to something else?

 

To me, Flight seems to have stalled. Impressive start but poor follow-up. No desiirable DLC for ages. No idea where the game is going.

 

I personally have almost, but not quite, lost interest in Flight. The quality is good but the content is slow, slow, slow. Where to from here?

Hello

If Alaska is successful then it may struggle on a bit longer, if not then its game over.

Think about the costs involved, 50 Devs wages plus all of the associated support functions to pay for from DLC sales only.

If it continues to pays the bills then it might slip under the bean counters radar, FSX sold a lot of boxes and they still shut ACES down.

Perhaps a stepping stone to FSX for those that want a complete sim.

Flight seems to have stalled

 

nice pun - good to "see" you, Trevor! how's life down under?

 

I haven't had a lot of time for Flight lately - changed jobs, house projects, getting my taildragger checkout. The time I do have for computerized flying I've been spending in FS9, trying to control a helicopter - a new challenge for me.

 

and I think THAT is what you're alluding to - lack of challenge in Flight - or should I say new challenges? I love Flight, closest thing I know to actual low and slow...heck, give me a helicopter as DLC, and I'll be happy in Hawaii for quite a while!

 

starting to ramble - I think Alaska (and the associated aircraft) will be the indicator as to Flight continuing or doing the four basics (stall, spin, crash, and burn). I do NOT feel it is a stepping stone - it will either thrive or die on it's own merits...

to something else?

 

To me, Flight seems to have stalled. Impressive start but poor follow-up. No desiirable DLC for ages. No idea where the game is going.

 

I personally have almost, but not quite, lost interest in Flight. The quality is good but the content is slow, slow, slow. Where to from here?

 

Flight released on Feb 29 .... I would hardly call it ages. Be patient young lad!

 

Flight released on Feb 29 .... I would hardly call it ages. Be patient young lad!

 

No, I have to disagree. The entire premise of Flight is that it will be continuously refreshed and expanded by new DLC.

 

And yet, since the day it launched, there has been essentially no new DLC. Yes, they have released DLC, but it has been 100% rehashes of the one half-assed, least desirable and simultaneously most useless of the launch DLC.

 

That was not well planned, as it reinforces the worst perceptions of Flight while offering absolutely nothing to enhance it.

 

The three months after a game launches is the most critical time for it to shine, as that is the period during which it will receive published reviews, as well as attention from potential customers checking out the "new kid on the block".

 

Microsoft p####d that vital "first impressions" window away through "marketing brilliance". Once somebody takes a look at something and discards it, they rarely pick it up again later for another evaluation.

 

By the time Alaska is released, Flight will be "last winter's news."

 

Well, for me FLIGHT is .... FLIGHT - period!

 

Either we like it, or we don't... either we accept their strategy and feel fine with it because the game / simulator gives us whet we want / like / need or we don't...

 

After being away from flight simulation for quite a while, after having tried to get back to FSX, tested Perpar3d, Xplane10... even after having restarted playing Condorsoaring, FLIGHT ended up dominating and it's now, together with ELITE v8, the only simulator/game I play (well, I never played other games apart from flight simulators). Just recently I considered Aerofly FS and DCS p-51. I am glad I didn't buy either. not because they aren't great sims/games but rather because I am sure I would rapidly get bored playing them, and I'd rather save my bucks for FLIGHT DLCs...

 

I still start ELITE, of course, but strangeley I never played Condor anymore, and I am a glider pilot! FLIGHT simply gives me a sensation no other simulator ever gave.

 

FLIGHT offers me exactly what I want - the most true to real sensation of being there, now enhnaced by the offer I received yesterday (Saitek x52 Pro, making quite a difference from the Cyborg X I had bought when I installed FLIGHT). FLIGHT is smooothness, easy use, great scenery/weather/graphics overall, very credible physics model.

 

I really couldn't ask for more.

 

As far as the DLC pace goes, for me it's ok. Of course I am looking fwd for Alaska, but I am almost sure it'll make FLIGHT just an even better flightsim game :-)

Well, for me FLIGHT is .... FLIGHT - period!

 

Either we like it, or we don't... either we accept their strategy and feel fine with it because the game / simulator gives us whet we want / like / need or we don't...

 

Not at all. It's not that simple. I like many parts of Flight, nearly everything that is included in it, actually. Yet, I don't agree with all of their strategy. But I do like parts of it.

 

Unlike American politics, we are not restricted to choosing between two extreme opposite positions.

 

(I will be voting for Kodos, by the way.)

As far as the DLC pace goes, for me it's ok. Of course I am looking fwd for Alaska, but I am almost sure it'll make FLIGHT just an even better flightsim game :-)

 

Agreed. A little patience goes a long way. Imagine somebody coming upon Flight for the first time a few months from now. They'll have a lot more choices than we've had available in such a short time frame.

 

My chief complaint about Flight is the cockpit-less warbirds. I think if they'd had VC's, it would have forestalled the vast majority of complaints (my own included). But Alaska shows promise, and I'm still cautiously optimistic about it.

