Actually I haven't exactly "moved on" as I've never tried Flight in the first place as I could read from the description that is is of no interest to me.

Nothing wrong with that at all, that is your choice and yours alone.Please do not take the following as me saying you should absolutely try Flight...I felt just like you, prior to the release of Flight and even a few days after the release - after reading the forums and the press releases, I decided in my mind that there was no way this " hard core" simmer, who has had so many hours of great enjoyment out of FSX - there was no way I was even going to waste my time downoading the core free product.Release came on Feb 28th.I did not even bother really reading the Flight Forum when it was re-opened then - and continued on as I have been, flying and enjoying my beautiful FSX install.Due to circumstances beyond my control, I found myself unexpectedly homebound with very limited mobility - could not even leave the house - but can still sit here in front of my PC and it definitely helps pass the time and keep my mind off other things.On March the 5th, can't really say why I guess - I thought wth, I will download the core product and just take a quick look see . Once I got past the first two required missions to open up the rest of the core product, I started digging into it a little deeper...Well, here it is March the 22nd, and to date I have logged over 30 hours in Flight. This serious flight simmer, has quite been taken by surprise. I quickly started reading the re-opened Flight forum, and have already posted more here in this forum, than any of the others previously.To say I was astounded would be an understatement. At this point, my feeling is if I had stayed with my original perception and decision to not even bother to download, I would have missed out on what so far has been several hours of just great simple, and fun, entertainment. Oh I have no intention of leaving FSX, I will still cotinue to load up my long haul flights in my 737 and enjoy the beautiful scenery from my addons, and get great satisfaction in heaving a smooth successful flight from point a ot point b. Oh yes, I will continue to enjoy , along with Flight. Now i have two civilian flight sim products, that do two different things, that I can get great enjoyment from.I will say, unashamedly, that the last time I fired up FSX was on March the 4th, the day before I downloaded the Flight core product. After a couple of days, I did purchase the Hawaii Pack, along with the Maule. I will not however be purchasing future DLC unless MS either announces it will be coming, or goes ahead and implements, native Track IR support in Flight...So anyway just felt compelled a little to share my experience to date. But, I can also say I have seen some FSX lovers, that did download and try it for couple of hours or so, did give it a fair shot - and it just was not their cup of tea.I , nor anyone else, should ever critisize anyone for not liking it, or not even trying it - but it is great for us flight simmers, to have another offering available to us...

Well I'm not sure what people hope to accomplish by constantly whining about flight. That would be like me constantly telling Microsoft that Word is a failure because there are no virtual cockpits.

No, that would be like telling Microsoft that Word is a failure because it doesn't allow you print documents.

IMO I think the real drive for FLIGHT is to gain all of the money from this very very successful franchise, instead of "sharing the wealth" with 3rd party developers.

With all due respect - this is an area that I keep seeing this sentiment repeated.While many seem to have this perception, I do not - at least I view it a little differently. I think this is a not quite so accurate perception.JH has stated firstly, that they are open to opening up Flight to third party developers to create, market, and sell add-ons directly to the market. Granted, this is not set in stone and is stated as a possibility, maybe couple of years down the road.However - this is the point I think many are missing - they ARE currently active in discussions with possible partners, ie 3PD's that are interested, in developing content for Flight's DLC ecosystem. This has been stated directly by JH, and in not so many words , due to strict NDA's undoubtedly, confirmed by some already by just reading between the lines...So yes, while some of our beloved 3PD's are dissappointed, a couple or so being vocal about it, by not having this access to Flight and opportunity to develop/sell through their own infrastructure, there are some undoubtedly already in discussion with MS, about contracting with them to produce the same type of quality addons we have seen in the past, for them and for Flight. No, if/when this occurs will not be readily apparent, due to the NDA's, and in fact we may only come to realize it in the credits, but it is happening. I mentioned the vocal few before in being dissappointed - well watch out for the quiet few bigger names, that are saying absolutely nothing about it...

• So far, JH has said a lot of things that all end with a "but". I'm not reading between the lines with anything JH is saying, I'm taking him at his word, which is pretty clear what they are NOT going to do "at this time" vs. what they "might" do later. "Maybe" today, IMO, means it ain't happening at all.So, we'll have to wait and see, but I don't put a lot of faith in JH's responses to Tom's interview.

• which is pretty clear what they are NOT going to do "at this time" vs. what they "might" do later. "Maybe" today, IMO, means it ain't happening at all.

