Sorry for the long post and certainly many english errors on it (I'm portuguese, and learned English at the high school, loooooong ago, and I didn't have the time to check this post with an online spell checker...).This is what came to my mind after reading JH's interview by Tom:What exactly is FLIGHT bringing us?- First off I am yet to see someone saying FLIGHT didn't bring great moments of game playing, even those I talked to before the release. Some who told me they would never buy any DLC, bought them all the first day after trying the demo mode :-)- Then, and although FLIGHT feels like a game (but, simulation not performed for serious trainning will allways be a game IMHO) we have discovered that it comes with a very convincing FM, features most have long asked for, and bugs ironed that people - just like me - have long given up expecting to get fixed. FLIGHT fixed some of the most annoying bugs in MSFS and I am grateful to the MS team for having spent the time to do so, even with a long agenda of new features they included in FLIGHT just as it already is. The Weather modelling is another area where FLIGHT shines above any other sim, for what it simulates (I mean, not up to the level of detail specific simulators like soaring simulators are up to, or good heavy metal simulators did - PS1 and PSX in the future.- Scenery: Apparently, thanks God! we will not have the whole World modelled :-) (at the present level of detail I would not have the disk...) There are so many areas I never even thought about visiting in MSFS, xplane, FlightGear, ... that I really couldn't care less about full World coverage not being supported, in return for excellent, up to the highest level of expensive/excellent free add-on scenery packs for MMSFS or xplane. I really couldn't ask for more. I've never been to Hawaii (and I most certainly never will), but a few weeks before the release of FLIGHT, knowing that the scenery area would cover that archipelag, I started visiting sites about Hawaii, looking at photos, that I sometimes now compare to FLIGHT's scenery just to find the excellent level of detail it offers. Having been born here in Portugal, and having travelled for real very few times just to a few destinations in Europe, because as a flight simulation addict I spent timeless hours in front of a PC pretending I was flying an airliner between London and San Francisco... ruinning familiy projects, not doing other much more important/beneficial things for a living...., I am glad to know Alaska will be the next DLC. Somehow I allways felt attracted by that state of the USA, just as I do for Colorado and some places where glider flying must be a great experience - a few fellows that fly with me here in Portugal did have the chance to fly at some of those sites like Minden!!!- Add-on airplanes. So, there aren't going to be any airliners... Great!!!! Great for me - I still have some reminiscent effects of the flightsimming ATP addiction and that's why I still dream of being able to master the b744 in PSX (BTW: I'm talking about this ---> Aerowinx PSX Project <--- ) I couldn't care less, just as I couldn't regarding there being no full World coverage in FLIGHT. And people at PMDG, LR, etc... should feel very happy as well because that means MS is not ruining their business. I think FSX will fade within a few months, and will be placed in the same shelve where our old copies of FS98, FU, Fly are stored, mainly because 3rd party devs will diverge towards Xplane, and XPlane is a great ongoing project, one that I am not willing to embrace because I really do not own the machine to run it, nor the patience to install & tweak successive betas... looking forward for fixes for very basic but annoying problems with it's flight/weather/etc... models... And there is also FlightGear, a great freeware simulation platform!!!Now, when it comes to cockpitless planes, that idea is still a little bit difficult to accept by my neuronal system... I didn't buy the P-51, and I believe I will not buy any of the cockpitless DLCs unless they come packed with other airplanes with a propper cockpit/instrument panel.- ATC: Well, again, I am probably not the best guy to make any point regarding the inclusion of ATC... The last time I seriously used ATC in a sim was as far back as in the good old Sublogic ATP series :-) Well, and it came with PS1 too :-) and with FU3 and that great Propilot99, and even Fly!, and xplane, but, even in real life I hate ATC - you really don't want to be conatcted by Lisbon Control when flying your glider in Golf airspace trying to reach your next waypoint over a 300km triangle around mid noon... I have never addered to any of those great Online ATC organizations, although I respect their work and consider it to be rather educational for many many simmers around the World! Anyway, for realistic aerodrome ATC we can use FLIGHT as well if some guy is willing to play the radio or tower position. We can even set the radios to the aerodrom frequency :-) and do it online... There is a lot of potential and educational environment available in FLIGHT! Go online, with properly defined sessions, either provate or public, and do it better than any ATC robbot would do, just like you get it when you use IVAO, or the likeAll in all, JH's interview was a great insight into the future of FLIGHT, and from my very simplistic, but rather optimistic and also rather thannksful (to MS's FLIGHT team) standpoint, I can only wait for the upcoming DLCs with a smile on my face :-)Go FLIGHT, go PC-flying GA aircraft the closer to real we can ....

Yep, +1! And I wish I could write Portuguese like you do English..Do u really run it on an Eepc?! Cool, that means there'll be an Android Flight version soon!

Thanks for the post JComm! Your English is much better than my Portugese - I barely learned enough to get by when our aircraft was broke in Brazil, and we were waiting for an engine for two weeks!I have to say I agree with most of what you say - for me, Flight is a step in the right direction for my "future pc flying" - as work, family, and outside activities rightfully demand more of my time, Flight is something I can get into, have a good flying experience, and get out of in a shorter period of time. And...I still have FS9 to fall back on to get my helicopter "fix" with!I'm looking forward to what Flight brings to us...

Great post!You really captured what I have been thinking all the time.

