JazzmanPL, That response to Arwen I just deleted was sexually suggestive and highly inappropriate. Anything like that again will result in your immediate and permanent banning from AVSIM. Do not argue with me about it on here whatsoever. If you have something to say PM me and I will turn it over to Tom for His action.

What doesn't make sense to me is that they make a point to read the forums of the hardcore flight simmer to judge market response.....yet pretend that we don't really count anyways because a few are dissatisfied with their product (and it's not just here, it extends to forums in other sims as well)- and then discount it as being non-productive behavior! Sure there are a few immature people on the internet, who cares, don't get caught up in it. This sort-of tells me that they're mainly interested in getting people signed into Live, creating new accounts, and get people into a new microsoft gaming world. (probably due to some sort of $$ incentive from within microsoft). Actually, that would also probably explain why they would offer quite a bit of the game (so far) for free.I thought I was in the target demographic as I followed updates on flight through its development- I'm in my late twenties, a mechanical engineer, a flight enthusiast (not a pilot, though, like a good majority here), and have mid-range computer (not good quite good enough for FSX, but can handle iRacing great!). I did enjoy Flight for VFR at first, but flying 80 kts and emergency landings for a passenger with prostate issues gets old after a while! I'm not so quick to throw $$ in Flight's either because they don't quite have all the features I want. I just want more of a sim. I was holding off on purchasing anything until I read what was coming out with the new releases. Maybe it will come down the road and I'll end up buying it all anyways, who knows. In the meantime, they don't really have what I'm looking for so I'll keep injecting my gaming $$ into iRacing.I initially thought the IGN review was pretty harsh...but maybe for Microsoft's target demo it's right on! Planes don't explode into little bits when they hit the ground...and there's not much to do in the air/not much sense of speed. Not much action for the causal gamer.

As many have said before, an excellent set of questions Tom and a fairly predictable set of answers from Joshua Howard.

JH: Long-haul flight is not one of the scenarios that we believe is interesting for the bulk of our audience. Clearly some people want this, but our research tells us that for anyone but the simmer, the idea of simulating a flight from Los Angeles to Honolulu is not a highly-requested feature.

While I agree with that statement regarding the "bulk" of the customers, I would imagine that a lot of people would be interesting in performing take-offs and landings in big jets. I know I certainly did when I started using flight sims. Having added the "skip to waypoint" option, and actively encouraging missions and landing challenges, surely this would cater for all tastes. If you want to start "cold and dark" you have the option to follow the interactive check lists (one of the really nicely implemented features in my opinion). If not, hit ctrl-e or whatever the key combination is to start engines, and away you go.

JazzmanPL, That response to Arwen I just deleted was sexually suggestive and highly inappropriate. Anything like that again will result in your immediate and permanent banning from AVSIM. Do not argue with me about it on here whatsoever. If you have something to say PM me and I will turn it over to Tom for His action.

I feel bad about that, as I probably should not have posted my reply about the coconut bra likely being uncomfortable. I was just trying to add a little humor. So I feel that some of the blame falls on me. I didn't take his reply personally, and don't believe that was how he intended it.

It's interesting that Joshua confirmed that they have no desire to work with third party developers today, although he leaves a vague opening for maybe sometime in the future like they have a magic switch to turn third party developers on and off.

Some folks seem to not realize - and it was mentioned in this interview - and not perceive this one thing:Yes while for the immediate future, they have chosen to not release the SDK to 3PD's and allow them to create, and sell, add-ons for Flight.However - as stated in the interview and has been confirmed to some extent in not so many words by some 3PD's, they - MS- are actively working with some in a partnering type of scenario, where the 3PD should they choose, can enter into an agreement with MS to work with them on helping develop content for Flight, for future DLC. And they will probably seek out to work with more in this scenario.Granted we will not be aware of this to any extent, at least while the 3PD is bound by what is probably a very strict NDA, and may in fact only realize it by taking the time to read the credits.The vague opening Josh leaves , is in regards to releasing an SDK and allowing the 3PD's to develop, sell, and profit directly off of Flight. But the perception that they have completely closed the door to 3PD's in any way, is an incorrect perception imho.

Really? I find Orbx PNW/NRM with FEX clouds / water / sky and a real weather generator to be far more visually appealing. Sure there are some nice lighting effects in Flight but the scenery is not that fantastic. Compared to a stock FSX, yes, Flight is way better.

I have a bone stock installation of FSX with SP1 & SP2. No add ons.Jas

@ Arwen, SpiritFlyer :)Thanks Arwen :) I didn't intend to offend You in any way also. As we can see, our dose of humor was quite inappropriate :) We'll be as serious as possible in the future, will we Arwen ;) ?

I beg Your pardon :)

I beg Your pardon :)

Pardon given, event behind us, lesson learned. Let's move on.

Anyone seen MS Flight facebook page? On fire with negative responses to the interview. Since I don't hang around other gaming sites my question to all of you gamers is this: Is this reaction normal? Does other developers have this flaming going on in their forums and facebook pages?

I don't often see the banhammer swung around so aggressively outside the Something Awful forums. It's good to see a civil discussion going on instead of the mindless Flight-bashing going on in some other forums.I was also in the beta and it was pretty clear from the start what Microsoft's intentions were with Flight. Flight simulation is a niche market, and detailed heavy jet systems simulation is a tiny segment of an already small market. The days of big budget mass market flight sims are long over. If simulation is going to survive in the long run, someone needs to attract new blood.Mindless shooters aren't the guaranteed moneymakers they used to be for game developers, one of the reasons Skyrim is so successful. Gamers want new challenges and Flight is an ideal "gateway drug" for them. It's a game first and foremost, but built on a solid simulation engine. It's easy to get into but has plenty of challenges to keep players interested, and because it's playable out of the box with an Xbox controller or keyboard and mouse, there are no barriers for entry.It's not an FSX replacement and was never intended to be. It is, however, excellent for what it is.

