I'm not sure who "you people" refers to but I've recently returned to this forum from a spell away from sims altogether; I didn't ask for any sort of forum to be created.

 

As I said in the OP, it was a general opinion based on gamer's expectations in general. It's generated a lot of discussion. I wasn't trying to WIN anything.

 

So then the question is why is it beyond your understanding that other people might just have an opinion that differs from yours? And how is your comment helpful to bridging that understanding?

 

This forum has gone through some interesting changes since Flight was released: In the first version of this forum, the general concensus was to disparage Flight. In the second version of this forum the general concensus was to disparage those who disparage flight. In the third version of this forum the concensus was to declare how great Flight is. And now we are in the fourth version of this forum where the concensus is to disparage those who do not agree that Flight is great.

 

You say: "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." In other words, other people who think differently and have differing expectations from your own are unreasonable. Isn't it time to move on? Why open old wounds? Why not spend more time enjoying your game and less time insulting people who don't?

My point was that if MS Flight had been created by (for instance) Aerosoft, I think 99,9% of the people who don't like Flight and are heavily disappointed, would not have posted about it. They simply would have ignored MS Flight. Just like they all ignore Aerofly FS. No heated discussions in that forum! So if you imagine MS Flight is from another dev, then nothing is lost. You still have FSX and maybe P3D. The disappointment ONLY comes from expectations which were wrong... or misleaded, as some say. After Aces was shut down no one expected something new to come. And indeed, nothing new came as far as FSX is concerned. Something ELSE came however and that was MS Flight.

 

Now I don't know if this is another way of saying 'Get over it' but it isn't meant that way. I just try to shows things from a different perspective. I know it is easy for me to talk because I always liked low and slow flying. I do own the PMDG 737NGX and loved flying it, but I love flying the RV-6A in Flight more... If you don't, I can understand it's frustrating. But when you look at it a bit objectively, nothing is really lost... apart from some hope and expectations, of course...

Hm, I doubt if this made you feel better... I don't think words can help here.

 

I get where you are coming from now, and it makes sense. Maybe I'm in a bit of a different boat because I was on FS hiatus when Aces was closed and the announcement of Flight was made. And yes, some of my disappointment does indeed come from the fact that I thought Flight was FSX's successor.

 

I actually prefer low and slow myself, but I still love flying of all types. For instance when I decided I wanted to get familiar with courchevel and the surrounding mountains, I actually downloaded the necessary airports and planes and liveries to make a "real world" trip from my home town USA to Courchevel, including GA planes I thought would be appropriate for renting/sightseeing while in Europe. Currently, I'm mastering the Constellation and am planning a round the world flight. This is a part of the reason why Aerosoft wasn't taken seriously and quickly disregarded, despite how amazing it looks it doesn't offer the depth FS can. And unfortunately, Flight is always going to suffer the same criticism (unless MS manages to build it out fully). No one told the critics of Aerosoft FS "well, you still have FS" because the criticism is valid and completely unrelated to FS.

 

I really don't mean to argue, and I understand your point now too. We just have different opinions. Please feel free to respond if you want, but I'm calling Truce!

for slow-speed VFR, I think it beats all previous Microsofts and X-plane (although I haven't tried the latest version). Again, just my opinion! Which sims are better for the price in your opinion?

 

It depends which price you consider, if the free base, with the two planes and one island, or the various DLC.

I saw nice videos of Aerofly FS, but did not directly tried yet. In this period I am also experimenting with X-Plane 10, and I am quite surprised by the level they reached (it's my first venture in the XP camp). Some days ago I found a video with a basic comparison between Flight, FSX and XP-10, just for slow and low fliying:

 

 

What do you think?

 

A.

So then the question is why is it beyond your understanding that other people might just have an opinion that differs from yours?

 

I don't see how you can make comments like this and then accuse me of being disparaging.

 

I made a statement in the OP and gave some reasons for it i.e. based on cost and development requirements, people's expectations for games are often unrealistic (note also the difference in wording between "unrealistic" and "unreasonable.")

