Ok, so allow me to indulge myself and post my own opinion for a minute as I am sure everyone is sick and tired of reading what others think. I thought I would offer a different perspective on Flight from a "hardcore simmer" (Cold and dark, 45 minute pre-flight, by the book, by the charts flyer)My First noticeable impression and this is pretty funny but Flight has the best water sounds I have heard in ages! Seriously, I could have just sat in the cockpit and listened to water hitting the side of the plane after landing for the 2nd mission. it was SOOOO relaxing!!! I actually thought, wow, this could be the basis for the best shipsim to date LOL!So with that being said, what did I think about it from a Flight Sim perspective?Very mixed feelings.1. Performance: Had FSX performed like this out of the box perhaps we would not have the FS9 V FSx debate we STILL have today :Thinking: Performance out of the box without a single tweak or change trumps the performance of any of the FS series MS has put out to date. 2. Fun factor: It is there, Flight does not need to be a replacement for FS9 or FSX but can be used complementary for those times I DON"T want the 45 minute pre-flight. If you liked missions in FSX then Flight will really appeal to you. If you are more of a set a Flightplan and realistically fly from Point A to Point B then FS9 or FSX is the better tool for the job.3. Business Model: Hate it!!! Really, purchasing EVERY geographical region I want to fly in? Then if Flight ever opens up to 3rd party dev's we will have to pay for the region to fly in PLUS the add-ons to use in that region... I know there is a lot "to be seen" but the business model makes me cringe... I know others compare it to buying add-ons for FSX but that is apples-oranges. With FS9/X we got the entire world. If I wanted to fly in the UK I had the option, if I wanted to fly in the States I had the option. If I wanted detailed add-ons for that region I had that option! For $50 we had the world. Now $50 will get you Hawaii and Alaska... Want the Entire US, who knows what that will cost, want all of the EU, keep the costs adding up, want add-ons (if ever available) for the basic geographic region I just had to purchase, more $$$ so it is not an apples-apples comparision by ANY means!4. Attitude to add-on dev's: Disgusting, the MS franchise would never have seen the success it has without them and now MS turns their back and essentially locks them out. Disgusting disgusting disgusting and enough to keep some from EVER trying Flight in the first place. Another VERY POOR decision IMHO.5. Long term potential: Remains to be seen. Without the PMDG's, Hi-Fi's, and others of the FS world where would FS even be today? i know I wouldn't be using it to the extent I do. Without those high quality add-ons I see a very limited scope and short sessions resulting in early boredom if the high quality add-ons with more than 10 gauges and switches in the cockpit don't make it over. I don't want one button for "external lights" I want Nav, beacon, strobe, landing etc... I want that realism PMDG and others bring to the table.6. World: Ok, so now we are talking about Alaska but again there are so many questions. Can we fly between Hawaii and Alaska, will it be a teleport, will there be no continuity at all from one scenery area to another? So much to be seen to determine if this will truly stay on my HDD. Without continuity and flow I personally will not "jump" from one scenery area to another. Who knows...So all in all I think it is too early to form a full opinion as there are too many variables to be seen. I am disgusted by the business model, disgusted by the attitude toward 3rd party dev's, impressed by the base performance, impressed by the sounds, impressed by the base graphics but left with more questions than answers as to the long term potential or growth. So for me it is 50/50 and I can go either way depending on what the future holds. For now though, I will use Flight for maybe 20 minutes at a time when I just want to pop into something and fly around without the hardcore aspects of FS9 or FSX.IMHO, anyone (other than 3rd party dev's who should justifiably hate it) who is either polar anti-flight or polar pro-flight is not looking at this from the big picture but that is just my .02. Flight can not be the best thing to happen to FS, nor can it be the worst, for now all it can be is ANOTHER option... No different to Aerofly, just another option in addition to the sims I already have and love!

Edited March 6, 201214 yr by psolk

Well said. I think you nailed it.Jim

Very well written and it pretty much sums it all up... Great for what it is, and hopefully the future will fill in what it isn't. It is at least something to be excited about for the future.

Paul, thanks for your opinion. Just so you know, I think you completely nailed it. I have pretty much the same opinion like you do.And I'm really disgusted with both their business model AND how they treat(ed) 3rd party developers.But Flight's sound, engine, performance is way ahead of FSX, so much is correct.

Thanks guys!

You perfectly right Psolk !!I would also add that Microsoft communications with their customers is very very poor - all this questions you have put forward regarding flight should have been already cleared by MS - as for example 'can you fly from one area to another - etc etc - ?? - This is basic !!!That really need to improve !!

