Are we talking about the same game?

[Guest]

What I am posting here is based on something I posted elsewhere already, but I think it's an interesting topic to discuss seperately.

 

Did Microsoft make a mistake when they decided to release te big island and the Stearman plus Icon for free? I think they did. I think a lot of the people, specially the simmers who don't like Flight, would have given it a more fair change if the free game had offered for instance Oahu and the Maule...!

 

I am reading more and more posts from people (not only on this forum) who say things like 'the game has opened up for me after buying the Adventure pack and the Maule'. It's pretty obvious that the sim part of the game only opens up when you have a plane that for instance can use VOR and ILS. The Maule also opens up a lot of missions and jobs! And the big island is big indeed but rather bare, boring and ugly too!

 

Obviously money-wise releasing some very good DLC isn't clever for a company, but I really think that MS would have had a lot less 'bad press', specially from simmers, if they had chosen other stuff to be released for free.

 

I am very enthusiastic about the DLC islands and the Maule and the RV-6A! I am not too excited (or not at all) about the big island and the Stearman (let alone the Icon). So when I said I love the game, I meant I love the DLC... and when someone said he doesn't like the game, quite often he or she was talking about the free stuff... and I can imagine someone not being too excited about that! So you could say we were almost talking about different games...!

 

I know a lot of people who did get the DLC still don't like the game but I am certain a lof of the people who are disappointed in Flight are disappointed in the free version only. Consider getting some DLC and give the game a proper try...!

[Asheroo 22]

I was very much like that before recently getting the Hawaiian Pack on Steam, however I knew there was more to come so instead of holding back again (as I did during the beta), I bought the DLC and have been having some fun. But the whole business model in the first place isn't really that great for Flight. The quality still isn't so top as it is in FSX add-ons (such as Orbx, Carenado, PMDG etc.), and that is what Microsoft seems to be competing against with Flight, particularly with its no third-party content in Flight (maybe this could change though way down track in the development). It is very much incomplete and many features, such as real-world weather, AI traffic, ATC, more planes etc. are missing (and who knows how long until these features are added, and if it will be DLC).

 

However, apart from that, Flight is great! I am loving the new engine. With FSX, I have my frames capped to 30FPS and when I go around city areas it's around 20, but in Flight, i get about 45-60FPS in most areas and dense areas drop to around 30-40, and it's mostly all smooth. But, is the DLC well priced? Judging by its quality compared to default FSX and all the FSX add ons, the $30 pack I got on Steam was probably a little overpriced, but it still is very much worth it. But once again, still a big shame though with the 'no 3rd party content' policy, otherwise this game would be so great, and Microsoft could then focus on core features.

 

Microsoft Flight to me is still a good simulation. Hawaii is beautifully simulated and the planes feel realistic and fly beautifully (despite missing some cockpit and plane simulation features, I hate the limited GPS in the Icon), however it is missing a lot at the moment. Will these missing parts be added (and which of them will be priced) are questions that probably won't be answered for some time. The future of this game depends all on Microsoft's decisions. But for now, I'm happy doing Hawaii GA in Microsoft Flight and all my other flying in Flight Simulator X with the numerous add ons I have.

[Paul Golding 92]

I can't help thinking you're probably right Jeroen. I haven't bought any DLC and also haven't even touched Flight for over 4 weeks now; instead I'm still trying to convince myself that XPX is the future.......I really want it to be, but find it very frustrating to use.

 

What I found interesting the other night on the Flightsim forums was that there were over 200 people viewing the FSX forum, only 10 the Flight forum and none the X-Plane forum. Not to sure what that says about the future of flightsims!

[Heimi 91]

I agree too.

I try to avoid flying on Big Island.

When i do jobs or free flight i prefer all other islands that came with the DLC and my preferred aircraft is the Maule, then RV-6 and the Icon. I don`t use Stearman and i wouldn`t buy cockpitless planes.

[jasonX 24]

Paul Golding[/color]' timestamp='1335519813' post='2352731']

What I found interesting the other night on the Flightsim forums was that there were over 200 people viewing the FSX forum, only 10 the Flight forum and none the X-Plane forum. Not to sure what that says about the future of flightsims!

 

And if you check out xplane.org there are sometimes more online there than the whole of avsim

[Voics 0]

I too downloaded Flight and despite its shortcomings liked it enough to want it to succeed. Supported it by purchasing the Maule and Hawaii DLC - not interested in warbirds or cockpitless aircraft of any kind thanks, but if they generate income for future development that's fine by me.

 

To answer the OP - no, I don't think they should have given away Hawaii... if all islands were included the huge download would become an obstacle in itself - and we'd have no refuge from the bumper-car kids. The Maule could and maybe should have been included in the free download - or at very least as part of the Hawaii DLC. The Maule and Hawaii pack need one another and separating them is real nickel & dime tactics. I don't begrudge Microsoft's right to make money, but considering what the Maule cost it really should have had:

• functional auto-pilot and all other switches/instruments, down to the stop watch
  
• some tutorials or at least an introductory mission
  
• more than two paint jobs
  
• even better than just re-paints would be different versions such as separate cargo/passenger variants, doorless variant with different dynamics, VFR only variant with nav instruments removed, etc.
  