 

Your response to this is that I'm not intelligent enough to understand that other people have differing opinions to my own.

 

Poor show.

 

It depends which price you consider, if the free base, with the two planes and one island, or the various DLC.

I saw nice videos of Aerofly FS, but did not directly tried yet. In this period I am also experimenting with X-Plane 10, and I am quite surprised by the level they reached (it's my first venture in the XP camp). Some days ago I found a video with a basic comparison between Flight, FSX and XP-10, just for slow and low fliying:

 

 

What do you think?

 

A.

 

Well, that's pretty impressive from X-Plane I have to admit (like I said I haven't tried it yet). Although I did notice one of sixty or seventy expertly rendered lorries just disappeared when leaving an exit ramp... shoddy (joking!)

 

What's the experience like from inside the cockpit? Does one need a mega-computer to get visuals like that? The external views win hands down, I won't disagree!

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 perhaps because sequels do not often live up to the original. For example: Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 2, and Civilization V. All 3 were lessor games (as in more mainstreamed) than the original versions. The same has happened with Flight, it was mainstreamed, and is in many ways a lessor flighsim. And, no matter how much MS tries to deny it, MS Flight is the sequel to FSX. So the two are (rightfully) going to be compared.

 

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.

I've made some pretty complex mods for games like Fallout 3, so I do have some knowledge about software, specifically game construction.

No one's forcing you to read this forum. If you aren't playing Flight, why are you here?

 

Also, I'm invoking a corollary of Godwin's Law: The first person to use the word "######" in an argument automatically loses.

 

Hook

 

Just because Flight isn't of interest to me doesn't mean I'm not interested in where Microsoft's current half-assed attempt is heading and whether they will ever return to making flight simulators.

 

And you can quote all the goofy made up "laws" that you like. I used to the term ###### because it seems to accurately describe a lot of the posts I've observed here. By ###### I mean someone who is fanatically devoted to the product and just can't seem to understand why others don't share their passion. If that's inaccurate, then propose another term for that type of poster rather than just citing some baloney rule and unilaterally declaring victory in an argument that doesn't actually exist.

I really don't mean to argue, and I understand your point now too. We just have different opinions. Please feel free to respond if you want, but I'm calling Truce!

 

:drinks:

 

It depends which price you consider, if the free base, with the two planes and one island, or the various DLC.

I saw nice videos of Aerofly FS, but did not directly tried yet. In this period I am also experimenting with X-Plane 10, and I am quite surprised by the level they reached (it's my first venture in the XP camp). Some days ago I found a video with a basic comparison between Flight, FSX and XP-10, just for slow and low fliying:

 

What do you think?

 

Interesting movie! My first thoughts: MS Flight and FSX look like a mess. But... I never fly THAT low unless I am landing. Secondly, X-Plane has by far the better highways (obviously) but the rest looks artificial and er... odd. I've never seen cities with so many roads and just a few houses here and there. Looks like an unfinished game of Simcity.

 

At a normal flying height imho X-Plane looks even more artifical and weird and not exacty varied, and there is where the 'mess' of Flight and FSX turns more into a realistic looking world.

 

Flight and FSX look pretty similar in this movie but on MY PC they don't, oddly enough. The trees look a lot better for instance. And so do the ground textures. WAY better even. Maybe it's because I am used to flying above forests and fields: in FSX I always stayed away from cities and I do the same in Flight, also because I don't like how the roads cut through houses and so on. I still don't like the cities in Flight, I have to say, unless flying pretty high, but everything else is so much better (shores, cliffs, fog, unless it's pixelated like it is on my PC right now ).

 

I'd like to see a similar movie flying above the bush! And with some nicer weather (clear skies aren't too interesting).

I have been a fairly active member of this forum since installing Flight and giving it a try back on March 5th.

I have to say, I have been big time impressed by how this Flight forum has turned out.

