The entire package is 862mb when installed. The scenery is only 483mb.

Still, clearly their goal is to model their future areas in very high quality. Its not only about the size which would still be way too big, but also about getting data. Most of the world is not covered with high quality pictures from the air.Definitely they should add fighting to Flight so it could be more successful to attract gamers. For general FS community probably they would need to make completely different game, real FS11 if they want to get most of that audience.

P.S. I put 50 hours plus in to mass effect 3 when it was released the week before last. So i really do think it's possible to be a 'gamer' - and i mean the more stereotypical 'likes shooting things variety' - and still be fully engaged with Flight.

Of course it is possible . . . I'm very much a gamer (my Fallout overhaul mods are quite popular), and I'm about as "engaged with Flight" as I can be, But I also happen to know that I'm perhaps in the minority of gamers who also enjoy flightsims.I run a small international gaming forum (focused mostly on RPGs), and when I opened a Flight forum there (a few days before Flight was released), it was more that a week before anyone else even posted in it. And there are still only a few members who have even tried Flight (they're all into Skyrim, ME3, and Fallout). So I don't see gamers (as a whole) flocking to Flight. I tried to warn the Flight Team after testing the beat for one day, that "the current concept of Flight is not going to succeed in attracting large enough numbers." But no one listens to me.Microsoft was counting on large numbers of gamers being drawn into Flight. I have no idea if MS is happy with the numbers (as in DLC sales) . . . but my guess is that they are surprised at the lukewarm interest from gamers. If I'm correct, then the Flight Team will have to come up with a better game plan if Flight is going to succeed. My concern is that they will try to expand the gamer aspects (again), instead of expanding the simulator aspects (like adding ATC).

 

I tried to warn the Flight Team after testing the beat for one day, that "the current concept of Flight is not going to succeed in attracting large enough numbers."

What is it with the current concept that you find unattractive to the average gamer? Is it as simple as most gamers, like most people, just don't care that much about aviation?

Microsoft was counting on large numbers of gamers being drawn into Flight. I have no idea if MS is happy with the numbers (as in DLC sales) . . . but my guess is that they are surprised at the lukewarm interest from gamers. If I'm correct, then the Flight Team will have to come up with a better game plan if Flight is going to succeed. My concern is that they will try to expand the gamer aspects (again), instead of expanding the simulator aspects (like adding ATC).

Well stated Arwen my thoughts exactly...

If I'm correct, then the Flight Team will have to come up with a better game plan if Flight is going to succeed. My concern is that they will try to expand the gamer aspects (again), instead of expanding the simulator aspects (like adding ATC).

If they decide to move toward improving the simulator aspects, I see a lot of potential for Flight to grow and eventually become the next FS... especially if they improve the 3PD situation.If they decide to move more toward casual gaming with Flight, or even try to maintain the current fence-sitting situation, I don't see much of a future at all for Flight. I, for one, will certainly lose interest.

Most game developers take forums like this with a grain of salt.. As they should..

why would developers ignore a forum like this .. its one element of the voice of the customer.

why would developers ignore a forum like this .. its one element of the voice of the customer.

You would think that wouldn't you. I've seen for years our own payware developers ignore specific feedback from customers to their own detriment. An example would be PMDG who said after the MD11 (which 90% said was a bad idea to release prior to the NGX) a 737NG wouldn't sell well for FS9 so they opted to go FSX only. Low and behold iFly came around and blew that out the water. You have developers releasing the same airports that's been done countless times already while locations like Auckland have never been touched. Companies have went out of business because they ignored for whatever reason customer demand.Microsoft seems to be suffering from that same pitfall. I have it on good authority that they actually read these forums yet they are in an identity crisis with Flight and the winds could blow either way. What I proposed earlier is what we've had in past versions of FS (crop dusting, and Red Baron WWI combat). These are things that satisfy both worlds (sim and gamer). Let's see what they do, that's what makes this somewhat exiting. Flight is no slouch and with the right prodding maybe it can be one of the best versions of Flight Simulator we've ever seen. Just the same they could not listen and loose out on all fronts. It's amazing when you think about it that here they have a free forum of ideas, they'd be a fool not to listen but alas we've seen this before...

What is it with the current concept that you find unattractive to the average gamer? Is it as simple as most gamers, like most people, just don't care that much about aviation?

I copied the following from the end of my first post on the Flight Beta Discussion forum (which I posted back on Jan 6th):

I see a LOT of potential in Flight, and I would personally LOVE it to succeed, both as a game and as a flightsim. But in order for Flight to really succeed, you need to add a LOT more simulator to this game, and reduce all the arcade stuff (it can still included, but it should only be a small part).For Experienced (Hard-Core) Flight Simmers: Flight NEEDS ATC, AI planes, a Flight Planner, a Detailed Weather System (that can be based on real world weather). Include these things and Flight will attract flight simmers … in a BIG way. If it is not possible to add them in the free version, offer them as DLC (and advertise that they will be available as future DLC). You should also consider adding a helicopter to the free/initial release (just a very basic model), as Flight’s Hawaii scenery is the perfect environment for a small helicopter.For Gamers and Less Experienced (or Casual) Flight Simmers: Flight seems to be focusing mostly on Aerocaches, and Achievements, and Awards; which make it way too arcade-like (look at the way that this month’s promotional video was so poorly received). The Instructional Flights, Procedural Missions (like perfecting landings, under various conditions) and Job Board are where Flight really shines. Expand and improve these three areas (before releasing), and Flight will stand a much better chance. Use completion of procedural missions to unlock the ability to fly (and purchase) more advanced aircraft [hint: offer DLC aircraft for a discount to users who have qualified to fly it.] Expand Career (Job Board), so that pilots earn cash from their customers (which they spend for fuel, maintenance, upgrades (like GPS), new planes, etc.).