The RV-6A was a bonus, fair enough although it should still be built to the same standard. Why no functional fuel switch and trim controls modelled in the cockpit, despite the fuel switch being visible? Why not a larger variety of jobs? It does at least come with a few more skins and an introductory mission, unlike the Maule.

 

Unless future deluxe aircraft provide a lot more for the money I will think long and hard before buying - and t would be nice if the Flight team patched some of the above things free of charge on the existing planes, although I'm not holding my breath.

[RoboRay 126]

I think if the free download was "Oahu, the Stearman and the Maule" it would have been much more interesting to people already familiar with aviation, either from simming or real-world experience. It would also be more interesting to the general populace, as it's the island non-residents tend to be the most familiar with already.

 

But I'm sure the island choice was for marketing... Offering "Hawaii" makes most people think you're getting the state of Hawaii, not the island of Hawaii. Even in Hawaii, the island is almost never referred to as "Hawaii", it's just "The Big Island."

 

And holding back the only plane capable of performing most jobs is just too tempting as a paid DLC hook... unless you fail to hook people to begin with.

 

As to the Icon, yes, I'd have bought it as DLC simply for being the only (current) amphibian. I've flown out of the Honolulu Airport Lagoon once in real life, love planes capable of water operations. I wouldn't have paid Maule prices for it, but I'd have considered $10 or maybe $12.

[Guest]

I can't help thinking you're probably right Jeroen. I haven't bought any DLC and also haven't even touched Flight for over 4 weeks now; instead I'm still trying to convince myself that XPX is the future.......I really want it to be, but find it very frustrating to use.

 

What I found interesting the other night on the Flightsim forums was that there were over 200 people viewing the FSX forum, only 10 the Flight forum and none the X-Plane forum. Not to sure what that says about the future of flightsims!

 

How comes you forum nick is orange painted ?

[jasonX 24]

Gold actually cos his name is golding ;)

 

(commercial member I think)

[Paul Golding 92]

And if you check out xplane.org there are sometimes more online there than the whole of avsim

 

I guess old habbits die hard, but yes, I suppose if I want XPX to be the future, I should spend more time in the correct forums because not much seems to happen here (and even less at Flightsim.com).

 

How comes you forum nick is orange painted ?

 

I like orange :-)

 

As Jason said, it's so you can see commercial members and maybe spot any bias in their comments.

[Sigma54 0]

But the whole business model in the first place isn't really that great for Flight.

 

That depends on your point of view. For FSX and previous simulators, Microsoft got a one time payment from users - now that they are building a game that is more 'software-as-a-service' (SOA), they are aiming for smaller but more frequent chances to make some income. For example, I bought FSX a few weeks ago for $50 CDN. I spent $30 for the Steam Bundle. When Alaska comes out, assuming it and it's plane's cost $20+, they will have brought in more income from me on Flight then on FSX (and that's not counting anything after Alaska...)

 

• functional auto-pilot and all other switches/instruments, down to the stop watch
  
• some tutorials or at least an introductory mission
  
• more than two paint jobs
  
• even better than just re-paints would be different versions such as separate cargo/passenger variants, doorless variant with different dynamics, VFR only variant with nav instruments removed, etc.
  

 

These things would be great... especially the tutorial or intro session for new aircraft and the auto-pilot for aircraft like the Maule.

[GHarrall 494]

And if you check out xplane.org there are sometimes more online there than the whole of avsim

 

You only have to look at the 3rd party addon market to see which platform is the most popular so that statement would make zero sense to me. Im not saying its not true, just a little odd.

[Guest Antlab]

I guess old habbits die hard, but yes, I suppose if I want XPX to be the future, I should spend more time in the correct forums because not much seems to happen here (and even less at Flightsim.com).

 

Maybe it's not particularly elegant talking about the question here, but however...

After several years with MSFS+addons, and dubious about the Flight future, I recently tried and purchased for the first time X-Plane (10).

To find information about the new world I started to browse this forum and others, and I discovered that practically the two communities (MSFS and XP) are separated. That is, there are some forums, as AVSIM and Flightsim, where FS dominates and XP is almost non-existant (you have to read the position of the Flightsim moderator about XP to understand some of the reasons ).

And there are some forums (as the .org, and others that I don't cite for correctness) with a lot of XP experts and beginners that participate.

I still have to find a single forum where both the platform are well represented, so to be informed about the respective situations you surely have to use more than one or two sources.

 

A.

[David_McMahon 0]

I got the XPX demo, but it really bugs me I can't have "toggle" switches for my Joystick, everything has to have a separate button( so I need two buttons to operate the gear, FSX, Flight can toggle), small thing but annoying!

[enamel 4]

If all I played was the Icon on the Big Island, I would have the same view that so many hold. It is clear many people haven't scratched the surface of Flight based on the posts made here.

 

Thankfully once I bought the rest of the islands and flew the RV and the Maule, I found a game with much more depth and richness in almost every way, the fidelity of the flight models, the challenges and jobs, and the islands themselves.

 

To me it seems like the free content was purposefully simplified, and the game would have gone over better with simmers had there been some "advanced" content in the free product.