6 Year comment doesn't mean much either, people familiar with FSX are certain to know about Flight as well. Likes don't represent page views growing over time, they represent people who currently like it. Perhaps its even more telling that FSX followers haven't 'liked' Flight yet and the targetted gamer crowd is not growing all that fast...

You seem to have ignored the rest of my post. Selective memory? Like how Flight is getting more views then the FSX forum, and had 3x the post count of the XP forums, in just three weeks? If thats not growing fast, then XP must be really REALLY slow.

All right, this topic makes me a bit neurotic. I still doesn't agree with these points:1. Flight is a game, not a sim - It's a game that simulates GA flying for goodness sake, and does it well, though in a limited scope.2. MS is not listening to their customers - I still have the impression that they do. But they do have a business plan and are sticking with it. They didn't develop an arcade game, though they could and it might have been far more profitable. The flight model, checklists, interactive cockpits, believable environment, well modeled weather - all of that they created for simmers, not arcade gamers, and it seems to me a bit odd that so many people in the community are not willing to see that, as simple as it is.3. There is no future for Flight, they will continue to add only arcadish nonsense - how the heck have you extracted that from the interview? I have a strong feeling that ATC and AI airplanes are coming, and it is very likely that the game will be opened to 3pd in due time - a long time, which could harm the Flight (I have to admit that I do not understand that strategy very well), but... Wasn't the younger generation just bashed for craving for instant gratification? Most of the critics are behaving the same now. Give the flight at least a year, and judge then. You might be right, but it can not be decided now.BTW arguably 4 out of 5 planes so far produced planes were more heavy on the sim side.

<sarcasm>Yes, especially when FSX has been out for like 5 years and Flight has been out for less than 3 weeks...makes total sense! </sarcasm>

Sarcasm, really? Certainly speaks volumes about you... Like I said earlier, where are those 145,000 people from the FSX page? Surely they aren't all 'hard-core' simmers, and more than a couple thousand would be interested enough to follow Flight. Given how easily I found that page, it would make sense to me that anyone who took the time to find the FSX page could have found the Flight page just as easily. It is true that the Flight has only been out for 3 weeks, but their page has been up for months (at least) and the game announced over a year ago, major gaming sites have reviewed Flight, and yet, interest remains low. Will have to revisit that in a few months to see what happens I guess. Someone also mentioned that X-Plane 10 had only 2,000ish followers... I just looked and found that even they have over 15,000...

You seem to have ignored the rest of my post. Selective memory? Like how Flight is getting more views then the FSX forum, and had 3x the post count of the XP forums, in just three weeks? If thats not growing fast, then XP must be really REALLY slow.

Flight is getting more views on the AVSIM forums because simmers keep hoping to see a post that MS is changing their strategy (why this thread is so popular). People aren't viewing it because they all 'like' it, many are viewing because they're furious and hoping for change. X-Plane is REALLY slow, always has been. X-Plane has never been as popular as the FS series. I did not ignore the rest of your post, I was trying to keep it on topic in relation to facebook, which is what I posted about. Reading comprehension?

For those who prefer a more condensed version of the interview..."My data managers, marketing department, analytics team and trend analysis computations is all I care about. If people aren't happy with Flight on Facebook or another forum, they are fools. That goes for anyone who thought that having world wide scenery, or would find any enjoyment in flying across the Atlantic any fun, and our data proves it. Ask me any questions about Flight, but you'll get the usual "we will verify our data and trends in the future and consider implimentation". I am a robot.

Brilliant summation! It's a shame that we live in a corporate driven world where things like having a gut instinct and common sense are replaced by souless statistics. I'm going to assume that every previous FS9 or FSX user (ahhemm the only concrete "customer base") never got to fill out a market survey either! Whooops, who missed that memo! :LMAO:

And whose guts and common sense tell that majority of people interested in flying will find transatlantic flights fun? I still think you confuse two things - what is interesting for HC, and what is interesting for majority.

