How do you rate the new Mitsubishi ?

[Guest Antlab]

Alaska DLC = 600,000mi² / rise of flight map = 48,262mi² (rounded down to 262) might be a reason, I don't know.

I sincerely doubt. The developers of ROF, with a team much smaller than MS, during these years have developed about 30 aircraft, very good representations of the originals, with fully functional cockpits, damage model and guns. And the world of ROF is much richer than Flight, with AI friends and enemies on AA batteries, cars, boats, trains and obviously planes and balloons. The real question at present is just this: why Flight seems more similar to a low-budget project than to a game produced by one of the biggest company in the world? And I don't think that the famous "Freemium" model does actually explain it, because for example ROF uses exactly the same method.A.

[AZsoccer 7]

I bought it cause I thought it would turn sharp for the rings challenge. Crashed it every time and something about not having the cockpit throws off my perception. Wish I could get a refund.

[3-2-1-Now 126]

Like a lot of the real aircraft.... "sub-Zero". :DCome on MS - you've got to do better than this if you're going to prevent 3rd party devs from making excellent add-ons for Flight!!!!! I think you took the hand that fed FS and ripped it right off.Best regards,Robin.

[isaac 0]

I sincerely doubt. The developers of ROF, with a team much smaller than MS, during these years have developed about 30 aircraft, very good representations of the originals, with fully functional cockpits, damage model and guns.

Compare the two, look at when they were announced, when they were released, what engines they use, the size of the game world.Flight Alaska 600,000mi² + Flight Hawaii ????mi² = ??????mi² / rise of flight map = 48,262mi²Can't find what the size of the Hawaii in flight is.

[HiFlyer 9,372]

Wait, we cant have it both ways. Some guys do scenery, Some guys do planes. Square miles covered does not explain bad planes. Or are we really saying ROF has more and better plane designers.........?If so, shame on Microsoft.

[FalconAF 213]

I am contimually amazed at the REASONS some members here use to justify their bashing of Flight. Folks...think about it.1. THIS website is called avSIM...which I take to mean it deals with flight SIMULATION.2. The MS Flight website is called "Microsoft/GAMES/Flight"3. NOWHERE on the Microsoft Flight webpage that I can find is the word "simulator", "simulation", or "simmer" used to describe the product, and particularly I don't find any reference to Flight being for the "flight SIMULATOR enthusiast".So if you consider yourself a flight "SIMMER", you are barking up the wrong and misguided tree in criticizing what Flight has or has not in comparison to ANY PREVIOUS Microsoft flight "simulation" product.I have been a real-world pilot for over 40 years, and been flight "simming" since the days of the Radio Shack TRS "Trash" 80. Talk about no cockpits...it was all TEXT flying at that time. When the Commodore 64 came out with GRAPHICS, we flight "simmers" back then thought we had died and gone to Heaven.Microsoft knows EXACTLY what they are doing. They have produced a flying GAME, and are marketing it as such. The membership HERE is the group that is confusing the issue by insisting it is a FAILURE as a full-blown SIMULATOR. It...is...a...GAME. If you are a "hard-core" flight simmer, and you simply CAN'T accept that, quit complaining about it. THAT is why Microsoft probably ISN'T listening to you...or ever will.I like FSX. I like Flight. They are two DIFFERENT flying "activities". If I ever get bored wth Flight, I will simply remove it from my computer and press on. Complaining that it is a "simulation failure" is absurd.I honestly wonder why AVSIM even has a forum about it. Does the AVSIM staff actually believe Flight is a SIMULATOR in it's current state as compared to previous version of MS flight simulators? Are they hoping that maybe in the future it may EVOLVE into that? Hmmm...now there's a thought. But...if they don't think it will ever evolve into a "simulator", then this flight simulation site has begun to serve flight "games" too.I'm NOT knocking AVSIM, the AVSIM staff, or any AVSIM members. But some of you need to get a different perspective on what you are thinking Flight is at the present time. And maybe even what it will be far into the future. Microsoft knows what it is doing. If you, as a "hard-core SIMMER" feel left out, that's YOUR problem. Not Microsoft's. Use the thousands of dollars you have spent on hardware, Track IR's, Go-Flight modules, and home cockpits (just like I have) and go back to flying FSX. Flight is not compatable with those products...yet...or maybe never. But if you can view Flight for what it is...a game about flying...then fire it up and have some FUN with it. I've been doing it almost every day since it came out. I just take my "hard-core simmer" hat off when I do. Respectfully submitted.

