Arwen, I never said I embraced it. I DON"T WANT other people in my flights. The last thing I want is a chatty pilot when I'm trying a difficult approach.Even if you've avoided MP yourself, you surely have seen the various videos of MP activity. Do any of them look like what you've described?Hook

Arwen, I never said I embraced it. I DON"T WANT other people in my flights. The last thing I want is a chatty pilot when I'm trying a difficult approach.Even if you've avoided MP yourself, you surely have seen the various videos of MP activity. Do any of them look like what you've described?Hook

Hook, you suggested that the MP is "supposed to provide the AI aircraft for your flights," which seems to be (in the full context that you wrote it) saying that we don't need AI, since we have MP, as a replacement for AI. For me, MP is more of a gaming focus than a simulator focus (although I realize that it can be both, depending on how it is implemented). When most users are asking for more simulator in Fight, one of the main items in nearly every list is AI traffic (along with ATC, ATIS, a Plight Planner, Damage Modeling, and Real World Weather). I still don't believe that Flight will succeed as a game, but that it can succeed as a simulator. That is my opinion. And only time will tell if my opinion is correct or not (along with whether or not MS does want Flight to be more of a simulator).

When most users are asking for more simulator in Fight, one of the main items in nearly every list is AI traffic (along with ATC, ATIS, a Plight Planner, Damage Modeling, and Real World Weather).

Right there is the chief problem, Arwen. We only know what our own demographic is asking for. We do not know what the other demographic (which is claimed by MSGS to be the far larger of the two) is asking for, much less where it is in cyberspace that they are supposedly asking!I have yet to find anywhere on the World Wide Wasteland where such folks have asked for "Leaderboards" and so forth. Do they really exist, or are they simply phantasms brought about by overdosing on magic mushrooms? I have no idea... :LMAO:

How well the Alaska Pack sells will depend on its price. If it is priced at $50, I won't buy it, and I don't believe that it will sell "hundreds of thousands of copies (downloads)" at that price.

I've never seen Microsoft give or even hint to a price level for Alaska. Where does your information come from or is it something of a guess? If it's the latter, it only serves to fuel the rumor mill, that then evolves into some type of gospel being preached by those not happy with what Flight is.

Like I wrote previously: "the ball is in MS's court as to where they go from here."

And yet people can't accept that, can they? It's always been Microsoft's decision and it will continue to be their's well into the future. Their decisions will be swayed by marketing results and not by what some people think or feel. That's how the corporate world works, up to the point of the individual charged with making a final decision. Then their thoughts or feelings factor into the decision process. But those thoughts and/or feelings are rooted in many years worth of experience. Those that predict the failure of Flight here and elsewhere are basing their thoughts and feelings on one month's worth of reading forum postings? Given the two choices, I'd be betting on the side of Microsoft.

I've never seen Microsoft give or even hint to a price level for Alaska. Where does your information come from or is it something of a guess? If it's the latter, it only serves to fuel the rumor mill, that then evolves into some type of gospel being preached by those not happy with what Flight is.

Goodness, I wrote: "If it is priced at $50." If it is priced at $20, I'll likely purchase it. My comment was prefaced by the fact that the sales of the Alaska Pack will depend on what users have to pay for it. I don't see that as speculation or as a rumor. AND, IF it is price at $50, AND IF MS expands the simulator aspects of Flight enough, I will also likely purchase it.But I personally don't expect a scenery area as large as Alaska to be priced the same as an area the size of the 7 remaining main Hawaiian Islands.

And yet people can't accept that, can they? It's always been Microsoft's decision and it will continue to be their's well into the future. Their decisions will be swayed by marketing results and not by what some people think or feel. That's how the corporate world works, up to the point of the individual charged with making a final decision. Then their thoughts or feelings factor into the decision process. But those thoughts and/or feelings are rooted in many years worth of experience. Those that predict the failure of Flight here and elsewhere are basing their thoughts and feelings on one month's worth of reading forum postings? Given the two choices, I'd be betting on the side of Microsoft.

I've base my own "predictions" on nearly 3 months worth of use and on what I've witnessed on the Flight Beta Discussion Forums (or more correctly, what I have not seen happen), and on Jousha Howard's attitude/priorities. My "predictions" are totally based on what MS does to expand Flight over the next months,This thread is titled "I've chosen" . . . it is primarily about choosing to use Flight over FSX (even though the OP stated that he didn't have to make a choice). This topic is based on users choices to use Flight, along with the reasons behind making those choices. One of my reasons for not picking Flight as my primary flightsim, is that is not being made to be better flightsim than FSX, AND I personally don't believe it will succeed as just a game. Why should I (or anyone else) invest in a product that they don't have much faith in? People have a right to state their own reasons behind why they will or will not embrace a particular flightsim.

Goodness, I wrote: "If it is priced at $50."

