My comments are based on this section of the interview:I'm not interested in investing in the game of Flight. I will invest in the simulator, but not until they decide to actually improve the quality of the simulation, not just the quality of the game. If Flight doesn't succeed as a game, then what happens? Do they just abandon it? Or do they then try to make it appeal to the flight simmers? No one knows. At this point (for me) it seems to make more sense to invest in FSX (as in buying 3rd party addons), or to invest in X-Plane 10.

Unfortunately it seems that at the moment there are not enough people interested in a 'hardcore' simulator to make investing in that economically viable. Making a high fidelity simulation takes a lot of work, which costs money. If there are not enough people willing to pay for that work it does not make sense for a company to do it. To get a feel for the numbers, the Flight team consists of what, 50 people? If they work on Flight full time for 2 years and earn $2000,- a month before tax (seems lowish?) you already need $2.4 million dollars just to pay the salaries. We're not yet talking employer contriubtion to taxes, administrative overhead, software licenses, office costs, marketing, etc.A true FS11 will require roughly the same budget as any other AAA-game out there. According to most estimates I've seen those games need to sell 1.5-2 million copies just to earn back the development costs. Unless Flight (or some other program) manages to inflate the flight simulator market to that size a new 'hard-core' flightsim with a AAA-budget is just not going to happen.

This is a typical strategy-marketing question. Let me make an example, to clarify some points. Suppose you are a publisher notorious for offering the best book on the market about Quantum Mechanics. At some point you decide to increase the selling volume not only a bit, but by several orders of magnitude. The probable end of the adventure will be that you will not reach the numbers of Harry Potter, and your previous customers would try to use you, instead of the cat, as the subject of the famous Schroendinger experiment.

Well see the problem is that the people who bought the last edition of your book on Quantum Mechanics have been buying lots of add-in chapters that cost more than your original book and that were quite a bit better than the chapters in your book. Now they will demand that a new edition of your book will have at least the same quality as those add-in chapters. Developing such a book will cost several orders of magnitude more than developing your previous edition. That means that unless you can sell your new edition to several orders of magnitude more people, it makes no sense to develop it.

Suppose you are a publisher notorious for offering the best book on the market about Quantum Mechanics. At some point you decide to increase the selling volume not only a bit, but by several orders of magnitude

Sort of like what Carl Sagan did with astronomy? Isaac Asimov probably wrote such a book; he wrote on every other subject.Ok, the DX9 thingy... it's there so that people with XP can still run the game. Bigger market. How difficult it would have been to have several versions of DX I do not know. Lots more expense, that's for sure, for a product that MS top management probably didn't expect to do very well. Perhaps it will be added at a later date.I ignored the missions in FSX. Had better things to do. Like fly out of my home airport. Maybe they were really good, I dunno.Advertising isn't going to help the hard core simmer who downloads the free version and doesn't like it He's already got the product and has... evaluated... it himself. Advertising is to get him to download it in the first place, and after all, it's free, so why not? How many times have Flight supporters said in this forum that there was a hard core sim underneath Flight, and were ignored? And often abused.As for DLC, they're already using outside contractors, but selling through the marketplace. For now, this is a good arrangment. It may change in the future. Hook

I too started small ..... I started with combat sim. That IMO, is a good start for beginners.. and then I moved on to FS9

While not really relevant to this discussion /thread topic, I just wanted to point out - there are many , very complex and difficult combat flight sims out today, that have quite a steep learning curve - some imho even steeper than our beloved MSFS series... and ironically they seem be doing quite well in today's market... makes ya wonder.I would certainly not refer to a combat flight simmer as not a serious hard core simmer or as a beginner, although the more simple ones are certainly a good way for one to get started and find their way to MSFS, and vice-versa.

Ok, the DX9 thingy... it's there so that people with XP can still run the game. Bigger market. How difficult it would have been to have several versions of DX I do not know. Lots more expense, that's for sure, for a product that MS top management probably didn't expect to do very well. Perhaps it will be added at a later date.

There are certainly other sims that have done so - IL2 Cliffs of Dover by Maddox Games comes to mind - while the sim runs much better and looks much better graphically in DX10, they did include a way to render in DX9 mode for just this compatiblity. And I would have to think the resources involved in doing so versus the sales of the product, would be much smaller than what is available to MS.And of course, that was MS original intent with FSX - they rendered in DX9 mode originally and were in the process of implementing DX10 for the same reason as stated above that Maddox did, then MS cancelled the program and disbanded Aces, which is why we only had a broken DX10 " preview" mode to peek at.I would certainly think, if Flight is successful and they continue to develop additional and more complex scenery, they would consider adding rendering in DX10 down the road...

Unfortunately it seems that at the moment there are not enough people interested in a 'hardcore' simulator to make investing in that economically viable.