Quite likely. If you look at hios statements and what Flight is, I think several points are obvious:1. Parts of the team really wanted to write the next Flight Simulator, but Joshua Howard isn't one of them. "As a team initially we wanted all"2. The project doesn't get a huge amount of support and a very limited budget, so there was and is no real marketing..That's the reason why he blocks the requests from the simmer community.. While they might be reliable customers, they also have an expensive taste. It is easy to burn through the budget whilke you try tio get a result 6the Hardcore simmers wants.I am not surprised about the direction where he wants to go know. They habve to find a way to earn money and the easiest way are new planes and locations. The requests of the casual gamers have the huge advantage that they are rather cheap.Leaderboards aren't really complicated and there are fewer potential bugs than in an ATC.They have to earn their own money.This limited budget indicates one thing: There was no general change in positions by Microsoft. There was only a small number of people who developed a plan and went to their managers for a budget: So if the project fails I wouldn't expect any changes, instead the management would decide to cut the losses and terminate the whole project.

None of actually have a single clue as to what the budget for Flight might be. "Guessing" is pointless.

I've been a casual flight simmer since 98. I probably have an old account here somewhere. I've bought every MS flightsim since then except X. Dunno why, I've just had other things to do. Microsoft Flight was gonna be my way back. And it's fun as an arcade game but it doesn't take me to the next step simulation wise. The graphics is way better than before, but the gameplay is arcade. I will most likely don't buy any DLC because of this.I don't understand why the MS Flight team in their left hand says they don't want a simulation, and then in their right hand gives a weekly challenge described like this:

Fly the LDA/DME instrument approach to Honolulu runway 26L in thick fog (Dense Fog flight conditions). In this type of appraoch, you fly it like an ILS (follow a radio beam, but the actual runway is not aligned with the radio beam, so you have to make a turn to actually line up with the runway. It is apparently one of the more challenging types of instrument approaches you can make, especially in a crosswind.

The only thing I really miss is communicating with the ATC. That is the only thing that is missing for at least simulating being a simulator. I can walk up to a parked plane. Enter it. Follow a checklist to start up the plane. Taxi to the runway. Take off. Do a loop. Land the plane. Taxi to parking. Turn off the engine. Open the door. Exit the plane. Walk or even run away from the plane. More then I could ever do on any other flightsim. It's almost like a simulator except for the ATC.I cannot help it, but when the ATC first arrived a very long time ago it was as it completed the flight sim genre. All that could be done better then was the grapchis and the details. Now we have all this but the ATC is gone. I miss the ATC.

Many of us here agree that Flight certainly has the potential to be the next MS Flightsim. And it could still include all of Flight's expanded gaming elements, which will help draw in more users. As far as I can tell, the only thing currently preventing Flight from being the next step in the Microsoft Flightsim series is Microsoft.

It seems obvious to me that MS has gone to some lengths to make Flight a better simulator than their previous efforts, though within a very confined area. Almost like a showcase of what they could do if there was a will. And so it is really curious why they seem to be so vague about the future and almost antagonistic towards the long time Flightsim enthusiasts. After all, the sorts of things people are asking for to flesh out this sim could all be revenue earning DLC. So what is there to lose?

Clearly you have an agenda other than helping MS Flight and those who use it, so don't post in here.

Danke sehr!

Actually I haven't exactly "moved on" as I've never tried Flight in the first place as I could read from the description that is is of no interest to me.

It's too bad there is still this "judging a book by it's cover"... especially when the book is free and has something to do with your interests. But... hey... c'est la vie.My disappointment was with the fact the community here had an opportunity to input constructive criticism... criticism that may have shaped certain elements of FLIGHT. Didn't learn the lesson with Phil Taylor (or before that as Tom has stated)... had to come back and "give M$ your best smackdown" (not you necessarily Spaceman).So who in their right mind would want to wade thru a pathetic morass of threads in hopes of finding a good idea here or there...

The only thing I really miss is communicating with the ATC. That is the only thing that is missing for at least simulating being a simulator.

Unless you are at a field with an operating control tower, you are not going to have ATC services.As a student, I was at a towered field. As an Instructor, I worked at an airport that was underneath the KIND Class C airspace. A typical lesson never involved students contacting any ATC facility. You use Unicom and announce intentions in the blind. On multiplayer I have rarely if ever heard the correct calls.When learning to fly, not having to mess with ATC from the git-go I do not see as a bad thing. Radio proficiency can come later when the student has had a chance to become well familiar with the aircraft.There are people (RW pilots) who will avoid towered facilities just because they don't want to talk to ATC for whatever reason.If going into a towered field and you want decent ATC services, find someone to act as ATC. This would mimic RW sim use. I saw someone post, "I do not believe it is possible to model ATC on less than 100 DVDs and that ain't happening. You want ATC? Figure out some way to do it live through Multiplayer." I think Overshoe is spot on.

A few years ago, Microsoft tauted that Flight Simulator is the biggest selling title Microsoft has ever produced, with millions, not thousands, of copies sold

That's taking into account the entire franchise over its 25 year history.

