Hello Al

Most here will end up buying the P-40, they did with the Zero and so the direction MS has taken with Flight! is once again shown to be the correct one.

Flight! is really successful at this point with an audience far larger than FSX simply because MS got it right.

 

The world really wanted an easy flying game rather than a simulation and they are delivering exactly that, Whatever sells best will be the direction and the guys here will keep on buying them.

 

That is probably true to a large extent, but to some extent one has to consider that in a situation where there is only one thing in a shop, then that is all that people can buy from that shop. I suspect this is at least partially to do with why such things will sell, the point being that if one wanted to fly any of the aeroplanes in Flight from a tail chase view, then that option is there, but the fact that people have been shifting the camera point back on the P-51 in order to get some kind of pilot viewpoint at least indicates to me that MS would sell more if they plonked a cockpit in the things.

 

As I've said before, I heartily welcome the attempt from MS to widen the appeal of flight sims, I really do; I just don't think they have to throw the baby out with the bathwater in order to achieve that. Widening the appeal to one group is fine of course, but narrowing that appeal to another group seems shortsighted when it could easily appeal to both camps.

 

Al

Hello Al

Most here will end up buying the P-40, they did with the Zero and so the direction MS has taken with Flight! is once again shown to be the correct one.

Flight! is really successful at this point with an audience far larger than FSX simply because MS got it right.

 

The world really wanted an easy flying game rather than a simulation and they are delivering exactly that, Whatever sells best will be the direction and the guys here will keep on buying them.

 

It would be interesting to see the actual sales numbers for these cockpitless aircraft versus the number of people who have bought into MSFlight, but I am afraid you may be right, this is the direction MS has chosen and it seems to be working for them. Time will tell though.

I have no problem with a cockpitless airplane. Do I prefer a cockpit? sure! I love the A2A Accusim P-40. But I believe, MS Flight is catering to a totally different genre of players. That doesn't mean they will never have extreme detailed aircraft. The Maule and the RV-6A are very good detailed aircraft.

 

I love the P-40's and am glad to see them included in MS Flight. I live just 5 miles from Chino Planes of Fame. I see warbirds, including the P-40 and Zero flying over my house continually. I'm not complaining.

 

Here are my shots of the P-40B at Chino Planes of Fame. Note the P-40E in the background.

 

 

 

and the only authentic Zero.

Widening the appeal to one group is fine of course, but narrowing that appeal to another group seems shortsighted when it could easily appeal to both camps.

 

Hell Al

I agree but as we now know, something changed with MS's approach to Flight! around the time the release date was brought forward.

At that moment the intention to include both camps seemingly went out of the window.

Everything since then points to the fact that the scope of the project was scaled back.

Maybe if MS see enough revenue being generated that scope may open up again and Flight! may become more of a simulator.

If not then I can see MS just keeping the project going for another year then dropping it.

 

Still folks generally seem happy with these aircraft and that is what really matters.

I believe cockpitless models are certainly easier to build, and are cheaper, they sell well, they help supporting their efforts on much more detailled DLCs, like ALASKA will certainly be...

 

Having said that, I am really enjoying both the p51 and am6, and looking fwd for the p40 :-)

Hello

But you did......"You're certainly not speaking for me nor a lot of others. ."

 

You seem confused. I didn't make any claims about what other people will buy in the future. That was just you.

Your feeling is not clear. Could you please elaborate it further maybe adding an appropriate adjective ?

 

Even if I'm clearly not a mothertongue let me suggest you a few : frustrated, disappointed, angry, without a cockpit.

 

LOL If I had to pick one it would be disappointed. Sometimes it's a bit frustrating, but whenever I start up Flight and go flying... I am happy again. When I am posting on this forum while I am away from my Flight PC, I often post negative things, but when I am posting on this forum while I am behind my Flight PC, I usually post positive things LOL.

Hello

And you are certainly not speaking for the huge amount of happy folk buying these aircraft.

If these aircraft were not hugely popular MS would not release them, the true market for Flight! sees little interest in sitting in a cockpit just as it has little interest in aviation in general.