Oh my gosh, Alaska is going to be 50 bucks. Can't believe it ! Quick someone tweet that, I don't do the tweeter thing!! I mean I never will spend... :smile:It will be interesting to see how that comes in on the price scale, maybe we should make a pool on it... I just hope we get a really cool plane with a working VC! Twin engine would be nice, along with float plane.

Last time I looked, a chunk of Orbx scenery + a Carenado airplane cost well over $50 in FSX...so I'm not sure that would keep me from buying Alaska.But no functional autopilot / GPS / toe brakes etc will !..so for now, it is back to FSX for me!

Oh my gosh, Alaska is going to be 50 bucks. Can't believe it ! Quick someone tweet that, I don't do the tweeter thing!! I mean I never will spend...

No... If it's priced at $250 I won't be buying it! Someone can Tweet that, if they want. Tweets to me are sounds birds make.But let's use the "randomly guessed, no negative connotations meant to dissuade other's opinion" $50. If it includes all of Alaska AND a quality airplane, such as a DC-3 I'd be all over that puppy in a heartbeat!Must word this carefully... I have an add on for Alaska. Helped in the development of it. Loaded it into my 2 year old i7 930 with a nVidia 570, turned off AI and road traffic, had the rest of the settings turned up, started away from one of the primary airports, but in a still heavily impacted area and got 4fps. Let me spell that out, F-O-U-R frames per second. If I add in the payware airport for that city and add the AI traffic package that I have what would be my FPS then? Makes exploring kinda difficult at 1-2fps, don't ya think?I could tweak FSX, move a few sliders left a notch or two or three or four or five, but I don't wanna! I want to go explore and not get hammered by the game and have it turn into a slide-show. So Flight Alaska could possibly cost $50 (randomly guessed?), bring it on! The add on for FSX costs $40. Too bad I have such a wimpy system that I can't enjoy it and all the "other goodness" that FSX offers...

That certainly is one big plus Flight has in it's favor, it runs so darn well and looks pretty darn good!

It would appear that Flight has already succeeded as a game, given the number of Zeros people have reported seeing in multiplayer.

Did you already count tens of millions of Zeros? :-)Please remember the numbers reported by Howard as the planned obiective for Flight. We surely can not check at present if the actual DLC sales are close or not to those only by reading very sparse little reports on a few MP sessions.A.

We surely can not check at present if the actual DLC sales are close or not to those only by reading very sparse little reports on a few MP sessions.

Perhaps you have the statistics skills to determine the general population profile from the sample we've seen. Obviously you know that we don't have to count every one of them. Hook

i have been away from flightsims for several years. i quit because i got sick of trying to get fsx (and previous versions of msfs) to run smoothly on my (at that time) state of the art 'puters.did all the mods, tips, tricks, etc and realized i was spending all my time tweaking and very little time flying.i gave up.just found out about flight 5 days ago.installed it on my 2 laptops.1. hp dm1 11.6"2. ibm lenova t 60p dual 2.0, 2 gigs ram, stock video cardflight runs smooth as silk on medium settings on both laptopsno matter where i am, no matter how much i pan the camera, no matter how many others are near me flying multiplayer,both of these "sub-standard" laptops are smooth as silk and the eye candy is just great.it took me about 10 minutes to get used to flying with the mouse and now i don't care to use my joystick (which works perfectly with no issues in flight).this is a no braineran average person with an average 'puter can enjoy this simno tweaking, no nothingi will be buying alaska as soon as it's available and hopefully a cub and beaver if they become available.i am exploring the free scenery every nightdoing touch and goes for an hour at a time (as i do in my rw c 172)making off field landingsetcetcthis is simming at it's best!all the fun, none of the tweaking.i am a ga pilot through and through and personally have no use for the heavies.i say to ms, "great job!"i have made my choice :)otter

Otter, welcome to the AVSIM forumsIm glad you are enjoying it.Many of us are surely enjoying it a lot.

After being very disappointed with the Japanese warbird, I decided to do some flying in FSX. I had it with MS Flight. But even though I could now enjoy TrackIR again and the awesome Bay Tower RV7, something was missing... A certain, atmosphere... Light... FSX looked old (while flying about Orbx's New Zealand).

I haven't bought the Flight "RV6"...........because I do have the Bay Tower model for FSX. Something just tells me, it won't be as good, because the Bay Tower RV7 really IS good!L.Adamson

Perhaps you have the statistics skills to determine the general population profile from the sample we've seen. Obviously you know that we don't have to count every one of them.

So do you really consider a few reports of users that saw "many" Zeros in MP sessions (of maximum 16 people each) as good statistical samples? I don't sincerely :-)Another related question: is there a public way to know how many users are using Flight in MP each moment? That data, with the time trend over several weeks, could be an interesting index. For example I saw something similar on Iracing forums, where some people created reports about the number of users over several periods of time, useful to check the tendency of the sim players.A.