What Flight really needs to attract a large number of gamers is a campaign mode. Simmers will fly just because they enjoy flying, but gamers need to have more purpose. For instance, a Student Pilot should not be able to take passengers, until they have advanced to Private Pilot. And, instead of gaining XP points from doing jobs, pay with game money, which can then be used to buy fuel, repairs, and upgrades.

Forums are a very small portion of the audience that it is not always a good idea to listen to. Most people who play games never become actively involved in any online communities; their voice is heard only through the improvement data and purchase info fed back to the devs by Xbox Live.The best example I can think of is the Rock Band franchise. If they listened only to their forum people, some of their best selling DLC packs would never have been released.With the Live integration, the devs will get some incredible data on what the end users actually do with Flight, and I expect the content releases will begin to reflect that not very far down the road.

I can assure you that at least some members of the Flight Team do read this forum (that is a fact). But I don't know how much the comments here are factored in to any decisions that are made about Flight . . . I suspect that DLC sales are a much greater factor.

why would developers ignore a forum like this .. its one element of the voice of the customer.

I could be totally wrong on this - my guess would be there are more that check out the more popular forums such as this, than we probably even think.

I copied the following from the end of my first post on the Flight Beta Discussion forum (which I posted back on Jan 6th):

Well just my take on this, I certainly did not participate in the beta.If you compare the start time when they started the beta program, to the release time of the sim, it was a very short amount of time. I would suspect most of the feedback the Flight Team paid the most attention to, was in regarding bug fixes and correcting high profile inacurracies.That may mean that the team did not necessarily take feedback such as yours into account, in fact they may very well have done so and may very well have adjusted some things for going forward based on feedback like that - just there was not enough time to implement any major changes to the structure as it was for release.

I copied the following from the end of my first post on the Flight Beta Discussion forum (which I posted back on Jan 6th):What Flight really needs to attract a large number of gamers is a campaign mode. Simmers will fly just because they enjoy flying, but gamers need to have more purpose. For instance, a Student Pilot should not be able to take passengers, until they have advanced to Private Pilot. And, instead of gaining XP points from doing jobs, pay with game money, which can then be used to buy fuel, repairs, and upgrades.

Arwen once again I have to agree. Your letter to the MS team was spot on, great job... :Applause:

Of course it is possible . . . I'm very much a gamer (my Fallout overhaul mods are quite popular), and I'm about as "engaged with Flight" as I can be, But I also happen to know that I'm perhaps in the minority of gamers who also enjoy flightsims.I run a small international gaming forum (focused mostly on RPGs), and when I opened a Flight forum there (a few days before Flight was released), it was more that a week before anyone else even posted in it. And there are still only a few members who have even tried Flight (they're all into Skyrim, ME3, and Fallout). So I don't see gamers (as a whole) flocking to Flight. I tried to warn the Flight Team after testing the beat for one day, that "the current concept of Flight is not going to succeed in attracting large enough numbers." But no one listens to me.Microsoft was counting on large numbers of gamers being drawn into Flight. I have no idea if MS is happy with the numbers (as in DLC sales) . . . but my guess is that they are surprised at the lukewarm interest from gamers. If I'm correct, then the Flight Team will have to come up with a better game plan if Flight is going to succeed. My concern is that they will try to expand the gamer aspects (again), instead of expanding the simulator aspects (like adding ATC).

Mmm, skyrim and me3 for me, fallout not so much although i own it for pc and xbox...Anyway, my thoughts are that ms isn't targeting THIS gamer demographic specifically. If they were going for the xbox gamer who likes Hawx, then they would have put in guns. But I think they think there's a large market of pc owners who like the idea of peacefully flying without having to shoot stuff. Rise of flight does ww1 well, but it's not like millions of gamers have bought it - it's a niche product still. Ms is hoping for mainstream sucess, from a larger and perhaps untapped group. Who would have guessed that x million people wold play a farming sim? Traditional gamers hate that stuff - but there's clearly a lucrative market for people to grow vegetables, or whatevs you do in Farmville.Would building a second-rate (cos its tacked on) combat sim into Flight really make that much difference. I'd personally quite like it, but i'd probably prefer they add some ai planes and a hundred other civilian sim things first.I also wonder what Flight's sales are like. I've got no reason to think they're bad...but I really wouldn't know.

What Flight really needs to attract a large number of gamers is a campaign mode. Simmers will fly just because they enjoy flying, but gamers need to have more purpose. For instance, a Student Pilot should not be able to take passengers, until they have advanced to Private Pilot. And, instead of gaining XP points from doing jobs, pay with game money, which can then be used to buy fuel, repairs, and upgrades.

Pretty much one of the main reaons I dislike Flight, so I'd say you are spot on. I'm a simmer at heart, but Flight doesn't have anything to offer me in that department, and sadly the gameplay is too random for my liking. Without any structure, carrer or campaign mode I lost interest pretty quickly. Still keep a flame burning for future development, but realisticly I don't see howthey could change such a fundemental aspect of the game at this point.

I would think adding something like a career mode would be a fairly simple addition to do - I would encourage all that would really like to see that in Flight, to email the flight team to that effect. Matter of fact, after seeing the discussion that is something I would really like to see as well, so think I will send them yet another note.After all, they do state both in the sim and on the website, they want feedback from users on things that we would like to see in Flight. I know I certainly have on more than one occasion.[email protected]