They want FUN and MS are giving it to them.

 

That's not true. Even MS has admitted (on the beta forums) that these releases have been planned an scheduled for months before Flight was released. They take a lot of time to develop. The release of this P-40 says absolutely nothing of the popularity of the no-VC DLC. This P-40 would have been released even if the P-51 and Zero had zero sales.

WWII single engine aircraft without cockpits are to Microsoft what reality shows are to television.

 

They're quick and cheap to make so you don't need a lot of viewers to make a profit. And if you do get a lot of viewers, you make a LOT of profit with little upfront risk.

 

You may be hoping for the next Lost. But you're more likely to get "The Real Housewives of Hawaii".

WWII single engine aircraft without cockpits are to Microsoft what reality shows are to television.

They're quick and cheap to make so you don't need a lot of viewers to make a profit. And if you do get a lot of viewers, you make a LOT of profit with little upfront risk.

You may be hoping for the next Lost. But you're more likely to get "The Real Housewives of Hawaii".

 

Good comparison. You catched the basic philosophy behind the Flight project, at least for what we can see up to now and for the declared plans.

 

A.

WWII single engine aircraft without cockpits are to Microsoft what reality shows are to television.

 

They're quick and cheap to make so you don't need a lot of viewers to make a profit. And if you do get a lot of viewers, you make a LOT of profit with little upfront risk.

 

You may be hoping for the next Lost. But you're more likely to get "The Real Housewives of Hawaii".

 

I agree completely. I just don't understand why people think this is a bad thing.

 

Sure, a lot of us have no interest in the basic planes. But they're helping to fund development of the things we do have interest in.

 

We're supposed to get a new area 3 to 4 times a year. New areas are likely to come with deluxe planes, with basic planes every month to fill in the gaps. I have no problems with having a few months between the new areas; that's just how the subscription model works. I don't need to buy the filler products.

 

FSX was just the main program plus 2 service packs and that was it. If SP2 broke anything (and it seems to have broken a lot) then you're just out of luck. Flight won't have that problem, as there will be fixes and enhancements as long as people are willing to buy DLC. Flight isn't complete now, but it will become more complete with time.

 

Hook

FSX was just the main program plus 2 service packs and that was it. If SP2 broke anything (and it seems to have broken a lot) then you're just out of luck. Flight won't have that problem, as there will be fixes and enhancements as long as people are willing to buy DLC. Flight isn't complete now, but it will become more complete with time.

 

+1

FSX was just the main program plus 2 service packs and that was it. If SP2 broke anything (and it seems to have broken a lot) then you're just out of luck. Flight won't have that problem, as there will be fixes and enhancements as long as people are willing to buy DLC. Flight isn't complete now, but it will become more complete with time.

 

This is your point of view.

Another possible interpretation is very different. FSX was already at start a much more robust product, there is really no comparison, considering the number of planes (with cockpit), the whole world against some little islands, the much varied missions, the learning center, and the advanced features as ATC, AI and so on.

On the top of that, being completely open to third-party developers, FSX has always been much more than only the base, and actually stiil at present there are a lot of addons producers, in every possible sector, from planes to scenery, to AI, to other missions and other.

So you can surely affirm to find Flight fun, but comparing its modest content, also with the future plan described by Howard, with the richness of the FSX system seems really silly.

 

A.

Flight isn't complete now, but it will become more complete with time.

 

Complete with what ???????

 

Default looking scenery ???? Cockpitless aircrafts - - very likely you are about to get the next one very very soon !!

 

No real weather - No Atc - and an empty world voided of anything moving other than yourself ??

 

you call that be a complete simulation platform ??

 

not to mention the lack of different styles of addons - other than MS stamp !!!!

 

No Way !!! I would say - the more time it goes the more sterile it become !!

 

enjoy hawaii !!! as you been there for a very very long vacation already !!

Flight! is really successful at this point with an audience far larger than FSX simply because MS got it right.

 

what??? source please