Just some general comments here and all, of course, just my opinion...

 

I'm amazed at some people's expectations for MSFlight (and games in general). A lot of people really do seem to want the moon on a stick.

 

People seem very happy with the vast improvements in framerate and general performance that Flight offers (particularly vs FSX); and rightly so. No more buggering about with bufferpools.

 

The scenery we do have (admittedly limited) seems much more accurate and detailed than the standard autogen we're used to. Similarly, the aircraft we have (again, limited) are much slicker and refined than the stock craft we're used to, the VC views in particular.

 

And, so far, (depending on your DLC) it's cost us between £0 and £30ish. I've already had 35 hours of good fun flying with MSFlight and compared to other computer games, that's pretty good bang for your buck.

 

I don't see how people can complain! As far as I can tell, a lot of people seem to want:

1. High detail and non-autogen scenery (a la Flight) that covers most or all of the world
   
2. A library of twenty or thirty aircraft, all highly detailed (a la Flight)
   
3. The same dynamics and modelling as a training simulator
   
4. High performance and framerates on medium spec machines (a la Flight)
   
5. None or very few bugs (a la Flight)
   
6. All of the above for less than £30.
   

How much programming and development would be required for all of the above and how much would it cost? My guess is: about the same as a full-spec simulator at your local flightschool!

 

I'm not saying Flight is perfect but we have to be realistic; its remit is to offer smooth, attractive and realistic flying (not to mention fun) that doesn't require daily .cfg tinkering or a super-computer.

 

I think it does exactly what it says on the tin...

Couldn't agree MORE with you Gareth!

Thx for sharing your thoughts!

 

Just some general comments here and all, of course, just my opinion...

 

I'm amazed at some people's expectations for MSFlight (and games in general). A lot of people really do seem to want the moon on a stick.

 

People seem very happy with the vast improvements in framerate and general performance that Flight offers (particularly vs FSX); and rightly so. No more buggering about with bufferpools.

 

The scenery we do have (admittedly limited) seems much more accurate and detailed than the standard autogen we're used to. Similarly, the aircraft we have (again, limited) are much slicker and refined than the stock craft we're used to, the VC views in particular.

 

And, so far, (depending on your DLC) it's cost us between £0 and £30ish. I've already had 35 hours of good fun flying with MSFlight and compared to other computer games, that's pretty good bang for your buck.

 

I don't see how people can complain! As far as I can tell, a lot of people seem to want:

1. High detail and non-autogen scenery (a la Flight) that covers most or all of the world
   
2. A library of twenty or thirty aircraft, all highly detailed (a la Flight)
   
3. The same dynamics and modelling as a training simulator
   
4. High performance and framerates on medium spec machines (a la Flight)
   
5. None or very few bugs (a la Flight)
   
6. All of the above for less than £30.
   

How much programming and development would be required for all of the above and how much would it cost? My guess is: about the same as a full-spec simulator at your local flightschool!

 

I'm not saying Flight is perfect but we have to be realistic; its remit is to offer smooth, attractive and realistic flying (not to mention fun) that doesn't require daily .cfg tinkering or a super-computer.

 

I think it does exactly what it says on the tin...

Wonderful. First it was hard core simmers, now it is people with unrealistic expectations?

 

Why was my local airport taken away from me? It's been in the last few releases, so this is no way a "moon on a stick" expectation.

 

Once I get tired of flying around Liberty City, I will be heading back to Overland Park, Kansas.

Wonderful. First it was hard core simmers, now it is people with unrealistic expectations?

 

Why was my local airport taken away from me? It's been in the last few releases, so this is no way a "moon on a stick" expectation.

 

Once I get tired of flying around Liberty City, I will be heading back to Overland Park, Kansas.

 

but if we all had our local airports in MSFlight we'd have most of US/Europe...

I see this attitude in the users all sorts of software, it is not just games. Altho, for some reason gamers seem to have a much harder time accepting and enjoying a product for what it is, and spend a fantastic amount of energy defining what a product isn't.

 

It is a strange phenomenon, and I think it has to do with just how abstract software is compared to physical products. It is fairly easy for someone to have a basic mental model of how something physical is constructed, but most people don't have the foggiest idea of how software is constructed, or worse, they think a software product (or even a minor feature) is actually easy or simple to build.

 

People DO want the moon on a stick, they want it developed in 6 months, and they want it as close to free as possible. Then when it releases they will complain about the weight of it. ^_^

 

The thing that really gets to me tho? The way people talk about the developers like they are robots stamping sheet metal, and not real people with feelings that care VERY MUCH about the products they create, and are very passionate about what they do. The Borg does not create your software, humans do, but when I see what is posted on forums sometimes it is clear this is lost on some people.