And whose guts and common sense tell that majority of people interested in flying will find transatlantic flights fun? I still think you confuse two things - what is interesting for HC, and what is interesting for majority.

Majority does not find talking with ATC fun either. Also majority does not find having to manage airplanes systems to get it started interesting, so we can forget any system simulation for Flight ever happening.

believable environment

Why wouldnt mainstream want believable environment? Lots of arcade games have believable environment you know, graphics sell. And Virtual Cockpit looks good too and probably most gamers like it as long as you do not have to push any switches inside it.Those other features you say can be enjoyed by gamers too. System simulation is what makes the difference and what "hardcore" simmers want, and that does not exist in Flight.I believe that they listen opinion of majority. In Flight majority is those who are not interested in system simulations, ATC and stuff like that but just want to fly around.

And whose guts and common sense tell that majority of people interested in flying will find transatlantic flights fun? I still think you confuse two things - what is interesting for HC, and what is interesting for majority.

Is flying around Hawaii without shooting other planes fun then? Most of gamers I know would say no.

Tom, great interview. Very useful for me. I will follow Flight for years, I hope.I understand that the Flight journey takes place in a new MMO world. I don't know if the simmers and FSX fans are aware of that (due to their comments).An introduction to MMO for newbie like me : http://www.microsoft.com/athome/students/mmogames.aspx

Posted Today, 10:35 AM

Exactly! And this is the reason for which I can not understand why isn't there a bit of gratitude from simmer instead of all that whining. The Flight is far better for us then what it could have been if they only followed marketing numbers!

It's a classic case of selfish behavior:"It doesn't do what I want, I can't enjoy it, so nobody else is supposed to have fun with it!"It's all me, me, me. The people who claim to speak for the majority of simmers rather seem to speak for themselves.

It's a classic case of selfish behavior:"It doesn't do what I want, I can't enjoy it, so nobody else is supposed to have fun with it!"It's all me, me, me.

Not true. I don't like Flight, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with me. If you enjoy it, good for you, but I won't spend any money on it. In the end, everyone is entitled to decide how to spend his/her own time and money and has the right to express his/her opinion. Flight and FS are two different products, full stop.

3. There is no future for Flight, they will continue to add only arcadish nonsense - how the heck have you extracted that from the interview? I have a strong feeling that ATC and AI airplanes are coming, and it is very likely that the game will be opened to 3pd in due time - a long time, which could harm the Flight (I have to admit that I do not understand that strategy very well), but... Wasn't the younger generation just bashed for craving for instant gratification? Most of the critics are behaving the same now. Give the flight at least a year, and judge then. You might be right, but it can not be decided now.BTW arguably 4 out of 5 planes so far produced planes were more heavy on the sim side.

We have actually read what he said, thats how interview should be treated. I think Mr. Howard's words are a little bit stronger than your feelings. :smile:And yea, 4 of 5 aircraft can be flown very nice inside of envelope, but outside its acting like BF3.

And whose guts and common sense tell that majority of people interested in flying will find transatlantic flights fun? I still think you confuse two things - what is interesting for HC, and what is interesting for majority.

Translatlantic flights are fun, just look at those "cross the pond" vatsim events, it just terrific how far we reach in aspect of RL operations, and just look 31.3. at vatsim stats to see how many people think long haul operations are fun. (Should I mention vatsim is a relatively small community?)

Exactly! And this is the reason for which I can not understand why isn't there a bit of gratitude from simmer instead of all that whining. The Flight is far better for us then it could have be if they only followed marketing numbers!

Gratitude? for what? half finished, half game, half a sim, well If I want to play something half ill stay at Half Life I think.They are thinking about track IR support? Are you kidding me, that is absolute the must in every game/sim (call it whatever you like) of this type. I guess they will sell trackIR support in some DLC, along with functional AP for only 7.99$. I do not even use trackIR, as I do not like it (tried and sold it), but Im aware for many simmers its a must, so I wish trackIR will be supported for them. I think thats the way whole community should act.I really do not care about numbers, I just wish I have money and resources to make sim platform. I would make it and give it for free.

