Actually, apart from the graphics, that old game is pretty much identical to some of the content in Flight, even down to the fact that there is a WW2 fighter with no cockpit view. Of course the subject material of any flight sim or flying game is bound to be similar in some ways, but there was a definite feeling of deja vu when watching that vid and doing some of the missions in Flight. Not necessarily a bad thing, after all, I thought the flying through the ravines pulling aeros mission in Flight was good fun, and I'll be honest, I've done that sort of thing in Falcon 4 and FSX many times as well, simply because it is fun. Flight sims don't always have to be about turning dials in your ultra-realistic Boeing 757 in order to enjoy them, nor even fancy graphics.Al

The only thing similar is the balloons. Otherwise two completely different tutorials!

You're right! The Flight balloon tutorial was MUCH better.Considering that it introduced you to the flight controls, which was necessary even for veteran simmers, AND it gave you an unobstructed view ahead, AND an aircraft that flew like a plane, I really prefer the Flight version.Hook

The fact remains that all of what Flight offers has been done before. I will go out on a limb and say that at the time these older games were made, they were cutting edge and a far greater technical achievement than what went into Flight.This is the reason Flight is not well received, not because it is not FSXI.Flight needed to show something that has not been done before. There is no wow factor in Flight for people who have seen it done better. This goes for graphics as well. There are tons of games that do visuals better and one could pick any area of Flight and point out the many flaws. There may be some improvements over FSX, but this is hardly an achievement over a five year old game.

So what out there is doing things never done before? Besides Outerra, of course.

The fact remains that all of what Flight offers has been done before. I will go out on a limb and say that at the time these older games were made, they were cutting edge and a far greater technical achievement than what went into Flight.This is the reason Flight is not well received, not because it is not FSXI.Flight needed to show something that has not been done before. There is no wow factor in Flight for people who have seen it done better. This goes for graphics as well. There are tons of games that do visuals better and one could pick any area of Flight and point out the many flaws. There may be some improvements over FSX, but this is hardly an achievement over a five year old game.

If we replaced FSX with FS9 in the above, then replaced Flight with FSX, then replaced FSXI with FS10, the same would still be true. In fact, if you go to the FS9 forums right now, I'll bet you'll still find people there who hate FSX.Here, I'll do the work for you:

The fact remains that all of what FSX offers has been done before. I will go out on a limb and say that at the time these older games were made, they were cutting edge and a far greater technical achievement than what went into FSX.This is the reason FSX is not well received, not because it is not FS10.FSX needed to show something that has not been done before. There is no wow factor in FSX for people who have seen it done better. This goes for graphics as well. There are tons of games that do visuals better and one could pick any area of FSX and point out the many flaws. There may be some improvements over FS9, but this is hardly an achievement over an older game.

Hook

If we replaced FSX with FS9 in the above, then replaced Flight with FSX, then replaced FSXI with FS10, the same would still be true. In fact, if you go to the FS9 forums right now, I'll bet you'll still find people there who hate FSX.Here, I'll do the work for you:Hook

FSX has Round Earth and higher res graphics, ground traffic and more high detail airports over FS9 for a start.FSX has only one problem, performance.Flight has only one thing going for it over FSX, performance. If FSXI came out with Flight's performance and a few minor visual and audio updates, everyone would have been happy. The reviews would have given it an 8.5 and we'd all be doing exactly what we'd want to be doing, be it buying an Alaska add-on and flying VFR or flying at FL350 with a jet.I doubt you'd be here bemoaning the lack of your ability to do aerobatic maneuvers with an RV6 over a detailed scenery of Hawaii.

Flight also has not only performance above FSX, but also GFX, FM and audio. Sure, you can get many of that into FSX, but it would cost you over $100 in 3rd party add-on's, and you STILL wont have the smooth performance.

FSX has only one problem, performance.

Oh, how I wish that were true. If it were, my last computer upgrade would have solved everything.Half the things you mentioned that FSX had over FS9 had been done before, which was your complant about Fiight. It was the first sentence in the post I quoted above. FS9 didn't have round earth? I guess I'm glad I didn't buy it then. No ground traffic, not even static? Well, I certainly don't miss it in Flight.If Microsoft had made FSXI instead of Flight, they'd still be limited to the small market of existing flight simmers. Reviewers would give it the same score they gave FSX. They'd probably take a loss on the development.I wouldn't have ever flown the RV-6. I'd have gone straight to my favorite aircraft instead, just like everyone else. There are still planes in FSX I've never flown, like the Extra 300. I'd be too busy doing serious simming.Hook

Flight also has not only performance above FSX, but also GFX, FM and audio.