Anyone seen MS Flight facebook page? On fire with negative responses to the interview. Since I don't hang around other gaming sites my question to all of you gamers is this: Is this reaction normal? Does other developers have this flaming going on in their forums and facebook pages?

There's an Internet-wide backlash against BioWare right now for the ending to Mass Effect 3, plus a few dumb things the development team said in interviews. Things like this do happen, but they're certainly not the norm.

I understand they wanted to turn this franchise into a simple arcade game. Well done, from what I am reading.The DLC thing had me thinking though. It looks as if MS has realized the magnitude of the market they created by releasing SDKs in the past. Now we have Aerosoft, Flight1, PMDG, CLS, etc..... MS created a big money market and, with FLIGHT, are going to control that end of the market and shut out 3rd party developers. This is nothing more than a money grab by MS. They want nothing to do with simmers, as the article clearly leads to. BTW, say goodbye to thousands of freeware developers. A ton of people actually tried to dabble in scenery design, myself included. It really sucks to see that all go away. I realize the guy said they would look into 3rd party developers in the future, just not right now. Let me tell you what that means in Swahili - They will bring in the Aerosofts and PMDGs of the world as soon as they iron out the security of their software language and come to contractual agreements with each developer, along with a significant cut of the revenue pie.FLIGHT should be what many here have called it, an addition to the franchise, not a replacement. MS could easily develop FLIGHT for the masses while continuing the more serious simming side with a FS11 release.They murdered the FS franchise.I should also state that this murder and the intent was made clear when they shut down the old studio. It's no surprise. And if you dont like the FLIGHT bashing going on, ignore It will always be a sore subject to the simmers out there.

Edited March 20, 201214 yr by Chris Donawho

They murdered the FS franchise.

If by "murdered" you mean "sold to Lockheed Martin", then yes, they murdered the FS franchise.

I think the MS model is a dead end for them, and I'm terribly sorry. While it may generate initial favorable reaction among new potential simmers and a few eternally optimistic die hards, the business model today is quick profits and we'll worry about tomorrow when it gets here. I suspect the initial favorable response to FLIGHT is a combination of the eye candy advertising and the price of $0. If the intent is to attract a whole new generation of simmers, one then has to ask where do they go from a few new planes and a couple of small, detailed scenery areas? How long do casual gamers stick with a new game? What is the shelf-life of FLIGHT as compared to FSX or X-Plane? What happens when they want to fly a different plane, build their own scenery, populate their local airport (if they can find it) with realistic building representations? If MS makes an SDK available, they relinquish all their control over DLC, so that's not likely anytime soon. The life of all of the previous subLogic and Microsoft flight sims was the availablity of 3rd party developers and hobbyists to do some of their own design and detail work.I started back in the old Atari days with subLogic and have progressed to both general and commercial aviation sim flying. I can't do any of that in FLIGHT outside of apparently a few very limited scenic sightseeing areas, and nothing in the interview (an excellent one at that) promises anything more. So I have to ask, what does FLIGHT give me that I can't "dumb down" FSX or X-Plane to duplicate? Both have excellent scenery packages equivalent to FLIGHT's default. Both have hundreds if not thousands of aircraft more. Both can be used with online ATC. Both expand to encompass world scenery. How can AVISM and other supporting sites generate any revenue from FLIGHT from the potential newcomers when there are no advertising dollars from anyone but Microsoft? Or is that enough? How significant is it that no other sim sites have paid much attention? The silence is defening. So FLIGHT customers will, I suspect, soon tire of the game and either go back to killing Angry Birds or move on (or back) to more capable programs. What on earth is Microsoft thinking by such strict limitations? You cannot maintain a profitable monopoly when you can't sell the product into the foreseeable future. I will keep my ear to the ground, and no one wishes any more than I that my predictions are wrong, but for the time being, my 4 hours were enough to discourage me to free up space on my HD.

I understand they wanted to turn this franchise into a simple arcade game. Well done, from what I am reading.

Simple arcade games don't model the effect on my pitch moment of having a thrust line that does not run through the centre of gravity, or the effect of opening the canopy in flight. In fact they don't have detailed flight model at all, unlike Flight.

FLIGHT should be what many here have called it, an addition to the franchise, not a replacement. MS could easily develop FLIGHT for the masses while continuing the more serious simming side with a FS11 release.

Do you actually have any numbers on that? Because I strongly suspect that if you work out roughly what such a development would cost (and modern game development runs into the tens of millions) and compare that to how many copies you could hope to sell to serious simmers (and modern games need to sell well over a million, just to not make a loss) you will find that no, MS could not easily develop Flight and FS11 side-by-side.

Umm..I'm sorry again, but Flight has a convincing flight model imho..I could be wrong, but I totally agree with John above. You can't do proper spins in FSX..I know they aren't totally properly modelled in Flight, but they are about 100 times more realistic than in FSX...The crash detection in FSX is awful, too..I can crash just by parking at certain gates in payware airports in FSX, so I turn it off..And I clipped a tree the other night in Flight, and my VANS cartwheeled! I can drive right through trees in FSX!bestjae