I think everyone needs to stop, take emotion out of it and review Flight for what it is today, not what it may be someday...As I mentioned earlier:TODAY:Good graphicsDecent performance with no AI, who knows what would happen at a large airport full of AI. Answer- no one...Great soundsFunHawaii OnlyNo ATCNo AINo full worldNo heaviesVery limited DLCAC like the P51 released without even a cockpit!Need to purchase DLC to get any sort of complicated model beyond the Icon and Bi-PlaneSo yes, at best it is mediocre as it stands right now and without any DLC it got boring after 20 minutes... I don't understand the polar "it is the best sim ever" or the opposite "It is the worst sim ever," it is what it is, a limited sim to date that has potential but as it stands is mediocre in terms of features, functionality and expand ability...I would not give it a 5 but I would not give it anything above a 7 as it stands today.

Absolutely. The performance and graphics are miles ahead of FSX (anyone who doesn't think so fly around the Muana Kea observatory at dawn or dusk and gasp as the sun hits your cockpit glass while turning), but there are so many gaps to fill to keep people hooked.Currently a 6/10 in my book, but if they start adding life to the world, Track IR etc. I can see it becoming a 9 or 10 easily.

Microsofts Facebook page might be a good measure of how the "masses" are digging Flight. So far it is pretty mixed, and the points that IGN and Simhq's reviews make are pretty relevent to most "casual" gamers.

One can replace this long review with: "Me, Gord Goble, I do not like MS Flight, at all."

Currently a 6/10 in my book, but if they start adding life to the world, Track IR etc. I can see it becoming a 9 or 10 easily.

I am sorry, but it will never be a 9 or 10, not even if they devs take everything that everyone is asking for and implement it.

I am sorry, but it will never be a 9 or 10, not even if they devs take everything that everyone is asking for and implement it.

Why's that then?

I think everyone needs to stop, take emotion out of it and review Flight for what it is today, not what it may be someday...As I mentioned earlier:TODAY:Good graphicsDecent performance with no AI, who knows what would happen at a large airport full of AI. Answer- no one...Great soundsFunHawaii OnlyNo ATCNo AINo full worldNo heaviesVery limited DLCAC like the P51 released without even a cockpit!Need to purchase DLC to get any sort of complicated model beyond the Icon and Bi-PlaneSo yes, at best it is mediocre as it stands right now and without any DLC it got boring after 20 minutes... I don't understand the polar "it is the best sim ever" or the opposite "It is the worst sim ever," it is what it is, a limited sim to date that has potential but as it stands is mediocre in terms of features, functionality and expand ability...I would not give it a 5 but I would not give it anything above a 7 as it stands today.

Well said.

Why's that then?

9's and 10's are reserved for those games that push the limits, change the playing field and re-write or even create genres. They are those timeless games that stay with you. They are the games to which others are compared. They are an elite group from visionary developers. Can you honestly say Flight fits this? It is good for what it is, nothing more.

I'll qualify this post by saying that simulating heavies does not appeal to me. I'm only interested in "GA"aircraft. I do not see how Flight can possibly deliver the functionality required to support a simulation for "heavies" either.My observation is that MS had provided a product that is a foundation for their open ended development. The direction taken entirely depends on the community. It isn't a finished product so it is going to be very difficult to judge what we will get in the future.Speaking of community, I'm happy that the engine makes it so easy to fly with other humans and not get stick with AI aircraft that don't follow basic procedures. I can see that our small community has a diversity of views and goals. Overall, I am surprised to see how many want to fly heavies. the single biggest improvement and the main reason I have all but stopped using FSX and X Plane were because both have enough holes in their flight modeling to be counter productive in my training. FSX was always terrible at take offs and landings and slow flight.ever try to get the nose wheel of the ground for a soft field takeoff?X Plane is even quirkier in slow flight, and while it "feels" more realistic, I can't find a payware C172 that performs by the numbers. They climb like tickets and don't slow down when configured for approach. Why would I pay for that?Neither of those Sims handles forward slips very well either.All the eye candy, AI aircraft, the buggy and unrealistic ATC, or a zillion destinations to go to, didn't and still don't matter to me because the base flight simulation was flawed in important areas.So then we get Flight. The balloon and yacht mission, followed by the coin challenges almost broke the deal for me. I was ready to delete Flight and give up on these PC products. Then I discovered the landing challenges and realized that Flight delivered improvements in the areas I've been looking for.Like I've said in other posts, I have no idea if the performance is by the numbers as in the POH for these aircraft, but when I get around to it I'm going to compare it. My gut tells me that it's going to be close based on what I'm seeing so far.The product absolutely has problem areas such as a lack of useful wind socks. What the heck happened to the Track IR support? No l/r brake, trim axis support are big ones to leave out. I am concerned about these not being added in soon and for free. I will miss not being able to build my own scenery, but I really don't mind that as much.Anyway, to make a long post longer, I think that we got a GA Sim foundation here that needs a little shoring up, but it can get really good with some new content and geography. The community is going to drive the success or failure.