I have tried really hard to avoid posting in this topic, going so far as to blow the forums up for the last 24 hours or so, just to see if I could "accidently" kill this topic. Durn.. it didn't happen. However, biting my tongue has not been productive either. So, there is one point of conversation in this topic that I just have to respond to..."MICROSOFT IS DOING FLIGHT JUST TO INCREASE THEIR PROFIT AND REDUCE THIRD PARTIES BENEFITTING FROM THE FRANCHISE".I have a one word response.... DUH!!!!Of course they are. Jeeez. If you think this is a bad thing, GET A GRIP! My 401K and almost every retirement scheme around the entire planet is populated with Microsoft Stock. If you have a retirement program, own MS stock, or hope to own either in your future, work for a government that owns stock or an organization (like your local hospital or University) that owns stock holdings in their endowments or pension schemes, you had better hope that that is at least one of their motives behind FLIGHT!Do I have mixed feelings about that? Yes I do, in so far as the 3PD's APPEAR to be left out at the moment. Note the "at the moment" bit. I am guilty of being a "glass half full guy". I suggest that some of you take a sip of the half full side of that glass once in awhile.EDIT: in case you haven't figured it out yet, AVSIM is a "third party" too, that could be harmed by this... So, when I take a positive view, it is against that backdrop as well.

That's taking into account the entire franchise over its 25 year history.

Yes, I know. Thats quite a legacy that JH is dismissing, is my point.

"MICROSOFT IS DOING FLIGHT JUST TO INCREASE THEIR PROFIT AND REDUCE THIRD PARTIES BENEFITTING FROM THE FRANCHISE".I have a one word response.... DUH!!!!

:-)Tom, I am in total agreement, and I don't blame them either. But I do object to JH trying to convey that Flight Simulator was a "dead" franchise that they have now somehow resurrected. I think the truth is, Microsoft knows that FS is a truly long-standing, very profitable franchise and one of their most successful products EVER! And, they now wish to cash in. I'm sure Microsoft is struggling just like the rest of us. But, don't play us for a bunch of fools; I think the FS community is fairly intelligent. I see FLIGHT as an attempt to bridge the casual gamer, with the hardcore simmer and collect from 2 very different groups of user. Who, as evident in this forum, are sometimes very much at odds with each other. :-)

While many seem to have this perception, I do not - at least I view it a little differently. I think this is a not quite so accurate perception.

Same here.Again... this is someone in their right mind...You come out with a different concept in hopes of deeper market penetration... why would you want to give that over... especially in the short term... to outside vendors.It's "your" project... it makes perfect sense to want to cosset something such as this until you are assured it is well established in the marketplace and you had time to process the direction you want to take. You bring a 3pd in because it dovetails with your work.

I have a one word response.... DUH!!!!

Yes... reading these posts... one would think Microsoft (partially) exists to be devoted to satisfying the whims and fancies of "our" flight simming fantasies.

I have tried really hard to avoid posting in this topic, going so far as to blow the forums up for the last 24 hours or so, just to see if I could "accidently" kill this topic. Durn.. it didn't happen.

Well... it is one of those topics that some see as a chance to gripe about what they didn't get.

But I do object to JH trying to convey that Flight Simulator was a "dead" franchise that they have now somehow resurrected. I think the truth is, Microsoft knows that FS is a truly long-standing, very profitable franchise and one of their most successful products EVER! And, they now wish to cash in. I'm sure Microsoft is struggling just like the rest of us. But, don't play us for a bunch of fools; I think the FS community is fairly intelligent. I see FLIGHT as an attempt to bridge the casual gamer, with the hardcore simmer and collect from 2 very different groups of user. Who, as evident in this forum, are sometimes very much at odds with each other. :-)

Russ, I don't know that I disagree with you, but as I tell my wife four or five times a day; "My momma didn't teach me to read minds!"... However, one point that I have stated from the outset and one that you just repeated is that FLIGHT IS a bridge to a new growth potential in our hobby...

In response to MS's statement that Flight is not intended to replace FSX, I have to ask the obvious question: Why not?Many of us here agree that Flight certainly has the potential to be the next MS Flightsim. And it could still include all of Flight's expanded gaming elements, which will help draw in more users. As far as I can tell, the only thing currently preventing Flight from being the next step in the Microsoft Flightsim series is Microsoft.

The thing is the Flight team does not have an unlimited budget, both in terms of dollars and in terms of man-hours (the two being very closely related). Every man-hour spent on developing a 'sim' feature is a man-hour that can not be spent on developing a 'game' feature. The correct business decision is obviously to devote your man-hours to the features that will provide you with the greatest source of revenue. Obviously Microsoft (presumably following extensive market research) has decided that focusing on 'game' features will offer them a greater return on investment.Most features being asked for by 'simmers' (e.g. autopilot, ATC, airliners with FMC) require far more resource investment than most of the 'game' features mentioned in the interview (e.g. leaderboards, new ring courses). At the same time the 'sim' features will appeal to fewer people than the 'game' features (which you may or may not be able to compensate by charging a higher price for the sim features). If you are the manager, and you know you don't have enough resources to develop in both sets of features where are you going to focus the resources you do have?