then wait with promise to buy season 1, 2, 3 and so on ... while the producer is waiting to see, if viewers will sign up for years of viewing benchmarking on a 15 minute extension to the pilot and on a subject that does not interest you (i.e. not a "local" subject).Hopefully Microsoft will harvest some important lessons about recreating this game - but this kind of game will never grow larger first - and then you can decide to invest time and effoft afterwards. It's the other way around. Or we will have a demonstration of what failure will look like ...Good luck to MS but time is running out ... in 2-3 months Flight will be old news in the consumer market ...And right now flight does not have anything UK citizens can consume ...P.s.And too bad that the discussions was kind of killed on fsdeveloper i.e. during the SDK and "what's important for the experience" kind of discussions. If Microsoft has not been lobbying towards the community then at least a part of community has been "playing too nice" with Microsoft at the wrong time (or less and less skeptical towards the release of Flight and even after the release - now speculating Flight will eventually be good because of NDA contact and impression with MS - which is like BS (a black box promise)). Those discussions extended to quality issues could have shed more light on player experience issues with this game. We are the users and also connected to popular use. MS had no experience with this - i.e. they did not really develop addons for FS previously. That's why FSX and previous is so popular - local stuff. And the local stuff was there and created the broad reach ... Anyway for those who cared about Flight this may now have been a waste of time. No bounce for quality control. And for those who could have helped out it maybe became a "pad your pet on the head" job instead.It will take MS forever to rebuild the whole world now and every building in detail (and state of the art today is local and photorealistic). A similar experience to real local flying.So a miss - Microsoft have not caught up with the point of using addons ...But guess Flight will sell big in Hawaii and Alaska - if only those MS addons are better and more special to local interest than those available for FSX ...So get the point Microsoft. There is only so and so much time before the Flight window closes in the consumer market without local addon representation. So better speed up. No users will make Flight a no-go for addon developers later on.But in anycase you could have a rego at this and rebrand it FS11 and make the package more elaborate when time comes ... guess that is in the plans as well.

And right now flight does not have anything UK citizens can consume ...

That is your opinion and your assumption. Is there any evidence that back your claim up?

>>That is your opinion and your assumption. Is there any evidence that back your claim up?Sure, there are no UK airports, UK scenery, no europe and no popular Birtish aircraft ...But one can pretend to be a local from Hawaii and then consume that ... Hawaii is just not of particular interest to UK citizens with respect to flight simulation.Other than that I have references to addons for FSX - so I have a pretty good idea about where buyers come from with respect to the quality of that addon - i.e. regional or national. Of course a few happens to come from abroad. But that is tiny ... and still just numbers - but for geographical stuff it's the way things are. Other people with reference sales or download statistics for sceneries can probably say something similar.But can not say more than that ...P.s. Local is also about Visual Flying - while Hawaii, non-local for most (new) simmers, will be about Instrument Flying (i.e. the waypoints):Hawaii is not a big broad match and I am not going to tell here what may be. I.e. if Hawaii was a big visual experience (remember Visual Flight experience and not Instrumental) - you would have seen a lot of people flying FSX there ... try flying in the desert, across the sea or in the dark ... indifference looking out. You need to be a fan of instrument flight ... i.e. not care about visual flight. Even pilots train visually in sims to be aquainted with approaches etc. If you fly visual then you want to be able to relate to the scenery ... or you may as well be driving your car somewhere complicated not only without a roadmap - but also not being able to read the landscape outside. Instrument Flight may be boring to some except if you're enthusiatic about all the switches ... i.e. FSX. Try flying the commercial Concorde addon. Comes with a manual too. Of course beginners without prior sim experience will setup the gps and autopilot or calibrate other instruments ... oh, that's not available in flight ... but they are going to love instrument flight on Hawaii without understanding or being able to read the landscape ...Oh, no problem in Flight? Those waypoints ... so Flight is about instrument flying ... Properly not that fun for beginners ... except if you are from Hawaii and can flly Visual ...

I'm not from Hawaii and I can still fly visual with help of a VFR chart. The amount of details in the scenery makes one want to fly VFR and that is not just my opinion. Flying around one's home and local area is certainly every simmers' dream, but with default FSX scenery and the lack of addons for the majority of localities around the world means one has to fly in mostly generic scenery with very few recognizable geographical features. It is true that there is an abundance of quality scenery for FSX out there but yet so limited at the same time. Most focuses on major international airports and there is only a handful of countries that have been done to a certain level of details.