Well to me it seems MS are doing exactly what they planned and the business model is sound and should do quite well as long as the DLC prices are maintained at a reasonable level. I agree with the senitiments that they cannot and should not kowtow to the whims and desires of hardcore simmers, these people have many titles to choose from and should take on board things said in this interview about Flight being a different approach to appeal to a larger audience.I am very much looking foward to the next expansion and hope that Flight continues to offer me a very real and 'fun' simulation experience :)

As I read the interview I found myself rocking back and forth like in a rowboat on the north Atlantic. First disappointed, then hopeful, then back again. In the end I saw what I expected to see, and took away exactly the same impression I brought in, cautiously hopeful and moderately optimisticHere is the one single part that captures all I hope for Flight, as far as I myself want to see:JH:"... I believe that Flight can appeal to millions and millions of people, far more than the simulation sub-genre ever garnered, and our journey will be continuing to explore ways to bring the magic of flight to a massive audience. But simulation is a critical aspect of what we are trying to do – no arcade game can capture the majesty of flying the way a sophisticated simulation can. On our journey I expect the depth and breadth of our simulation to grow, as well for the product to get deeper in many other ways as well. Unlike a retail product, with our living product, our fans can join us on this journey, and we can make progress on the journey measured in weeks, not years."Kind regards,

Who really cares about getting planes and new areas if you cant fly in the weather these areas are famous/known for. MS Flight without real weather will always come 3rd to me behind FSX and FS9. Until real weather is added and the weather acts like real weather in MS Flight its still far below my bar. In aviation, *nothing* is more important than weather.

I just don't understand why they can't please both the gamers and the simmers. If I were microsoft I would focus on 2 versions of the product. One aimed for simplistic flying (FLIGHT) and the other aimed for realistic flying with 3PD freedom (like FSX).... As for FLIGHTs future, yes it might look bright now; however I am certain that its brightness wont last 30 years, like the MSFS franchise has done...

3 things I take with me:

we are getting great feedback about both our basic aircraft concept as well as the deluxe

makes me believe that too many bought the mustang, just hope that amongst those 1 plane per month are not too many now w/o cockpit.

Long-haul flight is not one of the scenarios that we believe is interesting for the bulk of our audience

makes me afraid there will be no biz jet or even 737, sad.

On our journey I expect the depth and breadth of our simulation to grow

makes me hope to see AI traffic and ATC, as well as a working autopilot

I find my self rocking back and forth like in a rowboat on the Grand Banks. First disappointed, then hopeful, then back again. In the end I saw what I expected to see, and took away exactly what I brought in. Here is the one single part that captures all I hope for Flight, as far as I myself want to see:

Just hang in there Stephen! I am confident that most of us will be happy in a while from now once we get some more DLC for Flight.

All in all, a good interview...I have to wonder what the reaction will be to the following responses from JH:#1: "We’ve made some guesses, but fully expect to use real customer feedback to quickly replace those guesses with a better-calibrated plan. As that data is coming together, I can say that our current approach is to deliver about an airplane a month, and 3 to 4 expansions a year, as well as a variety of other kinds of content at various cadences..."Is that 'rate of expansion' adequate, or should it be faster?#2: "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..."Does that effectively eliminate mid and long range commercial aircraft as future offerings for Flight?Clearly, some interesting comments and interesting times ahead...

Who really cares about getting planes and new areas if you cant fly in the weather these areas are famous/known for. MS Flight without real weather will always come 3rd to me behind FSX and FS9. Until real weather is added and the weather acts like real weather in MS Flight its still far below my bar.In aviation, *nothing* is more important than weather.

That's especially true of Alaska... the weather is so dynamic and can create so many variables that without it, Alaska could be a pretty tame place.

Great interview, Tom!For me as a simmer, this one was definitely more interesting to read than the previous interviews with Joshua which were aimed at the general public.

Great interview.. Great questions, reasonable answers.. I'm just as eager about Flights future as I was before I read it..

I just don't understand why they can't please both the gamers and the simmers. If I were microsoft I would focus on 2 versions of the product. One aimed for simplistic flying (FLIGHT) and the other aimed for realistic flying with 3PD freedom (like FSX).... As for FLIGHTs future, yes it might look bright now; however I am certain that its brightness wont last 30 years, like the MSFS franchise has done...

Good point! I don't remember which of the elder sims it was but I seem to recall at least two of them had standard and deluxe issues in the past. Personally without support for my Saitek panels and TrackIR and my G940 system, there is nothing ot attract me.

Good interview!Seems very honest, and that is a good thing. My overall confidence in the future of Flight has increased. Thank you.I too am also concerned about how many aircraft will be released without a cockpit. No cockpit = no buy from me.

Great interview Tom. :good: You were right on with the questions you asked and the points you raised. The answers on the other hand leave allot to be desired...I will say 3 to 4 sceneries a years is quit low, they better kick that up a notch. An aircraft a month is o.k. but we had more volume than that in FS9's heyday. Heck if you factor in Freewware (and I do mean quality here) we could easily have 3 good aircraft a month although not consistently. Since FSX's release the volume has went down but the quality (FSX payware aircraft) has shot through the roof. I'd be willing to bet all these new users he's looking forward to are going to want more advanced content as they and time goes on, he just doesn't realize that yet. The best thing about all this is we have a good engine to build up on. Performance issues and tweaks are a thing of the past which I'm very impressed with.

Thank you for the interview Mr. Allensworth it was informative. I am just not sure if it was a good sign or not, I will have to sleep on it.

As I read the interview I found myself rocking back and forth like in a rowboat on the north Atlantic. First disappointed, then hopeful, then back again. In the end I saw what I expected to see, and took away exactly the same impression I brought in, cautiously hopeful.

hehe, my boat started out a little low in the water, began taking on water, then sunk. Grabbed the nearest life vest which is my most recent wish list for FSX addons. Good interview though, it cleared up some questions I had about the direction MS is taking.

Great interview. Answered a lot of my questions.However, when you asked about the transpacific flight from Honolulu to Los Angeles, the reply...I didn't like it. That just stops the train on its tracks for me.