I don't care about reviews, really... I've bought games that got a 10 and I though they were crap and I bought games that got a 5 and er... they were also crap. :wink:I like MS Flight and can't be bothered reading reviews about something I already 'reviewed' myself. Waste of time.

The community is going to drive the success or failure.==========Microsoft with this release has turned its back to most of the existing affecionados !! splitting the community even further into fragments - between cof - fsx and flight -the idea of flight is to suck in new faces - but - the competition out there is fierce - and bitter - at the moment Flight look a weak game in front of those gamers who Ms attempted to suck into the flight sim world !

" Sure, it gives the illusion of a sim – comprehensive cockpits; pretty, believable renditions of real life planes; and an assortment of switchable options that seem as if they'd make the thing that much more difficult and wonderfully time-consuming. "That sums it up and is why can not appeal to gamers or simmers. Just to tweeners and that is "niche" market.

There are valid points raised on both sides of the discussion , since release i have kept a weather eye on the reception Flight has been getting throughout the gaming websites , two items seem to always take the highest and lowest ratings , access and ease of use get high marks , that there is no life in the world low marks.Its a supposition on my part but the latter critique seems based on the new AI codeset being still absent and the uses it had been put to, additionally , multi engine jets have yet to be introduced and the limited number of available GA planes wont make for a realistic blend of traffic.The option of static scenery objects wasnt used to populate the apron with assorted aircraft , that animated mesh ramp workers and a few creatures wandering about were not included in the limited scope of the terrain offered is a curiosity, boned mesh objects are used extensively throughout so that is supported, perhaps it was causing an issue with fluidity when the tree and grass polygons were animated, MSGS had some top class humans in the can from Train Simulator, heck the rolling stock was brilliant, perhaps some of these art assets will find their way into Flight as ground environment addons.Many potential opportunities for adding to the base package exist but the speed they come to market in my opinion is what will be critical , it is my hope that they allow the 3PD`s to involve themselves soon so the interest level can constantly enlarged at a breakneck pace along with the package, i dont think the platform will thrive with a monthly addition, consumers are getting to appreciate being offered a large selection and are not used to waiting for the merchant to stock the shelves, being told it will take a few years for the brands they wish to buy just dont seem like a sound arrangement , the consumer will go where the product they want is available now.

9's and 10's are reserved for those games that push the limits, change the playing field and re-write or even create genres. They are those timeless games that stay with you. They are the games to which others are compared. They are an elite group from visionary developers. Can you honestly say Flight fits this? It is good for what it is, nothing more.

Rubbish. 9s and 10s are frequently doled out for games that repeat successes of the past, particularly by IGN. You think GTAIV (for example) did anything radically different to 3?And no, most of us have been very careful to say we don't think Flight deserves high marks as it is. I said in the very post you quoted I think it deserves a 6 as is, so where you get the idea I'm suggesting it's a 9 or 10 now is beyond me.

That's perhaps because combat flightsims score much higher in gamer reviews. Gamers LOVE to blow things up. Why do these reviews always state that civilian flightsims are boring? Answer: because you cannot blow anything up or shoot at each other.

PC Gamer - the magazine - recently claimed FSX to be one of the best games ever. They've had good coverage of both Flight and X-Plane 10 for many issues now!The best selleing PC game of all time is The Sims - hardly a blow up game.You paint with a large brush. Gamers aren't one homogenic mass, just as flight simmers and Flight players aren't.Saying that gamers LOVE to blow things up is like saying that Flight fans are childish or whatever. There are countless top grossing games that aren't about blowing things up.

I think releasing early has to indicate that they have funding for 1-3 years. Without funding it would have been too risky. It's almost like they are thinking "let's see what happens. It will give us direction".I think they may be planning for slow build-up: first see who buys and how much. Then keep the early adaptors happy and expand to new user groups. Very much like web sites are developed over time. Hopefully they have enough time to make it work. The current 40 strong team would mean something like 200 000 - 300 000 DLC unit sales per year to break even. That's roughly 100 000 - 150 000 active users/customers maybe. A lot less if they do really good dlc...Any money they manage to make now will likely give them more time to get it right. After couple of years no one remembers the Big Disappointment of March 2012 :-)