MS just need to license or charge royalties to create for the software, keep it to a few Tier 1 outfits!

 

I don't know the terms MS has discussed with them, but I understand many of the 3PDs were not amused.

 

Hopefully, they'll be able to reach an agreement. I'd be fine with MS assuming a gatekeeper role and collecting tolls on DLC transactions.

 

I don't know the terms MS has discussed with them, but I understand many of the 3PDs were not amused.

 

Hopefully, they'll be able to reach an agreement. I'd be fine with MS assuming a gatekeeper role and collecting tolls on DLC transactions.

 

Or... MS could buy all the 3PD's in an afternoon!

Or... MS could buy all the 3PD's in an afternoon!

 

Or do the standard MS thing and undercut them to run them out of business.

Have to undercut them with at least an equal product. So far, they haven't managed to match the quality, so the 3PDs have a loyal fan base. That said, there is a processing capability requirement trade off, so it's not quite apples for apples anyway.

 

But back on topic - much more than Hawaii is likely to frustrate those who are trying to remain positive (unless there is an excellent aircraft in there - a subjective thing at the best of times), and may turn off those who are ambivalent or worse. Those who are endlessly positive will buy it anyway - to a point.

 

Ray is right - there should not have been this long a gap. I'm hoping that the next couple of a/cs after the F4U will be equally at home in Hawaii as Alaska so that it might reawaken the interest there.

 

Mike

I hope Alaska will cost about the same as Hawaii. Not because I don't have the money for more expensive DLC but because more expensive DLC will be passed on by the masses. I already noticed a lot of people (new to flight simming) think 7 bucks for one plane is already crazy... And when Alaska will be passed on by the masses, the future of Flight is starting to look grim.

 

MS will never (only) target the diehard simmers, as some here are still hoping. Wake up, guys. Some people posted about 3PD's still being around and even thriving, but what it thriving for some 3PD's (how much are thriving really?) is absolutely nothing and worthless to MS. They are in it for the big money, not the few bucks those 'thriving' 3PD's are making right now. Just look at how many people actually work at a random 3PD company and compare that to the MS Flight crew. Incomparable. So forget about 'diehard' and what not: it won't happen.

 

Personally I won't mind paying (a lot) more then 20 to 25 dollars for Alaska, even if it does NOT have a (great) plane. I love the Maule and the RV-6A and I would be happy for a few months with a region the size of Alaska. I've been (rather) happy with Hawaii for a few months now, so Alaska will only make me more happy. But again, if Alaska fails, we all have to fear for the future of Flight. And even though I am sure I will be happy with Alaska for a few months, it will take more to keep me entertained for longer.

 

I also agree with the statement that MS made a mistake by waiting so long with new quality DLC. I've said it numerous times already but I also expected the market to be flooded with DLC right after the release of Flight. It could well be that 'the masses' already left Flight behind. No problem for me (I can enjoy a game even if no one else plays it ) but it may well be a problem for the future.

 

But well, since MS refuses to give us any information (another very bad decision) we can only guess at what will hapen. Only time will tell...

I hope Alaska will cost about the same as Hawaii. Not because I don't have the money for more expensive DLC but because more expensive DLC will be passed on by the masses. I already noticed a lot of people (new to flight simming) think 7 bucks for one plane is already crazy... And when Alaska will be passed on by the masses, the future of Flight is starting to look grim.

 

MS will never (only) target the diehard simmers, as some here are still hoping. ...

 

..............

 

It could well be that 'the masses' already left Flight behind. No problem for me (I can enjoy a game even if no one else plays it ) but it may well be a problem for the future.

 

...

 

I hope too that it will also not more then 19$ incl. 2 cockpit planes.

Anyway i think any DLC for Flight is too expensive. If it just had the functionalty of FSX(I) it would be ok. But it`s just a trimmed FSX with minor enhancements. And of course 3rd Party Add-On`s for any FlightSimGame have more quality and content then the DLC in Flight.

 

And yes 7 Bucks for a cockpitless plane is way too much.

You get 5 cars incl. cockpit for 5 Bucks for Dirt3!!! And they gave also free DLC!

 

 

I think they made a false estimation regarding the target audience. It`s too boring for casual gamers, just good enough for 2-3 hours, and sadly too less content and functionality for Simmers.

 

As many of you here, i`m in between.

I like Flight because i can fly in a few seconds without buying Add-On`s for hundreds or thousands of $(€) and without tweaking the cfg until it runs smooth.

I still have hope but i think the MS managers made the wrong decision in any direction.

I hope Alaska will cost about the same as Hawaii. Not because I don't have the money for more expensive DLC but because more expensive DLC will be passed on by the masses. I already noticed a lot of people (new to flight simming) think 7 bucks for one plane is already crazy...

<snip>

Personally I won't mind paying (a lot) more then 20 to 25 dollars for Alaska, even if it does NOT have a (great) plane.

 

Nor would I. I would happily pay $40 if Alaska is detailed as well as Hawaii, even without a plane, especially if at that time MS implements some of the improvements we have been suggesting.

 

But MS' target audience certainly will not pay that price. The old adage "Be careful what you wish for" comes to mind.

Yes, I'm planning to get Alaska too, but I do believe it'll bring us new airplanes....

To save for it I will skip the next cockpitless Corsair :-( though....