I thought I kept up with it pretty good, but danged if I see what you are referring to above. I see a lot of sharing of experiencing in Flight, along with the occassional hiccup which thankfully those have been just a few, and now even some users creating some challenges for others to try.

 

Perhaps the majority of the flight sim community is rejecting Flight - but I don't think anyone really cares at all - heck I am a member of the flight sim community I guess, have been doing it for several years, still have and love FSX.

Flight ain't for everyone just like FSX ain't for everyone.

 

But I do want to say how impressed I am on how this forum turned out , it has become the first of the day and the most visited forum on Avsim in my case.

 

Fair enough. I don't frequent this forum very often. Usually just poke in to see if MS has announced that they are cancelling Flight due to lack of revenue. But what I usually end up seeing are several threads basically complaining about people who don't like Flight and how they really should or that they expect too much. Maybe I've just hit the forum on bad days or something, but it seems like a pattern to me.

Well, that's pretty impressive from X-Plane I have to admit (like I said I haven't tried it yet). Although I did notice one of sixty or seventy expertly rendered lorries just disappeared when leaving an exit ramp... shoddy (joking!)

 

Because you didn't see what happens in the Vasco de Game bridge at Lisbon. I tried it yesterday, and the roads become similar to Trackmania

Jokes apart, the "plausible world" of XP-10 surely still needs work and bug hunt, but the idea is really interesting, it uses Open Streetmap, so in USA and Europe is quite precise, and it makes very easy to visually follow the terrain features while flying.

 

What's the experience like from inside the cockpit? Does one need a mega-computer to get visuals like that? The external views win hands down, I won't disagree!

 

Obviously it depends on the aircraft and the cockpit, but in the many cases the experience for me is very good. I don't have a mega PC, my system is a I2500K (not OC still) with Nvidia GTX 560 and 16 GB of RAM (under Win 7 64 bit), and after playing a bit with the rendering settings, the fluidity and fps are surely better than in my FSX (it's one of the things I most appreciate in XP indeed).

If you are interested you can try the demo, also to check the performances with your system..

 

A.

By ###### I mean someone who is fanatically devoted to the product and just can't seem to understand why others don't share their passion.

 

In that case I don't liked to be called a ######... I may be fanatically devoted, but I do understand that others don't share my views!

Interesting movie! My first thoughts: MS Flight and FSX look like a mess. But... I never fly THAT low unless I am landing. Secondly, X-Plane has by far the better highways (obviously) but the rest looks artificial and er... odd. I've never seen cities with so many roads and just a few houses here and there. Looks like an unfinished game of Simcity.

 

Yes, actually this similitude is quite typical about the standard depiction of cities by XP-10

The thing to understand is that the new model, the famous "plausible world" is quite precise concerning geographical features and roads, but it's still generic concerning buildings and landmarks.

But it seems that there are interesting possibilities. Yesterday I downloaded my first custom scenery, that of Paris by XPFR (freeware), and it is really spectacular, in particular with the wonderful night lighting of XP-10 (flying with an helicopter over the Pyramide du Louvre at night is quite stunning).

You can check some (old) images here:

 

http://xpfr.org/?bod..._accueil&sc=110

 

A.

I just like the fact that there is one place on the web that potential new users (and happy current users) can come and not be bombarded Half to death by the bitter negativity of those who expected cake and are unhappy with the pie.

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

Oh, we understand! Trust me, we do!

 

Too many people were expecting a new horse, but instead aren't at all happy with the really new unicorn that finally was delivered...

 

I'm quite happy with the unicorn myself, as I get tired of having to spend so much time currying and pampering the old horse.

I just like the fact that there is one place on the web that potential new users (and happy current users) can come and not be bombarded Half to death by the bitter negativity of those who expected cake and are unhappy with the pie.

 

everyone is so quick to blame the haters, when it was a lover that actually started this thread.

everyone is so quick to blame the haters, when it was a lover that actually started this thread.

 

"Everyone?" Be careful using absolutes, as they are rarely accurate. Better phrasing would have been "some" or possibly "a few"...