Microsoft Flight, From a gamers perspective.

[T_Fleck 36]

The new Microsoft Flight is less of a simulator and more of a game. That being said, I will review it as a game. I have been a gamer since I first laid my hands on an Atari joystick. Since then I have been into gaming. I have owned every major gaming console since the Nintendo Entertainment System and have played more games than what is most likely healthy. From a gaming standpoint, this is how I see Flight stacking up. The menu layout is par for most games and the setup is strait forward. Key assignments could have been done better, however it is not terrible. After starting the game for the first time, I quickly realized that the opening mission the game forces you into in unnecessary, I felt as though I was being treated like a child; I Flew around the balloons and then landed (Not before intentionally hitting one, the results were less-than-spectacular). After that was completed, I had a few more options that opened up; missions, challenges and free flight. As well as the other menu options for viewing owned aircraft, records and general navigational menus. For a game Flight may seem a bit dull; there are no guns, no bombs and no damage model for the planes (This effectively takes the fun out of crashing as I found out). You can fly, collect trinkets, unlock content and gain levels; this seems very familiar to another flying game called Pilot Wings. Graphically, Flight is adequate, it is not going to blow anyone away, but it works. The aircraft that the free game gives you is nicely modeled, and the interior is pleasant (You can get an extra plane by signing in with a Windows Live account, or buy more via Microsoft points…more on that later). The landscapes are ok, again not great but they work. Special effects, such as water spray, vortices, weather and the like are where the game really fails, they are rather subpar; this category of graphics could use an overhaul in the eye-candy department. The weather is visible but graphically there is no visible sign of it on the aircraft, the plane does not seem to interact with the environment very realistically or impressively. Content wise, I have not bought any of the available DLC, but the game does give you one island and two planes (you have to unlock one of them). As far as DLC, Currently there is the rest of the Hawaiian chain, two more planes and some extra missions. They are priced in terms of Microsoft points, but when converted will cost you roughly $15-$30 each depending on what you choose. The point system is a console port over to the PC, and in many ways is a pain in the rear. The online “mall” concept has been around for a while now, and while mostly successful, Microsoft would do good to make extra payment options available. Overall, Microsoft has made a game that may or may not appeal to the gaming majority or the simulation community alike; they seemed to taken a middle road. While I do not, in my opinion, think Flight will truly catch on with the gamers, not unless they can add some explosions or make it fun somehow, and even then, it has limited replay value (really, how many times can you watch a plane blow up before you lose interest?). I do give Microsoft credit for attempting something new (not completely new there is Pilot Wings), however I am not sure that it was the correct course of action. Only time will tell what direction Microsoft will go with Flight.Purely From a gaming standpoint:Learning curve, about 20 minutes.INTERFACE: 8/10CONTENT: 3/10 (DOES NOT INCLUDE DLC)GRAPHICS: 5/10SOUNDS: 6/10REPLAY VALUE: 6/10OVERALL : 5.6/10

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Hello Todd,Welcome to AVSIM. I hope that you will stick around and help us build a Flight community which supports those who use it as their sim of choice.Kind regards,

[OzWhitey 3,353]

'gamers' are a very hetrogenous group. I think it's a misconception that gamers 'only' want explosions and crashes and such in a flight game, and therefore won't like Flight. If the OP is primarily into this then, with due respect, he's probably not the target audience for this program or any more traditional flightsim program either. Hawx and a dozen other console games already exist to fill this 'action gamer' market niche.MS is trying to capture the large potential audience who like the idea of serious flying but are intimidated by what FSX has become. Unlike many Avsim posters who say gamers will be bored by flight and won't play it, i believe there's a large subgroup out there who want a realistic but accesible flight game. I'm also pretty sure ms did some market research before hiring 50 odd people to build the program!Btw, i'd consider myself both a gamer (vic20 to xbox360, counting the days to ME3), and a 'serious' simmer (home cockpit taking up most of the office, too much payware...).

[arsenal82 120]

here you can see a compar graphic between il2 and flight:http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=30071&page=2that is probably why he gives 5 out of 10i wonder what you smoke ??

[dighost 25]

Flight looks amazing at MAX settings.

I think what he means is for the Flight Simulator franchise, the graphics look good... but for games in general the graphics aren't anything special. Compare what is graphically possible in a game like Battlefield 3 then look at Flight.

[Richdre 0]

There are two types of gamers. The serious and the casual. I would be classed as a casual gamer. I don't think that Flight is gong to appeal to the serious gamer and the OP is a serious gamer. I think Flight is aimed at the casual gamer like me because I really like what MS did with Flight. Love the scenery and the planes. I have already spent several hours with the game and look forward to many more enjoyable hours with it.

[T_Fleck 36]

i'm a non-smoker and social drinker 8P what does il2 have to do with Todd's post, where do u see him mention il2?

Yes, IL2-BoB was taken into consideration with the graphics, as was Rise of Flight. Microsoft Flight is after all in the same genre, it simply falls in below both of these games in terms of graphics, fun, atmosphere, and content. If I was not already an aviation fan, Flight would have completely been out of my radar scope. It is not exactly headline news over at IGN, Gamespot or any other true gaming site.