Flight is both a game and a flightsim. I'm not against the gaming aspects, if that is what it takes to attract more users. What concerns me is that improving the simulator aspects appear to have been put on hold, so that they can focus on improving the gaming aspects, since this is what the majority of users want. If all MS is focused on is making the most amount of money from Flight's DLC, then they will never spend money to make Flight a better flightsim.

While not really relevant to this discussion /thread topic, I just wanted to point out - there are many , very complex and difficult combat flight sims out today, that have quite a steep learning curve - some imho even steeper than our beloved MSFS series... and ironically they seem be doing quite well in today's market... makes ya wonder.I would certainly not refer to a combat flight simmer as not a serious hard core simmer or as a beginner, although the more simple ones are certainly a good way for one to get started and find their way to MSFS, and vice-versa.

Combat flight sims are a different breed, because IMO they incorporate many game-like aspects that can appeal to casual gamers. And by game-like I don't mean they are dumbed down but rather they have challenges to master or competitions to win (when fighting online).The civil sims like MSFS and XP don't have that. You are not presented with any challenges out of the box. You have to make them yourself, but no one tells you "that was a good landing" or "bravo, you didn't waste any fuel and were still on time". Some FSX add-ons do that for you, but you really need to get hooked on the sim before you install those.And that's the interesting part about Flight. I wonder if MS can manage to make Flight as challenging as those combat sims.

Flight is both a game and a flightsim. I'm not against the gaming aspects, if that is what it takes to attract more users. What concerns me is that improving the simulator aspects appear to have been put on hold, so that they can focus on improving the gaming aspects, since this is what the majority of users want. If all MS is focused on is making the most amount of money from Flight's DLC, then they will never spend money to make Flight a better flightsim.

I actually want the game-aspects to be improved in Flight, because I have other sims for the serious flying. Flight is my fun-sim.

Well see the problem is that the people who bought the last edition of your book on Quantum Mechanics have been buying lots of add-in chapters that cost more than your original book and that were quite a bit better than the chapters in your book. Now they will demand that a new edition of your book will have at least the same quality as those add-in chapters. Developing such a book will cost several orders of magnitude more than developing your previous edition. That means that unless you can sell your new edition to several orders of magnitude more people, it makes no sense to develop it.

I sincerely don't agree with your assumption. An hypotethical FSXI, 6 years after the previous version, with up to date graphics, and some more missions surely would not cost several orders of magnitude more than the predecessor. And I am sure that a similar product, if correctly helped by intelligent advertising, could have pleased both the hard and the soft players. Furthermore, with the possibility to directly sell some DLC, MS could also add some revenues respect to the old model. So the operation doesn't seem so impossible to me.A.

Sort of like what Carl Sagan did with astronomy? Isaac Asimov probably wrote such a book; he wrote on every other subject.

With all the respect due to Sagan and Asimov, I was referring to high level scientific books, you can call them "hardcore" if you prefer :-) If a publisher famous for university-level books starts to offer only Sagan and Asimov, you would probably see the same reaction to Flight :-)

Ok, the DX9 thingy... it's there so that people with XP can still run the game. Bigger market. How difficult it would have been to have several versions of DX I do not know. Lots more expense, that's for sure, for a product that MS top management probably didn't expect to do very well. Perhaps it will be added at a later date.

A mistake in my opinion. People, and still more players, in these days use Youtube for comparison. And let's imagine what they would think comparing the lifeless world of Flight with the also too live ambients of other titles with flying machines. They clearly feel the game belong to a previous generation graphic technology.

As for DLC, they're already using outside contractors, but selling through the marketplace. For now, this is a good arrangment. It may change in the future.

Sincerely doesn't seem so good, considering all the polemics it has raised, the fact that the major developers are out, and the absence of SDK totally closes the doors for voluntary freeware creators.A.

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.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?)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.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.

I do not understand that comment about BF 3 - pretty everyone agreed on one thing, and that is that the flight model is better than in FSX. Does that mean that the FSX model is COD6, or are you trying to say something different?Transatlantic flights - you have done me injustice, Sir, and I am willing to accept your apology ;) Proof:"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."I just said that my guess ("guts") is that majority of people interested in flying (I didn't mean "simmers" but broader audience). I try hard to not be that foolish to confuse my likings to likins of everyone else. I myself would like TIR to be added, though it is not a priority to me, and I would like the airliners to be added, though I rarely fly them. I was just saying that I understand why they are not a high priority to MS - though personally I think they will commit a huge PR mistake if they will not add TIR support soon, if only to show they care.

