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

I haven't tried Flight yet, but I can say if I were to have guessed what it would be like I could have written your post!I think MS may have done their market research, but I think this path is an odd one. The people who really want to experience a long term hobby w/ years of upgrades & add-ons to look forward to are people who really value flight simulation for the total immersion and simulation value. I think the smarter approach for MS should have been to, once again, aim primarily at the hardcore simulation community: they are already well established. Just look at the 3rd party companies supporting this! Then, they could have developed a kinder, simpler, gamer-oriented aspect of this new release that could have addressed the audience they seem to aiming for w/ Flight.Noel

Then they would have had to spend time and dollars developing features that many of their planned target audience don't want. And risk releasing a bloated, confusing program like fsx was on release, that won't run on an average comsumers computer. I get why they've done what they've done, the product is out generating revenue and building an audience.The new Alaska DLC looks pretty good and solves one of the big problems, creating a decent sized area for flying and exploring.About target audiences: this isn't meant to appeal to everyone. The initial review in this thread is a single data point. As I said at the start, 'gamers' are a diverse group. Most of the 100,000 odd people on avsim are gamers (not all, but many/most) as well as aviation simulation enthusiasts. If you're a gamer who mainly likes FPS's, you won't necessarily like this. You probably hate Farmville as well, but that doesn't mean there's not a market for it. Gaming mags generally hate 'The Sims' - which is, i think, the highest grossing computer game ever. MS thinks they have a target audience out there, and a big one at that. I personally think they're right - will be interested to see if they manage to pull this off.

Those third parties are camping around a dimming fire, because flight simulators simply are not attracting new people. The complexity that draws the hard-core to FSX probably causes most others to stay away, and for that reason, a new sim aimed at the current hard-core would probably be disaster.I can see it being pegged as another FSX, (or xplane) and approached with all the enthusiasm of an algebra exam by the majority. WIth those casual users lost, Microsoft would probably have a lot of trouble getting a return on its investment with only the existing market for revenue. Even less so if third parties were drawing income from the same limited pool.

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,

It's not my sim of choice, but I hope you will support me anyway!?! I mean I like it, but it's not my sim of choice.

It's not my sim of choice, but I hope you will support me anyway!?! I mean I like it, but it's not my sim of choice.

Hello from Hub city! Yes sir, we will! I should have chosen my words a bit differently. :smile:Kind regards,

Hello from Hub city! Yes sir, we will! I should have chosen my words a bit differently. :smile:Kind regards,

I know, I was just testing you. BTW, I am familar with the term "City of Lakes - Dartmouth" and "City of Trees - Halifax"... what city is refered to as "The Hub"? Is that Moncton?

I know, I was just testing you. BTW, I am familar with the term "City of Lakes - Dartmouth" and "City of Trees - Halifax"... what city is refered to as "The Hub"? Is that Moncton?

Yes, well, that is the claim to fame that Monton claims as fame! That, and Magnetic Hill and the muddy ditch wave, also known as the tidal bore. I live nearby.Halifax, on the other hand is drop dead gorgeous with its rolling hills, deep blue water harbour and wonderful people to boot!Hope you enjoy AVSIM regardless of which sim is your first choice.Kind regards,

Then they would have had to spend time and dollars developing features that many of their planned target audience don't want.

Some good points but I have still wonder, since there are years n years of history on so many aspects of flight simulation that I would think development costs should be lessened because of this. A lot has already been worked out. The 'Hybrid' approach could . . .For the hardcore flight simmer:1. Improve multi-core, GPU/DirectX utilization, other performance optimization2. Robust SDK to keep the 3rd-party developers busy for years to come3. Significantly enhanced ATCFor the current Flight audience1. Add missions and other features designed to engage the gamer aspect2. User chooses pre-configured setup options affecting ease of pre-flight setup.3. EtcI think the Flight feature set could be piggybacked into the core product although I don't know enough about that to be certain. But I am just thinking about the basic elements in the game. So in the end the purchaser gets both: reliable long-term robust core platform, w/ a gamer element to use as desired. And 3rd party developers have years of potential to develop for. Seems like a great goal! When a company like M$ takes something like Flight Simulator and takes it towards becoming one of the most successful pieces of software of all time, I'd hope they would consider honoring their most dedicated, albeit not largest group of loyalists. Hey, I'm just telling you what I woulda done! And then I have to ask: when something is done really really well, the market for it goes up. I think about innovations that are just so cool, you want one. I think a super polished flight simulator could be this--but look out for the development costs! Be cool to see Apple develop this, designed to run on their highest end machines.