Nope of course but it doesn't take much to see a poll result......That Poll speaks about the very latest shining Flight DLC and 98% of 60 users already voted the Mitsubishi as garbage. So, considering that Flight success is based on DLC ..well, I have nothing to add. Also when 300 users will have voted the result will be pretty much the same and also Flight site comments speak by themselves.Also Alaska + Beaver will be pretty much the same , slightly less tragic I think but not far from there.

Your mistake is assuming that those who participated in the poll are a statistically valid sample of the entire population (population being anyone who plays or buy DLC for Flight). Since it is a poll at AVSIM with <100 participants, it is most likely not a statistically valid sample.I'm not saying I'm buying the Zero. For me, no cockpit = crap. I'm just saying people put way too much weight on what the small, but very vocal, groups on flight simming forums have to say.

i see a lot of effort going into making MS see the light and its not what a business is about , its about share prices. not simulation .

That's the rub, right there..I'm with Don on this one though. I think it's so silly releasing no cockpit planes, and like a load of people here would _never_ buy one, but I've had a blast doing clandestine missions and fooling around in canyons, and I'll do the same in Alaska (when it comes out...)Flight's a stress-reliever for me..I don't do challenges. I do aerocaches as it gets me about and I can use the Vans. I fly missions as it builds up my XP..That's it..I will carry on hoping against hope that it might turn into what i want(ed) it to be, but in the meantime I'm giving some serious love to P3D, and spending money on quality addons for FSX and will continue to do so...20 million Flight users? pah... :LMAO:jake

As far as the upcoming Alaska DLC - I have stated numerous times, I will not buy any future DLC unless either Track IR is supported by then, or included with it, or at the least an announcement with an app date it will be included.For me, I think not having the support already is unacceptable in today's flight sim market. Heck it was unacceptable 6 years ago - FSX had it - and Flight is the first flight sim released in several years that did not have it.

Don, the only reason that both FS9 and FSX have TrackIR support is because Microsoft provided an SDK and the SimConnect module for TIR and other 3rd parties to use for connection. Aside from that, Microsoft didn't have to "do" anything else.In the case of Flight, since there is no SimConnect and no SDK, TIR can't program a solution themselves. Instead TIR has provided MSGS with TIR's SDK and asked them to code the support necessary. MSGS has to weigh their costs to provide support for one specific product against what they might gain in terms of additional sales......and also consider that if they do this additional work for one 3rd party hardware company, then they'd be faced with the very real possibility that they'd also have to do the same for other 3rd party companies.I honestly do not see MSGS opening up that particular can of worms. The only way I can see TIR working will be if and when MSGS decide to release both an SDK and an API allowing third party companies to connect with Flight themselves.

The salient point seemingly forgotten is freemium content for Flight is supposed to be cheap and appeal to users who know squat about flying or aviation, the fabled 20 million who dont include the "Hard Core Simmers" , that one factor means MS can pick up top quality mesh at Turbo Squid for less than a grand , add animations , engine sounds and it flies FDE, and its on the product list in no time flat ,Any pro could do that in a week, If it sells to their target market the business model is working perfectly , all the protestations to MS count for little if that kind of product sells to its intended market .What can an angel say the devil wants to know anyway? i see a lot of effort going into making MS see the light and its not what a business is about , its about share prices. not simulation .

Sorry to say, but I think that it is just that type of souless approach that risks to lead Flight to a not glorious end. People want emotions, in several forms. The idea that tens of millions of users will run as sheeps to purchase many aircraft without any feature in my opinion is deeply wrong.There are a lot of better alternatives, and today with Internet, forum, social networks and video sharing people can easily know them.MS is risking to gain the reputation of a cheap producer that try to sell low-quality DLC to users with only childlike expectations. And this, starting from the power of the MS Flight Simulator brand, is quite dumb.A.

I get it now, but still don't understand why the static cockpit view isn't a more easily accessed view. . .

Oh, that's simple enough. Had the view been set by default to the low resolution cockpit instead of being a few feet ahead of the prop, then there'd be an outrage about the horrible looking and static virtual cockpit! It's essentially a no-win situation for MSGS, but there's a high probability of less "outrage" by having an empty cockpitless view than the alternative... :Thinking:

That would be shady, but shady things do happen in business when people have a predetermined agenda.

Well, the same thing happens in forums and elsewhere when people have a predetermined agenda! :LMAO:

Since Microsoft has not released any DLC sales figures, I would caution people to avoid reading too much into what type of DLC is released in the near term as confirmation of how well the Maule sold versus the P51.These DLCs take time to model, develop and test, and so it is likely that their DLC release schedule/strategy for the first 6 months was already set in stone and well along before Flight ever came out of beta, and so it is not being radically changed by DLC sales at this particular point.I suspect this is also why they can't easily stop work on what they have in progress and commit to doing enhancements asked for in the beta or since release, until they get the initial set of product completed and out the door (leaderboards must be finished before any enhancements)The DLC sales will likely only influence the future development after the initial set is completed, although one can hope that the relative low number of P51s online will signal not many more cockpitless aircraft to follow.