I can't really understand why Joshua Howard hates so much the simulation aspect of Flight. Isn't perhaps something that paid off for the last 20 years or am I recalling wrong ?Is the simulation too difficult for him that he prefers to drop the ball in favor of something easier like Tetris or Arkanoid ?I am disappointed much more than him.I can't really understand why Joshua Howard hates so much the simulation aspect of Flight. Isn't perhaps something that paid off for the last 20 years or am I recalling wrong ?Is the simulation too difficult for him that he prefers to drop the ball in favor of something easier like Tetris or Arkanoid ?I am disappointed much more than him.I can't really understand why Joshua Howard hates so much the simulation aspect of Flight. Isn't perhaps something that paid off for the last 20 years or am I recalling wrong ?Is the simulation too difficult for him that he prefers to drop the ball in favor of something easier like Tetris or Arkanoid ?I am disappointed much more than him.The new forum acts weird, I can't edit the above issue sorry.The new forum acts weird, I can't edit the above issue sorry.The new forum acts weird, I can't edit the above issue sorry.

I actually want the game-aspects to be improved in Flight, because I have other sims for the serious flying.

And I actually want the simulator aspects to be improved in Flight, because I have other games (like ME3, BF3, and Skyrim) for the serious gaming.

"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."I just said that my guess ("guts") is that majority of people interested in flying (I didn't mean "simmers" but broader audience). I try hard to not be that foolish to confuse my likings to likins of everyone else. I myself would like TIR to be added, though it is not a priority to me, and I would like the airliners to be added, though I rarely fly them. I was just saying that I understand why they are not a high priority to MS - though personally I think they will commit a huge PR mistake if they will not add TIR support soon, if only to show they care.

Actually, I got confused with question mark at the end, so didnt really catch the point. Anyway, my mistake and sincerely apologize

Strict Standards: Declaration of group_forum_breadcrumb::sendOutput() should be compatible with that of output::sendOutput() in /opt/webdocs/newsite/forum/hooks/group_forum_breadcrumb_d29bf565a59f776807044fd19e49258a.php on line 107

Flight is both a game and a flightsim.

Correction: Flight is a game and has the potential to become a flightsim. But it won't.Strict Standards: Declaration of group_forum_breadcrumb::sendOutput() should be compatible with that of output::sendOutput() in /opt/webdocs/newsite/forum/hooks/group_forum_breadcrumb_d29bf565a59f776807044fd19e49258a.php on line 107

Flight is both a game and a flightsim.

Correction: Flight is a game and has the potential to become a flightsim. But it won't.

Its enough to click post and then to refresh the page.

The civil sims like MSFS and XP don't have that. You are not presented with any challenges out of the box. You have to make them yourself, but no one tells you "that was a good landing" or "bravo, you didn't waste any fuel and were still on time". Some FSX add-ons do that for you, but you really need to get hooked on the sim before you install those.

I am surprised to read this. I have to assume that you never tried neither the almost fifty missions in FSX nor the lessons by the mythical Rod Machado, with the examinations at the end of each section. This would explain why you can enjoy Flight actually :-)A.

Anyway I appreciated the interview and, as others have said, all the hard questions were asked - didn't like most of the answers but thats' life - it just confirms that Flight has no appeal for me whatsoever.

+1Great interview, Tom. You held his hand to the fire and got the answers serious simmers need to plot their course.I sincerely hope Flight succeeds for the sake of its own niche of users. And I also hope this interview prevents more thousands of apologetic posts proclaiming Flight's "potential." The creator himself has spoken, and there's little doubt now about what that means.

Flight is a sim - it simulates flying, and does it quite well in its scope. You can point to some things it does not simulate, and say, that they should be included, but that is another question. I have been in gaming since ATARI 800 XL, and that was first platform on which I played a "simulator", though very, very basic one. Later on the fidelity of games was improving, and they were still called simulators, unless they had totally unrealistic elements in them, like unlimited fuel / ammo, hitpoints, too basic flight model, or badly simulating other systems used. Now flight does everything it focuses on on par or better then FSX, which is broadly considered to be a sim. Thus it is right to say that Flight is a sim, currently much more focused than FSX, which was much broader and more general. And of course, flight is a game, too. FSX was a game BTW, so are the combat flight sims, so is ARMA. Game is not in contradiction with a sim - it can even enhance the experience.Flight is a sim - it simulates flying, and does it quite well in its scope. You can point to some things it does not simulate, and say, that they should be included, but that is another question. I have been in gaming since ATARI 800 XL, and that was first platform on which I played a "simulator", though very, very basic one. Later on the fidelity of games was improving, and they were still called simulators, unless they had totally unrealistic elements in them, like unlimited fuel / ammo, hitpoints, too basic flight model, or badly simulating other systems used. Now flight does everything it focuses on on par or better then FSX, which is broadly considered to be a sim. Thus it is right to say that Flight is a sim, currently much more focused than FSX, which was much broader and more general. And of course, flight is a game, too. FSX was a game BTW, so are the combat flight sims, so is ARMA. Game is not in contradiction with a sim - it can even enhance the experience.