Probably that group does exist, but just considering that they already use only a fraction of the game possibilities, why should they buy a lot of other DLC? It doesn't seem make much sense from a commercial point of view, don't you agree?A.

That was exactly my point. That group probably isn't ready (or in dire need of) DLC yet. And if they are a large group or the target market, then there is no reason to think that Flight is "out of fuel" or that DLC is coming too slow.

Flight = limitations = easy to get bored = I only lasted a week and then started a tread called moved back to FSX, actually I never left, but just experimented with Flight and haven't started it up since.I am monitoring flight forum just to see the flavour of the day.I did however buy Prepar3D and am experimenting with that as well, but FSX is my primary flightsim and looks like it will remain top dog for some time.

Since Microsoft hasn't released any sales figures on Flight DLC, we don't really know anything about how well it is doing or which DLC or features are popular or not popular, other than Josh Howard's comments in the interview (which may be truths or marketing to suit his purposes) so everything is pretty much conjecture unless those sales or user activity patterns are ever made available. One thing I've noticed is there's rarely anyone else flying in Oahu or Maui in online sessions and the most popular planes are still the Icon and Stearman.

They should of started with only a couple of missions then added some more in a patch, while also adding some static vehicles maybe a few buildings that got left out due to "lack of time" etc :Whistle:

no reason to think that Flight is "out of fuel"

I agree that I may not be the target audience but I have to admit that am running low on fuel now myself...

mmmh, maybe I should reinstall flight and try messing with it files just for fun when I have time. Maybe I can find something cool to edit.

Larry, a more fair test would be to follow through on what was claimed several months ago, that some a/c would come in two versions: cockpitless and deluxe.Unless those two models are available at the same time, there's really no way to judge which of the two is the one most wanted and will generate the greatest revenue.

Fr Bill - are you creating hopeful thoughts? You did with me! On a serious note, I have always found your posts to be reasonable, well thought out, and well stated - thank you.I think the casual user - as I'm finding myself forced to be - WILL buy new DLC for a bit of variety. I mainly fly the Stearman unless I need the Maule for missions. As much as I wanted to, just can't get engaged with the RV...and while the Icon is a change of pace, it just can't beat the Stearman for full fun potential!This is a rambling way of saying that I WILL purchase variety - new areas (Alaska), new aircraft (with cockpits) that interest me, and other addons (ATC, AI air traffic, etc) that add to my experience and enjoyment. That's why Bill's comment struck close to home - if everything is released at once, I don't think that Microsoft would get a valid measurement as to what is a "pass", and what is a "must have"...

if everything is released at once, I don't think that Microsoft would get a valid measurement as to what is a "pass", and what is a "must have"...

you could also argue the contrary, only IF they release 2 a/c the same time - deluxe and w/o cockpit - they can truly measure what the audience wants as nobody has a head start. now with only the zero available I can imagine that some folks just buy it because it's the only (new) kid on the block...

you could also argue the contrary, only IF they release 2 a/c the same time - deluxe and w/o cockpit - they can truly measure what the audience wants as nobody has a head start. now with only the zero available I can imagine that some folks just buy it because it's the only (new) kid on the block...

Exactly. I have to wonder if somebody is actually doing this on purpose to skew the data in the direction they want things to go. If not, they seriously need to consult somebody who actually understands how to conduct a controlled scientific experiment.

Releasing the non-cockpit Zero as their first post-release DLC (as in not at available when Flight was released in Feb), is perhaps the worse PR I have ever witnessed.This is not just a slap in the face to the "hard-core" simmers, it is a slap in the face to all flightsimmers.Based on what I have read (and I've been to a LOT of different sites, including many gaming sites), a non-combat small warplane is the last thing that anyone wants as a Flight DLC.Microsoft (under Howard's leadership) just punched a very large hole in Flight's fuel tanks. It is like they now want Flight to fail. I don't get this at all.This was exactly what I was afraid they would do. I stated during the beta testing that adding basic aircraft (non-cockpit) was a horrid idea, and that it would make Flight a joke, and completely turn users off.

That was exactly my point. That group probably isn't ready (or in dire need of) DLC yet. And if they are a large group or the target market, then there is no reason to think that Flight is "out of fuel" or that DLC is coming too slow.

I understand your point. But I see the question also from another side. Which can really be the appeal of Flight with this type of DLC progress? You find millions of freeware alternatives to a plane without cockpit in other sims, also in those that presently have a very small cost (FSX, old version of XP, IL-2 1946...), and in some cases they also have working guns and destructible worlds. So I think that also a very casual user can easily find more convenient and enjoyable alternatives, why should he remain with Flight?A.

I still see oodles of potential in the engine, but the latest aircraft decision is a joke. I think we should keep up the pressure. A torrent of complaints and requests on their homepage should keep the pressure on, so get writing y'all!

My take is that two markets are repelled. The flight-simmers are not going to be interested, and the gamers will be insulted that somebody thinks they can only handle baby planes. (Heck, even WARHAWK on the PS1 back when dinosaurs ruled the earth had a cockpit!)On the other hand, its cheaper...........Will the cheapness overcome the natural urge towards the more full featured craft that also has the option to be flown from the outside?It would not for me, even as a gamer, because I would always be aware that I was now trapped in a lesser purchase with no options.Or maybe this is a move to get parents to buy their children a cheap plane? (at least that makes some sense)

Although the graphics are very nice, I'm rather upset with FLIGHT! :(

My take is that two markets are repelled. The flight-simmers are not going to be interested, and the gamers will be insulted that somebody thinks they can only handle baby planes.On the other hand, its cheaper...........Will the cheapness overcome the natural urge towards the more full featured craft that also has the option to be flown from the outside?It would not for me, even as a gamer, because I would always be aware that I was now trapped in a lesser purchase with no options.Or maybe this is a move to get parents to buy their children a cheap plane? (at least that makes some sense)

Yea I think that is what it boils down to price, I think they realize the audience that they are targeting can't spend $20 every time a new plane comes out. I think this particular team is past critical mass as far as failure for the title goes.I would expect heads start rolling by Q3-Q4 2012 if things don't change.