Flight like the iPad, before people started using it, was maligned to no end.Why is it a 4:3 ratio...It's just a big phone...Should have been based on OSX...Just a toy...Etc., Etc....Some still feel that way,but we know once the masses tried it, they loved it,and I sense Flight could be the same.The ease of install, just stunning visuals, colors, contrast, shadows, detailand simplicity of flying makes it something that will bring non-simmers to the experience.It's not a replacement for FSX, just as the iPad was not a replacement for the PC,but I think Flight will generate a lot more users than FSX 11 would have done over the same time frame.Getting the base program free and adding the full islands for $20 is one heck of a entertainment value.

That is one of the best analogies I have read. And I only tried out an iPad 2 late last year but loved it the moment I tried it. Mum has one and I use it every time I go and visit her. Some things just feel "right", and this definitely applies to your analogy.

Kind of ironic, I'm reading about Flight on an iPad.....<X-filestheme.mp3> :Nerd:

Yeah. Ironic, because the Flight website uses Silverlight so I can't see parts of it on my iPad...

Very good analogy and you're absolutely right. All the people who told me : Why is it a 4:3 ratio... It's just a big phone... Should have been based on OSX... Just a toyEnded up buying one and loving it, even my in-laws!

That is one of the best analogies I have read. And I only tried out an iPad 2 late last year but loved it the moment I tried it. Mum has one and I use it every time I go and visit her. Some things just feel "right", and this definitely applies to your analogy.

Too funny! As I was reading the OP, I'm thinking this happens to be on of the better analogies about Flight. LOL. Good post Jack.

Interesting analogy, there is definitely a parallel there, but in my mind it is more like "Why Flight isn't like the iPad".Let's go back a year or two further to 2007, and the iPhones release. Apple had not yet finished the iOS SDK and there was no App store. People were up in arms about the lack of expandability (in terms of software), and had Google completed a decent release version of Android with an app store, iOS would have had a much harder time of it, I'm sure.But that's not what happened. Apple did create an excellent SDK (for free!), updated their very good development environment Xcode with device simulators and a host of new tools for the iOS platform (also free!) and let people join their developer network (free, only if you wanted to transfer your creations to an iOS device did you have to pay something like $80 - very reasonable in my mind. With that spend you also got access to some of the Apple iOS brains trust.). Finally the store: for a 70% cut developers got the store, hosting, app review and stability testing, and credit card/iTunes card transaction. And it created a whole new digital economy. Apple now reckons that in the US alone about 200.000 people make a living developing apps for iOS. No wonder that the rest of the industry is copying this model - it's been a runaway success!Entrance Microsoft Flight:I reckon (no facts to back that up though) that Flight Sim has the largest add-on market of any game out there. Just look at FS2Crew: It's an add-on to an add-on for a game that was released in 2003 and 2005 respectively. And Bryan seems to do ok for himself. Just look at Aerosoft and their team:http://forum.aerosof...aerosoft-staff/Look how many people they employ! That is surely a small fraction compared to the number of people that are freelancing for Aerosoft or publishing through them.How many "app stores" do we have in FS land? Flight1, Aerosoft, Simmarket, The Flightsim Store... And a lot of people sell from their own stores such as FSDT and PMDG.I can see why MS put two and two together and thought "how can we get some of that revenue that our sim is generating?". Not a big leap to think of MS's own app store (market place), and to take steps that ensure that all content had to be obtained from there. Not a very nice thing to do to all the aforementioned publishers, but I suppose this is the way the world goes these days.But here is where the crux lies, and the iPad analogy falls over:There is no SDK!There are no tools!There is no way for any third part developer to contribute to the platform!On March 7 Apple will announce the iPad 3. Image them saying "here is the new iPad. It's better/faster/prettier. Oh, but we are closing the app store to all 3rd party developers and we will take steps that ensure that none of the currently existing iPad/iPhone apps run on iPad 3. And finally: we have taken most of the functionality we have previously provided AWAY!. Enjoy". I reckon Apple wouldn't sell a lot. I wouldn't buy one, that's for sure!This is what is happening to Flightsim in my humble opinion, and to me the news is very bad indeed. The iPad had it's sure share of nay-sayers when it came out. I wasn't one of them. On launch day of the first iPad I queued half the night to get mine because I knew it would be great and I loved it.Flight on the other hand... I don't think it will work until MS opens access to third party developers.

Edited March 2, 201214 yr by alepro

Good points Alex and you hit the nail on the head. Microsoft is doing exactly what Apple did, at first. They are setting the framework and making things the way THEY want it first, which is good.Now we can only hope that in a year or so they have the bugs worked out and are able to set up a system, just like Apple's, where developers can create and submit content to MS which can be reviewed and approved - then MS takes 30%.I couldn't even guess as to if that will actually happen or not, but hopefully it does, because that would be the next best thing for our community.