It's a classic case of selfish behavior:"It doesn't do what I want, I can't enjoy it, so nobody else is supposed to have fun with it!"It's all me, me, me. The people who claim to speak for the majority of simmers rather seem to speak for themselves.

No, you are wrong and truth is just opposed. "If it do what I want, I do not care what other people want". But you are right at bold part. :smile:Just lok at Faire's post, He thinks if transatalntic flights are boring for him that no one should fly transatlantic flight. That is nothing more than lack of care for community.

At first I said "NO WAY" to Flight and banished it, well 5 nights ago I got bored and said, eeehhh what the h3ll and gave it a shot. To my surprise it looked decent for a basic microsoft scenery and the gameplay was not too bad, however the Icon A5 gets old QUICK, the Boeing Steerman is not much better. I looked at youtube and forum reviews of the other aircraft, saw the "basic" P51 and shook my head at no cockpit, bought the Maule M-7. The Maule is excellently rendered, I would dare say close to Carenado, however falling short of such prominent fame as Carenado by not having a fully functional cockpit (certain auxiliary buttons but most importantly the Autopilot does not work). The next 3 days were awesome flying, I play ONLY multiplayer as without others the world is quite literally DEAD, and I do mean DEAD, no zombies even :PFlight is not a bad game, its missing IMO way more than it should be at launch, however using the mouse to pan the cockpit and manipulate controls is exteremely well done, and it even comes with a 'DBS Walk and Follow" kind of programming that puts many 3rd party ones currnetly on the market to shame. In the Flight.CFG file there are settings for adding in all sorts of AI, I am hoping that this is "unlocked" soon alongisde ATC. ATC NEEDS to be in this game, it does not hinder anything what so ever, it only enhances things; example... in FS2004/FSX you can choose to talk to the ATC and be professional or negate it all together and do what ever you feel like, barrel roll an A380, sure, who cares, you can even talk to the ATC and then not follow any orders to mess with it, so for the sake of Flight PUT IN ATC!I have posted on many forums, the Flight Facebook pages, and even sent an E-mail to the Flight Dev team regarding "appropriate" aircraft, I sugested 5 aircraft that would sell to many people from simmers to noobs alike given the amount of help in the game (ex. Interactive Checklists, Aircraft tutorials, short cut buttons like "B" to start engines), here is the list below.....Aircraft - ATR-72-600: http://www.atraircra...600-series.htmlWhy? - This aircraft carries up to 90 passengers yet can still land on the smaller runways in the default island of Hawaii. The ATR-72-600 is used world wide in many populated and remote regions of the world, its fast, reliable, cost efficient, and has an extremely advanced avionics suite that can handle CAT III weather. Also the Turboprop engines on this aircraft are one of the coolest sounding, as they sound similar to jet engines on startup, yet inside the noise for a propeller aircraft is surprisingly quiet, its actually quieter than the Bombardier Q400 from what I have read. If jets are not on your list then this makes it the "ultimate" propeller driven aircraft in Flight. As the manufacturer's slogan for the 72-600 says "Proud to be Turboprop".Aircraft - Embraer E-175/195: http://www.embraerco...oducts_detail/2Why? - This aircraft resembles a 737 yet considerably smaller and can land/takeoff from many airports that the 737 can not. Very feature intensive and offers dynamic flexibility when it comes to distance of flights as its high speed gets you there quick, this would be a perfect aircraft to release before any larger jet would be made available if such an idea is on the table. This aircraft's specifications would easily meet the world of Flight and also afford those who want to be "airliners" the chance to feel like one.Aircraft - Hawker Beechcraft King Air 350i: http://www.hawkerbee.../king_air_350i/Why? - This is the latest rendition of the legendary King Air 350, its avionics suite is hard to beat as is its luxury, while most certainly not an airliner it can do 10-11 person fights and is used by Regional Airliners to get to many smaller airports, also used extensively by business executives and private charter flights as a turboprop is way more fuel efficient than a turbojet engine. The interesting thing here about bringing this into flight sooner than later is that aside form the "bush" landings this would most certainly replace the Maule overnight in terms to Cargo and Passenger missions, also Medical Missions as well, the real King Air 350 is used by paramedics in some regions to get critically sick passengers to the proper medical facilities in time. This aircraft (not variant) has been featured in many of Microsoft's past flight simulators and is a favorite amongst many simmers and real pilots alike, new users will also easily be able to say why this is one of the best planes on the market.Aircraft - Hawker Beechcraft Baron G58: http://www.hawkerbee...raft/baron_g58/Why? - Like the Maule? Well then the Baron 58 is also a good choice as it carries up to +1 more passenger but also has a higher MTOW over the Maule as well as a higher speed and service ceiling for those inter-island hops. Regional Airliners LOVE this plane as it can cover distance easily and efficiently and make profit. While this is not a "bush" plane it is a great little aircraft only slightly larger than the Cessna Corvalis TTX. This aircraft (not variant) has also been featured in many of Microsoft's past Flight Simulator games, and still remains a favorite amongst many simmers.Aircraft - Cessna Corvalis TTX: http://www.cessna.co...rvalis-ttx.htmlWhy? - This is probably the most impressive single engine aircraft I have ever seen, twin turbocharged with twin intercoolers, a 4 passenger cabin (pilot included) makes this a good plane for small charter flights, yet still fast and maneuverable. Its excellent frame body lines and power are not all, its avionics suite is also top notch yet easy to understand and takes a similar yet more feature advanced approach to the Icon A5, the Corvalis TTX would be the PERFECT upgrade from the Icon A5 or the RV-6.if anyone sees any fault in these requets let me know, im sure the ERJ-175/195 is "pushing it" but the King Air, Baron, and Corvalis TTX could easily fit in the game.