I am glad I have my FSX that I can fall back on when I want that aspect of simming, but in the meantime I am enjoying Flight for what it is for now, it at least does have something in there that interests me and keeps me wanting to do another flight with it

same for me - put FS9 in place of FSX (flight aspect being helicopters) - and that's me. Maybe I'm simple - my wife will back me on that - but low and slow around the Islands is fine for me. Yes, I would like a helicopter...no, I won't buy a plane without a cockpit...yes, I would like to see another area of the world...but for now, Flight is good for me to get my flying "fix" in a short period of time. The base product, in my opinion, is great - and I'm able to enjoy it while waiting to see where it goes.

My reason for not buying the Zero is purely based on the fact it has no VC.However, I like warbirds, but am aware of their role as instruments of warfare and therefore am sympathetic to people's feelings towards their depiction. While I personally am not upset with the Zero being released, I find both it and the P-51 strange choices of aircraft to release in a game/sim that celebrates flight. True, FS9 also celebrated flight and included a lot of aircraft that covered a wide spectrum of different eras.But I would have though that a Reno air racing livery would have been more appropriate for the Mustang and it would seem that the Zero is a truly insensitive aircraft to release when Hawaii is the only scenery we have available. To me, it would be like releasing an HE-111 for flying over England. The insinuation/connotation is all too clear.A pleasure flight helicopter or even a Cessna Caravan with tour livery would have fitted in to the Hawaiian theme much better than the Maule, although I do see the Alaska DLC probably bringing a set of skis to the Maule, making for a cheap upgrade.Microsoft's boldness with the Zero is mystifying and potentially a walk on thin ice.

But I would have though that a Reno air racing livery would have been more appropriate for the Mustang and it would seem that the Zero is a truly insensitive aircraft to release when Hawaii is the only scenery we have available. To me, it would be like releasing an HE-111 for flying over England. The insinuation/connotation is all too clear.

We have been informed in the beta forum that every aircraft is vetted by a "geopolitical risk assesment" whatever that means...

We have been informed in the beta forum that every aircraft is vetted by a "geopolitical risk assesment" whatever that means...

I guess this one slipped through the net :)

The Mustang was going to outsell the Maule, cockpit or not. Every airshow I've been to (20+) has had a Mustang demonstration, yet I cannot remember a Maule demonstration. I'd be willing to bet the majority of target demographic has never even heard of a Maule. The same will probably be true with the Zero. And hypothetically, if after Alaska is released, MS releases a deluxe version of a Twin Otter and a Basic version of an F-16, which one will sell the most? My guess is the F-16 and the path of Flight will be set in stone. I would have more hope for the future if MS would come out and say, "hey, here's the basic version of the Mustang, we're working on a deluxe package update, stay tuned for a release date", but they are silent.

You are right, of course. I just believe that while the market that Microsoft is aiming for is huge, the current market has not developed to that size yet, whereas the flight community in relation as a cohesive whole is relatively huge.The concerted buying power of that market might have had a large impact at this early stage, yet a huge number of us (judging by the posts) wont even give flight the time of day until certain demands are met. The catch 22 is that those demands might have had much more influence if we had made our buying power apparent by aggressively purchasing things that leaned in our direction, instead of essentially saying "No ATC. Uninstalled 10 minutes later. FU Microsoft"Its something that could still be corrected with Alaska. Maybe. I hope.If we ("we" meaning the larger portion of this community) decide to return to the table.I hope another interview is forthcoming. Soon.

I guess this one slipped through the net :)

Or a vocal few are just making it seem like a bigger deal than it really is.

We have been informed in the beta forum that every aircraft is vetted by a "geopolitical risk assesment" whatever that means...

Yes, I saw that. :PPoor thing. It was the most "canned" answer I think I have seen that mod make. You can't blame them, but it had CYA all over it.Should the poo ever hit the FOX (and other outlets) fan on this, I can imagine fingers will be pointing in multiple contradictory directions as the whole shiny school of fish dodges and weaves for survival.People are silly critters.

You are right, of course. I just believe that while the market that Microsoft is aiming for is huge, the current market has not developed to that size yet, whereas the flight community in relation as a cohesive whole is relatively huge.The concerted buying power of that market might have had a large impact at this early stage, yet a huge number of us (judging by the posts) wont even give flight the time of day until certain demands are met. The catch 22 is that those demands might have had much more influence if we and made our buying power apparent buy aggressively purchasing things that leaned in our direction, instead of essentially saying "No ATC. Uninstalled 10 minutes later. FU Microsoft"Its something that could still be corrected with Alaska. Maybe. I hope.If we ("we" meaning the larger portion of this community) decide to return to the table.I hope another interview is forthcoming. Soon.

The biggest issue (in my opinion) is lack of communication (from MS); along with hostility between Flight and the "hard-core" flightsimmers (FSX users) . . . on both sides.I've pretty much given up hope that this is going to improve, which means that the current issues are going to continue; which is frustrating for everyone.I was initially excited about Alaska, but now I really have no interest in supporting Flight unless they start to focus on improving the simulator aspects (instead of just focusing on the gaming aspects). I'm not investing in any product that I feel will fail, and the only way I believe that Flight has any chance of success is to for MS to start wooing the flightsim community, instead of alienating us.

I hope another interview is forthcoming. Soon.

Considering the huge PR success of the previous one, for the good of Flight it's surely better to avoid :-)A.