[HiFlyer 9,359]

Actually I have seen a lot of interest in gaming circles. More from curiosity I will admit, since it's certainly true that simulators seem to almost inherently lag in the technology curve and in presentation compared to most AAA games.Again, a representation of the relative sizes of the different markets.

[Attila 2]

MS is trying to capture the large potential audience who like the idea of serious flying but are intimidated by what FSX has become.

I keep reading this in various posts. How is it intimidating that you can fly anywhere with any sort of aircraft in any sort of weather, which includes the very small subset that you can do with Flight.The very first thing you do in FSX when you run it is to fly the Trike. I would think that this is far less intimidating than having to buzz a ship and then make a water landing within 500 meters of the ship to be able to progress to the rest of the game.In FSX, you have a choice to progress to more complicated planes or you can keep flying the trike forever. In Flight, you are forced to complete certain challenges, before you can select a different livery. Not only that, but you have to get (I think silver in all for one livery). How is that for intimidation?

[OzWhitey 3,353]

here you can see a compar graphic between il2 and flight:http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=30071&page=2that is probably why he gives 5 out of 10i wonder what you smoke ??

Not sure if the last line is directed at me or not, but i did check your link. It's not comparing flight with 'Il-2', a decade old sim. It's comparind it with 'CloD' (no one calls it just il-2, although i accept only mean people call it the name i've used). Anyway, CloD is a new (2011) sim with a brand new engine. Looks beautiful in the screenshots, very next gen. Also considered to be one of the worst releases of 2011, unlplayable for many users (read a few reviews, or even worse go to the forums!).MS have gone with a simpler design that will run on a wide variety of computers today. Cliff of Dover have released a buggy mess that has made almost no one happy.Having said all that - i do agree with a number of their critiques of the flight graphics. I like the smoothness when flying down low, but I do hope they fix some of the faults mentioned in that comparison. I've got a fairly ninja pc (well, at least it was a year ago) so i'd love a dx11 full next-gen flight sim. But i do understand why MS went the route they did.Btw, i do own il2 1946 and il-2 CloD, and am silly enough to hope that CloD turns in to something great in the future.

[OzWhitey 3,353]

I keep reading this in various posts. How is it intimidating that you can fly anywhere with any sort of aircraft in any sort of weather, which includes the very small subset that you can do with Flight.The very first thing you do in FSX when you run it is to fly the Trike. I would think that this is far less intimidating than having to buzz a ship and then make a water landing within 500 meters of the ship to be able to progress to the rest of the game.In FSX, you have a choice to progress to more complicated planes or you can keep flying the trike forever. In Flight, you are forced to complete certain challenges, before you can select a different livery. Not only that, but you have to get (I think silver in all for one livery). How is that for intimidation?

I got back into flightsimming in the early 2000's after a bit of a hiatus - and i certaintly found it intimidating. I bought century of flight and didn't really play it much, i remeber thinking 'why is this fun?', and 'i just want a program i can load and fly - not one i need to tweak!'.Bought FSX for my father a year back, spoke to him a few weeks back and he said he'd booted it a few times, sat on the runway but didn't know what to do.I've tried to convince my girls that taking the ngx from cold and dark to 'cabin crew - prepare for takeoff' is fun. They like Flight a lot better. The problem is obvious - FsX appeals to a technical niche audience, willing to tweak, interested in downloading lots of freeware/payware addons etc. it's too hard for most, and the attraction is lost on many. MS have done their market research and adopted an approach that will appeal to a larger demographic.Claiming that 'fsx is intimidating' is not radical, it is in fact a widely held and oft stated view. In fact, the first example you give - fsx's unlimited choice - is part of the problem. Too much freedom makes it hard for beginners to know where to start.As for the second example, working through levels/missions to access rewards (like a livery) is part of the majority of modern games. EVERY xbox game has achievements, so this is expected and very non-intimidating for anyone with a recent gaming background. From reading these forms, it IS intimidating for flightsimmers without console gaming experience!

[Comanche 417]

I got back into flightsimming in the early 2000's after a bit of a hiatus - and i certaintly found it intimidating. I bought century of flight and didn't really play it much, i remeber thinking 'why is this fun?', and 'i just want a program i can load and fly - not one i need to tweak!'.Bought FSX for my father a year back, spoke to him a few weeks back and he said he'd booted it a few times, sat on the runway but didn't know what to do.I've tried to convince my girls that taking the ngx from cold and dark to 'cabin crew - prepare for takeoff' is fun. They like Flight a lot better.The problem is obvious - FsX appeals to a technical niche audience, willing to tweak, interested in downloading lots of freeware/payware addons etc. it's too hard for most, and the attraction is lost on many. MS have done their market research and adopted an approach that will appeal to a larger demographic.Claiming that 'fsx is intimidating' is not radical, it is in fact a widely held and oft stated view. In fact, the first example you give - fsx's unlimited choice - is part of the problem. Too much freedom makes it hard for beginners to know where to start.As for the second example, working through levels/missions to access rewards (like a livery) is part of the majority of modern games. EVERY xbox game has achievements, so this is expected and very non-intimidating for anyone with a recent gaming background. From reading these forms, it IS intimidating for flightsimmers without console gaming experience!

