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.

A planet (with Caps Lock )? But if one of the major controversial points of Flight is just the fact that MS gave up on modelling the entire world, to concentrate their efforts only to Hawaii. And it doesn't seem that the future expansion will be so fast, condering that Howard talked about 4 sceneries for year.

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.

Usual question, already treated million times. Did you see the video about JC2 in the other thread? Please check, and objectively think which will be the reactions of a normal casual user. You may prefer average scenery, but by now normal players are used to very gorgeous graphics, and I am quite sure they would prefer spectacular interactive landscapes and objects, respect to detailed but dull aircraft. It's just the dilemma in front of MS. Not enough sophisticated for simmers, not enough spectacular for gamers. We will see quite soon if there is a sufficient middle niche or not.A.

I see about three categories, letting apart military simulators:

You wanted novelty. I asked for four things that no flight sim has ever done before. You gave me three things that HAVE BEEN DONE.How many people would recognize novelty if they saw it? How many people have spent enough time in Flight to recognize the novelty that's already in it? If you want novelty, consider all the new gamers who have never played a flight sim before. EVERYTHING in Flight is novel to them.Hook

There are missions in FSX? Ballons? Now back to programming my GPS and doing some real flying.

This is just pure trolling.

Nah. Just a video to point out that that the whole concept isn't brand new.

There really arnt any original concepts in games anymore. Its all been done before. Your point is?

A planet (with Caps Lock )? But if one of the major controversial points of Flight is just the fact that MS gave up on modelling the entire world, to concentrate their efforts only to Hawaii. And it doesn't seem that the future expansion will be so fast, condering that Howard talked about 4 sceneries for year.

Flight is built on a globe. In beta you could zoom the camera into space and see it. Detail area's will be added by MS. How fast do you think it should take to make a detailed area of 600,000 square miles? The general turrain is not a big deal since most of that is procedurally generated by USGS data. The hard part is the city's, airports, and landmarks. Those are what takes time. If I recall, OrbX releases a new airport about every 3-4 months. Thats just a single airport. With that in mind, releasing a detailed area every 4 months is quite a challenge for such a small team. It takes me 3-4 months just to produce a single aircraft!If you have never worked on a product like this (3D modeling, topo or programming) then who are you to say what is an acceptable time frame? Whats your frame of reference?

You wanted novelty. I asked for four things that no flight sim has ever done before. You gave me three things that HAVE BEEN DONE...If you want novelty, consider all the new gamers who have never played a flight sim before. EVERYTHING in Flight is novel to them.

This is exactly the point in my opinion.I gave you a simple list of at present available genres for games where you can fly. These have been developed over about 30 years of PC gaming. Add to that that nowadays for gamers is very easy to make comparisons, by using forum, social networks, youtube and so on.Instead, in your vision, it seems that people live in a desert, without connections with the past and the other alternatives. So they see Flight and think: "Oh, nice, finally I can fly over an island and collect awards". If, as should be the norm, you insert the game in the general context, you see that is not only nothing new (actually is an old cliché), but that the realisation is sub par respect to the state of the art for graphics and effects.This is just the reason of the bad reviews that Flight has received on many gaming (not strictly simming) sites, because they obviously compare the product with others, both from the past and the present.A.

I gave you a simple list of at present available genres for games where you can fly.

That's right, and you didn't answer my question. These new gamers will have never flown a sophisticated flight sim before, so everything they do will be novel.I can understand why you don't have much time in the game. I can understand further why you don't have much time in multiplayer. But I can't understand how you've overlooked all the videos people have posted.And you want something novel just for veteran simmers? The ability to walk around outside the plane.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.

Compared to Aerofly FS for example looks way better than Flight. Also for example military simulator Arma 2 has area of over 200 square kilometers with quality that looks good from ground perspective too. No loading times either when travelling.Anyway with todays technology something much better looking than Flight is possible.

Flight is built on a globe. In beta you could zoom the camera into space and see it. Detail area's will be added by MS. How fast do you think it should take to make a detailed area of 600,000 square miles? The general turrain is not a big deal since most of that is procedurally generated by USGS data. The hard part is the city's, airports, and landmarks. Those are what takes time.....If you have never worked on a product like this (3D modeling, topo or programming) then who are you to say what is an acceptable time frame? Whats your frame of reference?

I don't know why you are so aggressive. I am very pacific, because for me flight simming is a pleasant hobby, and the only economic connection I have with the producers consist in the money and time I spend and spent for their products.Anyway I have difficulties in following your logic. First you stated that Flight, respect to some FPS, have the advantage to model the entire PLANET (the capital letters are yours). Then, correctly, you talk about a simple globe, with some detailed areas that will arrive at a slow pace.I can fully understand the technical reasons you adopt, but as a wise friend of mine once said (related to a more serious argument): "people (read customers) are not interested in the ways you work, they only look at the final results".And considering that the moderators here often ask for constructive proposals, in another thread I launched a simple idea. Flight could be really suitable for helping Windows 8 to penetrate in the mobile gaming sector, where at present Apple and Android are leaders. But it really doesn't have the "physique du rôle" to be the main flying platform on PC, where we really need a true successor for FSX.A.