Could have quoted many parts of foregoing posts that I agree with, both pro and con. I've flown MS FS for decades, up through FSX. Have flown X-Plane 9 and 10. Still enjoy Flight for pure fun. I have only half of the Flight achievements unlocked, so I can wait for Alaska.

No, I have to disagree. The entire premise of Flight is that it will be continuously refreshed and expanded by new DLC.

 

And yet, since the day it launched, there has been essentially no new DLC. Yes, they have released DLC, but it has been 100% rehashes of the one half-assed, least desirable and simultaneously most useless of the launch DLC.

 

I couldn't agree more.!

 

 

I had got bored with FS9/X ages ago but still kept track of things and when FLIGHT came out it got me back into simming. (for a while)

I loved it to start with and could see the massive potential and the fact it was a kind of back to basics approach, what with the limited areas and aircraft, actually made me more enthusiastic about it.

 

Now after viewing this thread I had to check when I had last fired up FLIGHT.

 

 

Microsoft Flight

 

LAST PLAYED 06/04/2012

This is purely down to the fact I had got bored with the content and the novelty wore off. I'm not interested in warbirds, let alone cockpitless warbirds and I'm not into those aerocache things either.

I was hoping that I could follow whatever journey FLIGHT was going on but if that journey is going to be in 3 month steps then I'm not sure I can keep up with it.

I loved it to start with and could see the massive potential and the fact it was a kind of back to basics approach, what with the limited areas and aircraft, actually made me more enthusiastic about it.

 

The "back to basics" approach is one thing I really like... presuming it is the prelude to ramping up the complexity in a logical progression.

 

The basics of aviation seemed to get lost in MSFS over the last few editions, leading to some "hard core simmers" today that simply don't know how to operate or navigate an aircraft that lacks advanced automated systems.

 

Sure, put them in a jetliner with a GPS-linked AFCS, and they can set it up to fly them to anywhere in the world and autoland via ILS. But toss them out over the ocean just beyond sight of land with nothing but a VOR or ADF receiver and a sectional chart, and they are lost. Give them some dense fog and an ILS frequency, and they don't know what to do without an autopilot to fly the approach for them.

 

Don't say I'm exaggerating, because these are not hypothetical examples.

 

I've already seen some serious simmers become more capable pilots and navigators in Flight. I love the impact it's having on improving the knowledge and skill levels of people, not to mention growing their interest in aviation. If that is all Flight ever accomplishes, I will still consider it a success.

 

But it could be so much more, if Microsoft's marketing weenies would just get out of the way of the people there that actually make the magic happen.

 

The "back to basics" approach is one thing I really like... presuming it is the prelude to ramping up the complexity in a logical progression.

 

The basics of aviation seemed to get lost in MSFS over the last few editions, leading to some "hard core simmers" today that simply don't know how to operate or navigate an aircraft that lacks advanced automated systems.

 

Sure, put them in a jetliner with a GPS-linked AFCS, and they can set it up to fly them to anywhere in the world and autoland via ILS. But toss them out over the ocean just beyond sight of land with nothing but a VOR or ADF receiver and a sectional chart, and they are lost. Give them some dense fog and an ILS frequency, and they don't know what to do without an autopilot to fly the approach for them.

 

Don't say I'm exaggerating, because these are not hypothetical examples.

 

I've already seen some serious simmers become more capable pilots and navigators in Flight. I love the impact it's having on improving the knowledge and skill levels of people, not to mention growing their interest in aviation. If that is all Flight ever accomplishes, I will still consider it a success.

 

But it could be so much more, if Microsoft's marketing weenies would just get out of the way of the people there that actually make the magic happen.

 

 

What make you think that all predecessors of Flight - have not contributed to improve skills levels ??

This is look like to me a MS propaganda - Flight fabricate better skills when all others sims available out there are exactly capalable of 'brush up' or indeed improve / teach skills.

 

It is up to you - how much / what and how to learn - all sims out there offer this potential.

 

 

What make you think that all predecessors of Flight - have not contributed to improve skills levels ??

 

I said nothing remotely like that.

 

It is up to you - how much / what and how to learn - all sims out there offer this potential.

 

Indeed. And many new users jump right to the "advanced" methods because they are easier, bypassing the more challenging but still quite important basics. That's their choice, but it does make it amusing when the guy who is so proud of his 737 systems-management skills turns out to be incapable of operating the same plane when you turn off the flight director and moving map.

 

Speaking from the perspective of someone involved in training of aircrew and ground personnel for many years, the current limitations of Flight have had a positive effect in encouraging people to go back and learn things they never felt the need to bother with before.

 

Hopefully, things won't stay so simple for long, though.

 

to something else?

 

Feels like a cul-de-sac to me. Under the old "open" platform, we'd have considerably more 3rd-party content by now.

 

The problem with MGS and Mr Howard's "data-driven" approach is that it is destined to follow and not lead. As they play to bread and circus, they will only achieve the lowest-common-denominator, which is their stated aim for the title anyhow. Thus, they have arrived, and will orbit, in the cul-de-sac.