Good post, I agree with what you said!Both FSX and Flight appeal to people for different reasons. I happen to like spending half an hour starting up the NGX, but then sometimes I just want to get in an go, without all that stuff. Sometimes I like spending time tweaking my computer to squeeze out the last once of performance. Its fun in it own way, but not something most people would enjoy. Having FSX, Flight and XP10, gives me everything I could want for Flight simming, since my mood changes like the wind!Rob

[Attila 2]

I got back into flightsimming in the early 2000's after a bit of a hiatus - and i certaintly found it intimidating. I bought century of flight and didn't really play it much, i remeber thinking 'why is this fun?', and 'i just want a program i can load and fly - not one i need to tweak!'.Bought FSX for my father a year back, spoke to him a few weeks back and he said he'd booted it a few times, sat on the runway but didn't know what to do.I've tried to convince my girls that taking the ngx from cold and dark to 'cabin crew - prepare for takeoff' is fun. They like Flight a lot better.The problem is obvious - FsX appeals to a technical niche audience, willing to tweak, interested in downloading lots of freeware/payware addons etc. it's too hard for most, and the attraction is lost on many. MS have done their market research and adopted an approach that will appeal to a larger demographic.Claiming that 'fsx is intimidating' is not radical, it is in fact a widely held and oft stated view. In fact, the first example you give - fsx's unlimited choice - is part of the problem. Too much freedom makes it hard for beginners to know where to start.As for the second example, working through levels/missions to access rewards (like a livery) is part of the majority of modern games. EVERY xbox game has achievements, so this is expected and very non-intimidating for anyone with a recent gaming background. From reading these forms, it IS intimidating for flightsimmers without console gaming experience!

I am sorry, but why do you think of FSX and immediately think of flying the NGX from cold and dark. One does not go with the other.Also, at least in FSX one could progress at their own pace and read about things in the Learning Center.Would your girls be more able to fly a zero visibility approach in Flight, which basically has no instructions about how to do it or in FSX, where you can set the parameters as you wish, read about ILS landings first and then chose to do them or not.As for dads, I showed Flight to mine this weekend. He was a real pilot when he was younger and I bought him FS2000 a long time ago. He was not impressed with that and he didn't use it much. I let him fly Flight and the first thing he said was that the planes do not handle properly and can we adjust the controls (X52 and rudders). After about 30 minutes with Flight, I loaded FSX at the same airport and selected the default Mooney. His reaction was that while it did not look nearly as good, he'd rather fly the Mooney with the 2D cockpit in FSX than the RV in Flight.How less choices and features for more money is a good thing remains to be seen. Edited March 6, 2012 by Attila

[Rush1169 0]

As a "hardcore" video game, Flight leaves a lot to be desired. Compared to many modern games, it doesn't really offer too much in terms of action, adventure, destruction, puzzle solving, or strategy. It's nothing like Battlefield or Little Big Planet or Halo in terms of gameplay. In fact, for many 'hardcore' gamers, I'd think a score of '5' would be common. I'm not a hardcore gamer. I do like Battlefield (although I get sick playing) and LBP and NBA2k12 and I'm certain that if I didn't like aviation, I'd give Flight a 5 too. Heck, from a 'hardcore gamer' POV, I'd give FSX a 1.I think a very small percentage of people have something inside them that makes flight simulation appealing. As they say, it's not for everyone. Flight will not cause someone who has no interest in aviation to suddenly want to be good at it. Flight will not cause a 'typical' hardcore gamer to become an aviation enthusiast. What it does do is allow those who do have that internal flame to go down the road many of us have walked and join us. Many of us started with an early version of FS and got hooked. Back then, there were no jets, scenery, ATC, RWW, or global coverage. Even though, our internal passion of aviation was all that was needed to 'fill in' the missing elements.FSX can be seen as the 'death blow' to newcomers (those who have that desire for aviation). A 13 year old who fires up FSX for the first time to explore his internal twitch will have a terrible time with the product for all the reasons we all know about. With Flight, he or she will have an exceptional introduction with a wholely familiar presentation and will finally be afforded the opportunity to develop that passion without the frustrations and baggage that comes with FSX.I don't think Flight was intended to convert people who don't have aviation in their gut. Rather, it's goal is to 'fan the flame' of the next generation of people who do.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Rush1169

[T_Fleck 36]

As far as graphics, the biggest improvement they can make in my opinion is the effects. -Rain streaming across the windshield, and around the airframe. Same with water spray on amphibious planes. It has to be possible to make the plane look wet.-A damage model, cracks, dents, scrapes, scratches and broken windows. The plane does not have to fall apart, but at least look damaged. This would bring more to the walk around mode, you could get out and inspect your plane. Make the sim take this into account with aerodynamics. It is intense and fun to nurse a wounded plane back down.-Visible ice and icing, this will be important for Alaska.-Visible player when outside the plane. I want to stand in the middle of a runway and have people see me.-Dust, dirt, grass, and debris when taking off from unpaved surfaces. Bug-splat would be a nice touch as well.I am sure there is more, but this would be a good start.