Edited March 6, 201214 yr by arsenal82

I know nothing about business, so I know nothing about marketing. But, I'm pretty sure you would all agree with me that MicroSoft does! As much as I would like to think that MicroSoft cares what I (and we simmers) think, I very much doubt it. They have made a business decision here folks. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm sure they had months and months of planning even before the development stage. I have read that they have 50 or so people on the payroll for this project... maybe? In order to pay all those folks, and make a profit (and that is the bottom line in ANY business), they are going to do what ever it takes to realize that profit. MicroSoft is in the business of making money. I don't say that as a way of "slamming" them... I applaud them for it. They are a money making machine folks. They are the best there is at doing that. They always have been, and will probably continue to do so for some time. If thier business model tells them there is a profit to be made by added this or that, they will... if not, they won't. We can all speculate as to what they might or might not do. But, that's all it is... speculation. The only thing I'm sure of is what I've already stated! MicroSoft is a money making machine... and I wish I had lots of shares in it! <WINK>Sorry, I forgot to say, "Great review"!

Edited March 6, 201214 yr by Murray_CHYZ

I'm glade I may have played a part in getting some FS9er's to take a constructive look at this sim. I agree with all that was said above. As a community we can all get excited after 6 years of a core rift about one core product. It's up to MS to make this thing really shine. I'm happy I'm back in the game with a new core product. We have more excitement than we've had around here in years. For now Alaska is the smartest choice MS could make as the next addition, I'm actually excited about it. This has got allot of holdoit's attention in this community. In FS9 Misty, Tongass, Glacier Bay in combination with FSCargo and Caramado's float planes is like a whole other experience within FS9. Alaska makes since for Flight right now.The FS community has allot to be excited about right now.

Edited March 6, 201214 yr by Dillon

Good review Paul. Honestly and gracefully stated.As requested, tomorrows winning numbers are: (need invisible ink decoder fluid)Kind regards,

Agreed, great review and echos many of my sentiments.

Good review, very fair. I don't like the business model at all but that's the way all of the game companies are headed. I don't like that I need to sign up on Windows Live but again that's the future of gaming. I really like Flight and I'm glad I installed it and gave it a try. I almost didn't because of Windows LIve.

Some good points indeed!Two remarks:1. About 3rd party developers: their high quality addons were loved by many because FSX out of the box wasn't exactly high quality. Now it still has to be seen how MS Flight will evolve, but maybe... just maybe, a LOT of what is covered by 3rd party addons in FSX, won't need 3rd party coverage in MS Flight, because... what MS is giving simply is good enough...! Again, the future will tell but MS Flight definitely has some things done a LOT better out of the virtual box then FSX.We are so used to 'needing' 3rd party developers, that we can't imagine we might not need them.I only post this to think about because I know it will be some time (hm, probably never) until we get a PMDG like plane in MS Flight. Still... you never know. But what I said is to help some of you to think out of the box a little. If FSX had been good out of the box, we wouldn't have needed 3rd party developers at all (or either).2. "I don't want one button for "external lights" I want Nav, beacon, strobe, landing etc..." You should have bought the RV-6. It has all that. In this regard I think MS made a mistake to only offer the Icon as default aircraft (the Stearman is added when you first login but is also quite simple, of course). On the other hand, the Icon is very simple to fly... (I actually find myself enjoying it every now and then, when I get sick of the twitchy RV-6 )

Edited March 6, 201214 yr by J van E

Good review, very fair. I don't like the business model at all but that's the way all of the game companies are headed. I don't like that I need to sign up on Windows Live but again that's the future of gaming. I really like Flight and I'm glad I installed it and gave it a try. I almost didn't because of Windows LIve.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Flight, but why abandon a principle for a game?We vote with our wallets for how businesses will sell entertainment. Netflix started to charge double for CDs and Streaming, and they lost hundreds of thousands of subscribers. Microsoft gives us less for more with Flight, and now we are to accept it and move on? Not me, and I think not a lot of those who choose not to speak out.

I was a beta tester, and I flew in the product. I have not downloaded the final version and have no intention of doing so for now. Will I download and play this game. Yes I will. But that will not happen until I see an airplane I like, full ILS support, and an area I want to fly in. If the pricing remains like it is now, I will stay out all together and throw my money at FSX which is coming into it's own on much better hardware, especially since everyone is now courting over-clocker's money too.I have no problem with the product. It is what it is and costs what it costs. As of right now, it is just not for me.Bob - Las Cruces, NM

Edited March 6, 201214 yr by Toys_R_Us

I have no problem with the product. It is what it is and costs what it costs. As of right now, it is just not for me.as Bob explain - and others comments of Microsoft being a Money making machine - at the moment is out - - $$$ - i know quite few that are out more - $$$ - my cc ready here on table but i can not be bother as it is - $$$ -i wonder how many are sticking to fsx or whateverelse becouse ms business decision - $$$$at the end it will all count - to be a sucess flight need as many to jump on the boat - not just leaving the port with half or even 1/4 of the passengers - We all know what is missing from flight - and without that - the boat will stay always half empty.

Edited March 6, 201214 yr by arsenal82