Interesting analogy, there is definitely a parallel there, but in my mind it is more like "Why Flight isn't like the iPad".Let's go back a year or two further to 2007, and the iPhones release. Apple had not yet finished the iOS SDK and there was no App store. People were up in arms about the lack of expandability (in terms of software), and had Google completed a decent release version of Android with an app store, iOS would have had a much harder time of it, I'm sure.But that's not what happened. Apple did create an excellent SDK (for free!), updated their very good development environment Xcode with device simulators and a host of new tools for the iOS platform (also free!) and let people join their developer network (free, only if you wanted to transfer your creations to an iOS device did you have to pay something like $80 - very reasonable in my mind. With that spend you also got access to some of the Apple iOS brains trust.). Finally the store: for a 70% cut developers got the store, hosting, app review and stability testing, and credit card/iTunes card transaction. And it created a whole new digital economy. Apple now reckons that in the US alone about 200.000 people make a living developing apps for iOS. No wonder that the rest of the industry is copying this model - it's been a runaway success!Entrance Microsoft Flight:I reckon (no facts to back that up though) that Flight Sim has the largest add-on market of any game out there. Just look at FS2Crew: It's an add-on to an add-on for a game that was released in 2003 and 2005 respectively. And Bryan seems to do ok for himself. Just look at Aerosoft and their team:http://forum.aerosof...aerosoft-staff/Look how many people they employ! That is surely a small fraction compared to the number of people that are freelancing for Aerosoft or publishing through them.How many "app stores" do we have in FS land? Flight1, Aerosoft, Simmarket, The Flightsim Store... And a lot of people sell from their own stores such as FSDT and PMDG.I can see why MS put two and two together and thought "how can we get some of that revenue that our sim is generating?". Not a big leap to think of MS's own app store (market place), and to take steps that ensure that all content had to be obtained from there. Not a very nice thing to do to all the aforementioned publishers, but I suppose this is the way the world goes these days.But here is where the crux lies, and the iPad analogy falls over:There is no SDK!There are no tools!There is no way for any third part developer to contribute to the platform!On March 7 Apple will announce the iPad 3. Image them saying "here is the new iPad. It's better/faster/prettier. Oh, but we are closing the app store to all 3rd party developers and we will take steps that ensure that none of the currently existing iPad/iPhone apps run on iPad 3. And finally: we have taken most of the functionality we have previously provided AWAY!. Enjoy". I reckon Apple wouldn't sell a lot. I wouldn't buy one, that's for sure!This is what is happening to Flightsim in my humble opinion, and to me the news is very bad indeed. The iPad had it's sure share of nay-sayers when it came out. I wasn't one of them. On launch day of the first iPad I queued half the night to get mine because I knew it would be great and I loved it.Flight on the other hand... I don't think it will work until MS opens access to third party developers.

Wow what a god point you have made. I hope Flight are reading what you have said.

Edited March 2, 201214 yr by KeithyGeorge

But here is where the crux lies, and the iPad analogy falls over:There is no SDK!There are no tools!There is no way for any third part developer to contribute to the platform!

I do understand you point, but Flight is on a much smaller scale than iPhone/iPad. The latter needs to be everything to everyone. The Apple products need to 'do' every possible thing they can do. A loan calculator for Joe and a recipie book for Jane and a idle-time gaming system to Jake and a camera to Jill. . .you get the picture. Contrast with Flight - It needs just a handful of things to be really good: ATC, AI, weather, planes, full IFR support, and scenery. It doesn't need a worldwide collaborative effort. The scope is such that MSFT could very easily provide all the content that would satisfy more than 90% of users. MSFT already has *all* the technology and knowledge and assets in it's studio to provide everything Flight is missing especially at this stage of the development. Joshua hinted at a possible limited opening for 3PD sometime in the future. It makes sense that 3PDs are not welcomed right now as the product is not nearly complete and MSFT knows that. What good would a PMDG 737 be today? So far, every facet of Flight that also exists in FSX is better than FSX. When ATC is released it will be better than default FSX. True with AI and they've already demonstrated the planes, weather, and scenery is better.Flight is very impressive and much improved over FSX in every 'facet' that can be compared to FSX and I expect that trend to continue. They don't need 3PDs right now.

Flight is very impressive and much improved over FSX in every 'facet' that can be compared to FSX

HelloHardware support, thats one facet that MS Flight! does not come close to FSX on.Weather representation, MS Flight! is soundly beaten there.Geographical scope, again not even close.ATC will not be released , MS have not worked on that area of the code for years, the target market does not care about ATC anywayJust look at how many former FSX fliers in here did not bother with it.Same for Ai, who cares ?, you only need to see the amount of folks applauding LuisFelixTerado's review to see that most are happy to see the back of these features.Seems to me and it pains me to say it, MS have got the balance exactly right for the majority of gamers with what they have delivered here.Why would MS want to spend resources implementing ATC and Ai when so many here would not use it anyway.Would it not be better to have some shiny arrows in the sky to direct you, you could always have the option to turn them off if you wanted to get really hardcore and follow the magenta line on the GPS.More missions, maybe a helicopter so you can rescue pigs trapped on the cliff faces, thats the type of thing that will sell really well for $15 a pop.They cannot lose with this title, even if it does not have legs as a civilian flight sim, just bolt some guns on the mustang and it is a multiplayer bloodbath, that always sells.

Interesting analogy, there is definitely a parallel there, but in my mind it is more like "Why Flight isn't like the iPad".

Flight does not end the 3rd party market for FSX, it should help it?It will bring new users to the genre many of whom will buy FSX, purchase and install addons, etc.Keep Flight installation and use simpler to have wider appealwith focused add on market choices at this point might be the right decision?

Edited March 3, 201214 yr by jackcnd