 

One of these days, looking at the "standard.XML" controls file, I even got the idea that these setting will probably change because right now there is no place in the configurations for multi-engine aircraft.

 

Probably each more complex DLC will add the necessary config files (?)

Yes, I'm planning to get Alaska too, but I do believe it'll bring us new airplanes....

To save for it I will skip the next cockpitless Corsair :-( though....

 

One of these days, looking at the "standard.XML" controls file, I even got the idea that these setting will probably change because right now there is no place in the configurations for multi-engine aircraft.

 

Probably each more complex DLC will add the necessary config files (?)

 

I would wager that the multi-engine control settings are already in the code, just not referenced yet in the config or setup menus because, as you note, they are not yet needed. We've found a number of undocumented commands and settings already.

hehe... Jeroen, we're on opposite sides of the fence on this one. I'd be happier if Flight grew up in Hawaii before expanding, and you'd rather it expanded with what it has. To clarify, by growing up I mean:

Get the atmospheric details closer. They won't put off the people that won't notice they're even there - you can spot them; they use a downwind runway in a taildragger, so different temps, pressures, dew points etc are subtleties that will lost on them (until the dew point drops below the ambient temp and it suddenly gets grey... :help: ).

Tidy up the loose ends of the A/C we have - OAT gauges, EGT gauge, APs.

So many types of A/Cs fly around Hawaii that there are plenty of choices, up to and including liners. A 'basic' level 737 or DC9 would be as per the previous defaults. Deluxe, well...

Get some AI traffic. Even if it's just GA bumbling around in RVs and Maules for a start. Make it instant crash for anyone who flies into them to reduce the idiot (sorry, I don't have another word for it) factor.

Start some ATC building blocks in place. Doesn't have to be clearance to SID to STAR to shutdown to start with - VFR would do. That won't stop people flying IFR plans.

Then the foundation is there. I'd hate to think that some of this would go in the too hard basket later because it becomes too hard to implement on a wider scale.

 

I hope you're wrong about the third parties. They are able to innovate and push boundaries like no corporation can risk (or visionary manager justify upwards) doing. And that would be far easier along side MS than after the platform development is 'closed' (for want of a better word). Ten more people working on it is still ten more people (an extra 20% if the 50 number is right). And it's not just the 'diehards' that benefit.

Sorry... wandering off topic.

http://en.wikipedia....onsensus_effect

 

 

 

Hook

 

Great Google!

 

Stan

I agree, the fact that so many add-on companies for FSX seem to be not only surviving some 6 years after release, but thriving, seems to suggest Microsoft could certainly make money in an FX11 direction given good management.

 

I also agree with you guys

hehe... Jeroen, we're on opposite sides of the fence on this one. I'd be happier if Flight grew up in Hawaii before expanding, and you'd rather it expanded with what it has. To clarify, by growing up I mean:

Get the atmospheric details closer. They won't put off the people that won't notice they're even there - you can spot them; they use a downwind runway in a taildragger, so different temps, pressures, dew points etc are subtleties that will lost on them (until the dew point drops below the ambient temp and it suddenly gets grey... :help: ).

Tidy up the loose ends of the A/C we have - OAT gauges, EGT gauge, APs.

So many types of A/Cs fly around Hawaii that there are plenty of choices, up to and including liners. A 'basic' level 737 or DC9 would be as per the previous defaults. Deluxe, well...

Get some AI traffic. Even if it's just GA bumbling around in RVs and Maules for a start. Make it instant crash for anyone who flies into them to reduce the idiot (sorry, I don't have another word for it) factor.

Start some ATC building blocks in place. Doesn't have to be clearance to SID to STAR to shutdown to start with - VFR would do. That won't stop people flying IFR plans.

Then the foundation is there. I'd hate to think that some of this would go in the too hard basket later because it becomes too hard to implement on a wider scale.

 

I hope you're wrong about the third parties. They are able to innovate and push boundaries like no corporation can risk (or visionary manager justify upwards) doing. And that would be far easier along side MS than after the platform development is 'closed' (for want of a better word). Ten more people working on it is still ten more people (an extra 20% if the 50 number is right). And it's not just the 'diehards' that benefit.

Sorry... wandering off topic.

 

I kinda hate to say it... but in my observation of the people I see in multiplayer, the vast overwhelming majority of them could not care less about those things...

 

They're interested in being fliers... not pilots.

We've found a number of undocumented commands and settings already.

 

Is their information on this or banned on this forum, I like to read the details

No, it's not banned, but there's no comprehensive list, either. Several of them are mentioned in threads in the Tutorials section, though.

 

Off the top of my head, we've found config file commands to adjust the default camera positions (origin and viewing angles), trim commands for the ailerons and rudder, and I'm sure some other things that I don't recall right now. I remember the trim and camera ones mainly because I found a couple of them myself.

 

There are also some undocumented UI settings in the config files that we've figured out, to do things like turn off the yellow Destination Marker in Missions or Jobs.

 

Let me see if I can find links to the right threads for you...

 

 

EDIT:

 

Camera adjustments for zoom level, along with position and viewing angle.

 

Trim tab controls. Note: The formatting in this thread has been screwed up, it looks like. Not sure why. All my example lines are now running together, when they used to be separate lines.

 

There's more out there, I'm sure. Maybe somebody else can add others I've missed.