[EagleSkinner 36]

Hawaii, Zero, kamikaze gamers who deliberately crash into others?I can see it now - hundreds of MP users looking forward to a Hawaiian holiday trip in early December...What (in the names of seven hells) are MS thinking of? That certainly doesn't look like political correctness to me.OK, that's the cynicism over with for now. I have seen a user's videos that he posted of the Zero. I even flew in "Flight" for about two minutes again the other day (just to do an aerocache) I saw the "For sale" notice took a look. No pit. Goodbye! Flying time since end of beta? Insignificant and likely to stay that way.

[dtrjones 356]

Hawaii, Zero, kamikaze gamers who deliberately crash into others?

Is it me or have people not made enough fuss of the totally insensitive launch of the Japanese built zero for a Hawaii based game. I don't doubt (the plane itself) is a nice piece of engineering and beautifully rendered by Microsoft, and one day I'm sure it will be graced with a nice cockpit to do the excellent externals justice... But come on, the zero due to it's speed and agility was used for kamikaze runs which include operations in Pearl Habour, it's sick to release this when the only scenery on offer is Hawaii."What was Microsoft thinking!"

[EagleSkinner 36]

Ah - I am not the only one that thinks so.

[LHookins 3,113]

Ah - I am not the only one that thinks so.

There are a few of us who understand why it was wrong.Hook

[Guest Antlab]

Wait, we cant have it both ways. Some guys do scenery, Some guys do planes. Square miles covered does not explain bad planes. Or are we really saying ROF has more and better plane designers.........?If so, shame on Microsoft.

Exactly, this was my doubt. Why smaller teams seem able to create better planes and more complex worlds than those present in Flight?I don't think that most of the 40-50 Flight team members are devoted to map Alaska one meter square at the time, so it is not clear which is the real reason of this type of undersized content.A.

[HiFlyer 9,372]

There are a few of us who understand why it was wrong.Hook

Its pretty simple. According to a post on the beta forum, Microsoft looked at this and decided it was not a problem. I am supposing they mean there wont be a big enough of a stink to matter.Its not a large issue for me, but I think that with all the different types of planes to choose from, that particular move showed nearly willful insensitivity (I think of veterans groups and wince) even if they are flashing all innocent eyes at us now. (Simply put: Why go there without even a pretense of some modest educational value?)Should it ever become an open issue, they are in for some serious PR hurt.

[LHookins 3,113]

Should it ever become an open issue, they are in for some serious PR hurt.

The post on the beta forum was not devoid of emotion, indicating that this question had come up before internally and wasn't resolved to everyone's satisfaction. The poster herself may totally understand our position, but still has to stick to the company story line.I'm sure that the target demographic couldn't care less what is done to the USS Arizona memorial, so that won't affect their sales. We have to wonder if the geopolitical group went beyond that to the possibility of the doomsday scenario where Sixty Minutes shows up on their doorstep with a camera crew and a bunch of angry WW2 veterans. Maybe they'd consider that a good thing. There's still a possibility that there's a legal group somewhere that could get them shut down.Hook

[T_Fleck 36]

Ok I think I can tackle this. How can a 50 person team not produce much content. Just breakdown the divisions of the team. 3d modeling you have 2 people assigned to this, the other 5 3d artist are there for moral support. Scenery design, they have a whopping team of 1 man on this, how hard is it to individually place every tree in Alaska? You have 3 texture artist, although 1 is assigned to caricatures of the team. You have a 10 man think tank devising ways to get money from people without seeming too greedy. There is a 3 man lunch team, they take orders and then go get the food. 1 person is responsible for deleting any profane post from their blog and her secondary task is to keep the coffee on. 5 people work in quality control, not quality of the game, no quality of life for the rest of the staff. Happy employees are productive. Then, there is Klappy the Clown, he is there to ensure Mr. Howard is entertained. 1 person is assigned to be Mr. Howard's voice coach. He ensures that Howard has just the right amount of condescending in his sentences. and you might ask where are the other 18 people? Well they are cryogenically frozen, these are the unfortunate team members to express an opinion.Of course all of this is horse pucky, but with no other information to go on from the actual team it may as well be true. They are still getting chastised on their blog and simply come back with a "can you do this in the Zero?". It is starting to become humerous.

[HiFlyer 9,372]

The post on the beta forum was not devoid of emotion, indicating that this question had come up before internally and wasn't resolved to everyone's satisfaction. The poster herself may totally understand our position, but still has to stick to the company story line.I'm sure that the target demographic couldn't care less what is done to the USS Arizona memorial, so that won't affect their sales. We have to wonder if the geopolitical group went beyond that to the possibility of the doomsday scenario where Sixty Minutes shows up on their doorstep with a camera crew and a bunch of angry WW2 veterans. Maybe they'd consider that a good thing. There's still a possibility that there's a legal group somewhere that could get them shut down.Hook

Eh. Is it really worth all that? I think they have it right that nobody will have the energy. And if somebody did have the energy, there are probably better things to spend it on.