We will have to agree to disagree then.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me...My point still stands irrespective of what you read into the developers comments... The overwhelming tone by the so called "hard core" simmers was one that in any circumstance would have got any reasonable person's back up.It's interesting though that so many who previously bashed the product pre launch have turned around and have given their if not wholehearted support, a grudging acknowledgement of the possibilities of this title even at this early phase of it's development. Well done to those...Anyway, it's their product and they can do as they please. Regardless of the whining, carping and bleating still emanating from some.

My kudos to you. 19032 downloads is a lot !But the number of 40,000 was referring to the size of the flight sim payware addon market. I should have made that more clear when I quoted.Oviously, that number does not include:

• software pirates
• people who use only freeware
• people who use only a stock FSX without addons
• people who bought the sim but no longer use it

Those are probably cumulative sales over the entire period 1982-1999. The best selling version of Flight Simulator was the first version with 4.7million copies sold, if the book of records is correct:http://www.guinnessw...ion-video-game/To get an insight about what happened later, after FS2002, please read these two posts from another rsepected member of the flight sim community whose judgement I trust:http://forum.avsim.n...52#entry2115052http://forum.avsim.n...86#entry2114286@allI'm going to bed now. Please do not set this forum on fire while I'm away...Have a good night/morning/day everyone!

Very interesting! If the figures are correct I wonder why there was a decline in sales from fs2002 to fs2004. I seem to remember they where pretty similar fs2004 being more optimized and with few bugs, so why didnt it sell more... It was even the anniversary year for aviation. When it comes to FSX maybe the very steep system requirements made many steer away when they saw how it actually performed on regular systems. MS Flight performs very good, but for now they havent included "the living world" like FSX had.-

fs2004 was a monster too when they released it. I managed to set all graphic setting to max at the time FSX was released.