The problem with GFX and audio is that FSX is six years old, and Flight in those fields is inferior to many present products. Furthermore the nice example of the OP shows that also the basic gameplay concepts are nothing new, so it seems that really the new product shows quite a lacking of fantasy by MS.These are some of the reasons for which many think that, unfortunately, the game has not a bright future, if they don't put inside some real novelties, not only new aircraft and scenery at a quite slow pace, as from the interview of Howard.A.

There are still planes in FSX I've never flown, like the Extra 300. I'd be too busy doing serious simming.

There are so many planes in FSX I have never touched - and that is just in the defaults - and so many thousands of airports I have never flew in or out of, and so much of the " globe" that I have not, nor ever will get around to flying in. While I love FSX, still do, I have used only an extremely, and I mean extremely, small percentage of what it offers - and that will always be the case with FSX. And that is when I am flying, and not tweaking. Seems like I always end up spending nearly as much time tweaking, as flying.In Flight - all I have done for the most part is fly - very small amount of tweaking ,and that was for my joystick in the standard.xml file. Set it though once and I am done.While I have not done near what all it offers as of yet, I have made a big dent in it in my 32 hours so far I have logged. I am using much more of what Flight offers, than I ever have or will, with what FSX offers.I mean seriously - that is amazing when I think about it in that manner.

The problem with GFX and audio is that FSX is six years old, and Flight in those fields is inferior to many present products. Furthermore the nice example of the OP shows that also the basic gameplay concepts are nothing new, so it seems that really the new product shows quite a lacking of fantasy by MS.These are some of the reasons for which many think that, unfortunately, the game has not a bright future, if they don't put inside some real novelties, not only new aircraft and scenery at a quite slow pace, as from the interview of Howard.A.

Compared to what product? Crysis? Unreal? Those things simulate an area no bigger then a city block at a time and cant be compared to Flight. AFS does look better in some ways, but fails in others. Simulations can never be compaired visually to a modern day FPS engine just doe to many of the background things sims must do, and shooters DONT. Like fly from one area to another without a loading screen.

if they don't put inside some real novelty

Name four things that no flight simulator has ever done before.Hook

Compared to what product? Crysis? Unreal? Those things simulate an area no bigger then a city block at a time and cant be compared to Flight. AFS does look better in some ways, but fails in others. Simulations can never be compaired visually to a modern day FPS engine just doe to many of the background things sims must do, and shooters DONT. Like fly from one area to another without a loading screen.

In another recent thread there was a comparison with some flying scenes from Just Cause 2. Similar island, but much better graphic effects and live world, with boats and cars with which you can collide. And this is just an example. Many people here, myself included, already repeated the same concept: Flight can't really compete as a simple "game" with other more robust products. If they really planned to conquer "millions" of new users and tie them with DLC only in that direction, I think the adventure will not have an happy end.A.

Name four things that no flight simulator has ever done before.

The question is very simple.I see about three categories, letting apart military simulators:1) Worlwide flight simulators, including complex systems as ATC, AI, real weather and so on. Examples: FSX. X-Plane 102) Game-simulators that cover only restricted areas, and have limited fidelity to complete systems. Example: the old Fly, the new Aerofly FS.3) Games that have flight as a part of the possibilities, included in a more rich world and with some more or less plausible plots. Examples: GTA, Just Cause.Now the question is that Flight could easily be put in the category 3), but as always demonstrated, they have simply copied ideas already used, several times, in the past, including the location. At least Aerofly use Switzerland, that is a bit more original.And another problem is that category 3) is probably more appealing to the famous "casual gamers", so it is not clear which space really remains.A.

Wow. Your compairing a first person shooter to a flight sim. How low can you go? First, Just Cause 2 was a great game. Second, its entire world was about the size of a small island in Hawaii. Flight on the otherhand is a PLANET. Right now, its a low detail planet, but that will be expanding shortly. Like I said, FPS games can look that good because they limit what they need to do to a VERY SMALL AREA. Second, did you SEE the GFX for there aircraft? It was a friggen joke! The worst modeling I have EVER seen. I mean LOOK AT THIS THING!!!!Nice landing gear hay? THIS is what you want? THIS is better then Flight? I would prefer average scenery over sub par aircraft.

Like I said, FPS games can look that good because they limit what they need to do to a VERY SMALL AREA.

Actually they all look pretty horrible above 500ft, not realistic at all once you leave the ground.