Good post jcomm. I agree.And cockpitless planes suck imho. what's the point?bestjake

Good post jcomm. I agree.And cockpitless planes suck imho. what's the point?bestjake

If your favourite parts of Flight are the hoop and gold coin challenges I can see the appeal. It's a cheap plane to go stunting in, and I'm sure there's a part of the audience that only flies from outside the plane. I don't expect them to be represented here though.That said, I too will not be buying any planes without a cockpit, not because I want to send some kind of message, but because they simply don't appeal to me.

That said, I too will not be buying any planes without a cockpit, not because I want to send some kind of message, but because they simply don't appeal to me.

+1The " hard core" part of me, will never fly an airplane in external view only. Sure I will occasionally switch to exterior view to see the incredible scenery better for a moment, or hear the awesome engine in the Stearman as it goes by in fly-by view - but 98% of my flight time, I am inside that cockpit. I am simulating the act of flying an airplane. No one flies an airplane in rl from the outside, they are in the cockpit.So no, I have not and will not buy the P51 in it's current incarnation, nor will I any future aircraft offered that way. The reason being, I want to simulate flying. And if that sends a message as well , then even better.

I am one who is greatly enjoying both FSX and Flight. My time is spent on my main FSX computer in "sim mode" where I spend 95% oof my time in the cockpit. My time is spent on my Flight laptop computer in "game mode" where I largely enjoy the scenery and missions from outside.For me, each is terrific in its own way. YMMV, of course :-)

I don't like cockpit-less planes either, BUT from the interview with Josh Howard:

Both of the airplanes are selling better than expected, which is a nice surprise, and we are getting great feedback about both our basic aircraft concept as well as the deluxe.

I was surprised to read that, because it means that the P-51 sells well. And this is a good thing. It means that Flight attracts new prospective simmers.MS can make as many VC-less planes as they like. I can live with that as long as they keep making the "deluxe" planes as well.

was surprised to read that, because it means that the P-51 sells well. And this is a good thing. It means that Flight attracts new prospective simmers.MS can make as many VC-less planes as they like. I can live with that as long as they keep making the "deluxe" planes as well.

True, and that statement by Josh regarding sales raised an eyebrow for me. But I would also point out, I "think" it was FR-Bill who said he mentioned this during the beta in regards to the P-51- It would have been bettter, to get an accurate assesment of what would sell, to have offered the P51 in BOTH exterior view only with no cockpit, versus a full version with a cockpit. Then, compare sales between the two.As it stands now, I think the P51 sales can be categorized in the following three areas:Users who did not fully read and understand, the P51 offering did not have a cockpit. There certainly have been a few here express dissappointment because of this.Users who just love the P51 and wanted it irregardless just to have it, even though they would have preferred having a cockpit.Users who it does not matter whether it has a cockpit or not.

Or maybe, former Crimson Skies users!!! :-)

True, and that statement by Josh regarding sales raised an eyebrow for me. But I would also point out, I "think" it was FR-Bill who said he mentioned this during the beta in regards to the P-51- It would have been bettter, to get an accurate assesment of what would sell, to have offered the P51 in BOTH exterior view only with no cockpit, versus a full version with a cockpit. Then, compare sales between the two.As it stands now, I think the P51 sales can be categorized in the following three areas:Users who did not fully read and understand, the P51 offering did not have a cockpit. There certainly have been a few here express dissappointment because of this.Users who just love the P51 and wanted it irregardless just to have it, even though they would have preferred having a cockpit.Users who it does not matter whether it has a cockpit or not.

Well said my friend, my feelings exactly!

Or maybe, former Crimson Skies users!!! :-)

"Users who it does not matter whether it has a cockpit or not." would cover that quite nicely (although IIRC CS did have cockpits). If course I'm a former Crimson Skies user and I didn't get the P-51 and don't plan to.Having said that though, Dear Microsoft employees who may be reading this post, is there any chance you can use the Flight engine to make a sequal to Cimson Skies, heck I'd even be willing to pay full price just for a remake, reusing the plot and dialogue... pretty please?Crimson Skies was a really awesome game, I mean:Cool story characters, checkAir pirates, checkZeppelin aircraft carriers, checkCool though unlikely plane designs, checkDogfighting while flying through the Hollywood sign letters, checkCompletely over the top action scenes, checkIt even had rewards and achievements :P

Having said that though, Dear Microsoft employees who may be reading this post, is there any chance you can use the Flight engine to make a sequal to Cimson Skies, heck I'd even be willing to pay full price just for a remake, reusing the plot and dialogue... pretty please?

Well I for one would not mind seeing the team develop CFS4... who knows, maybe someday.I am sure though they have their hands quite full with future development on Flight.

Yeah Flight is surely fun little game for fun general aviation flying. Myself I would have liked FS11 more though, thats mainly because general aviation is not too much my thing. I have never been on GA plane in real life, only in airliners, and also I like to fly in/from tropical areas where I have been in real life (such as Thailand and Cuba), I have never chosen area to fly just because of scenery available there, but because of what interests me most in real life.Thats why I really liked having whole world modeled at least with some kind of quality that I could then improve by getting or even making my own addons.Also its extremely unlikely that FSX would surely get replaced by X Plane 10. Developers will most likely stay some years with it, as still most of flight simmers havent moved to X plane 10 yet (I own both but mostly use FSX).