The thing that really gets to me tho? The way people talk about the developers like they are robots stamping sheet metal, and not real people with feelings that care VERY MUCH about the products they create, and are very passionate about what they do. The Borg does not create your software, humans do, but when I see what is posted on forums sometimes it is clear this is lost on some people

 

Spot on. Even worse, some people (and I'm not referring to this particular game or forum) act like developers are malevolent entities who release games with the sole purpose of p*ssing gamers off...

but if we all had our local airports in MSFlight we'd have most of US/Europe...

 

Yup. And I'm pretty sore about it being taken away from me.

Yup. And I'm pretty sore about it being taken away from me.

 

Someone uninstalled FSX from your machine? I would suggest you call the local authorities! :help:

I see this attitude in the users all sorts of software, it is not just games. Altho, for some reason gamers seem to have a much harder time accepting and enjoying a product for what it is, and spend a fantastic amount of energy defining what a product isn't.

 

you are a Dev? Do you work for MS? I see you are only a 20 minute drive.

 

Microsoft gave us the world with FS, and now we have hawaii. How are the FS fans not supposed to feel hurt about this?

 

We had an open addon market with thousands of downloads, ranging from high quality freeware (and some junk) to ultra high quality payware. MS took this away from our future. How are we not supposed to feel hurt about this?

 

I'm sorry if the code monkey working on the texture of the radar dome has their feelings hurt because I don't like Flight. But the problem is with Flight's management's direction, and not the radar dome.

 

Someone uninstalled FSX from your machine? I would suggest you call the local authorities! :help:

 

The spirit of the discussion is relating to why Flight has come up short to some folks' expectations (the OP even made a direct comparison himself). FSX is the most recent base line for expectations.

 

If you want to pretend that there has never been another flying program to compare Flight to, then yes- Flight! is the best thing ever. The ticker tape parade down internet drive will start tomorrow at noon.

you are a Dev? Do you work for MS? I see you are only a 20 minute drive.

 

Microsoft gave us the world with FS, and now we have hawaii. How are the FS fans not supposed to feel hurt about this?

 

We had an open addon market with thousands of downloads, ranging from high quality freeware (and some junk) to ultra high quality payware. MS took this away from our future. How are we not supposed to feel hurt about this?

 

I'm sorry if the code monkey working on the texture of the radar dome has their feelings hurt because I don't like Flight. But the problem is with Flight's management's direction, and not the radar dome.

 

 

 

The spirit of the discussion is relating to why Flight has come up short to some folks' expectations. FSX is the most recent base line for expectations.

 

MS haven't taken anything away from you. You still have FS2004, FSX and all the add-ons, don't you?

 

All that's changed is that FS is now accessible to people who want a slick, fun flying experience without having to tweak the software ad infinitum...

Right on Gareth, many of us are in total agreement.

Yeah, I wanted the whole world, and I wanted my favorite airplane (singular). I was disappointed when the whole world wasn't going to be available, but I had no illusions that my favorite airplane was going to be included.

 

I got over it. I explored Flight for what it was, not for what some other game made me think it should be. Turns out I enjoyed it.

 

I will admit to getting bored during the beta when I only had one island and two aircraft, and the missions were, shall we say limited and not much fun. I did the various challenges, and did a lot of flying. Eventually I got past my limits and the boredom went away. In the end, I had 120 flight hours in the beta, and even went over 500K XP.

 

When the full content became available, I was pretty happy to have somewhere else to fly that wasn't over no-resolution terrain. Then I discovered that the same missions were a heck of a lot better on the other islands. Plus I had the Maule with all the various jobs available for it. This was a whole new world.

 

In a way, having limited planes and a limited area turned out to be a good thing for me. With only a few planes, I've been flying them all; in FSX there are still stock planes that I've never touched. With a limited area, I've become quite familiar with it. so when I get a mission to "fly here" I already know what to expect.

 

I still don't have my favorite plane, but I have some hopes that it will appear shortly.

 

I just passed 150 hours in the release version of Flight, over 1 million XP, and I still haven't done everything there is to do. I haven't even fully explored all the weather themes.

 

Flight may not have come up to some users' expectations of a replacement for FSX, but it was never intended to be that, something I figured out at the very beginning. Flight has certainly exceeded my expectations for a decent little Flight game. Right now, I can't imagine going back to FSX.

 

Hook

All that's changed is that FS is now accessible to people who want a slick, fun flying experience without having to tweak the software ad infinitum...

You will never understand my point of view if you don't see the differences between Flight and FS.

You will never understand my point of view if you don't see the differences between Flight and FS.

 

We ALL understand your point of view a lot better than you think. We are just willing to accept that Flight isn't FS11 and never will be, and all the complaining in all the venues in the world will not change that one bit.

 

Play Flight for what it is, and play FSX if you want a different experience.

 

Hook

move on? Im not the one that brought up the subject.