Well, sure, if you toss out enough false analogies, count a few things twice by slipping them into multiple categories and put in enough marketing spin, you can make anything look like the best thing since sliced bread.

 

I really don't think Flight is a stepping stone. I am confident that Flight will be the future of flight simulation.

Microsoft missed the boat on Flight as they launched too soon with too little content. I like the concept and I love the game play but frankly, three planes with cockpits, limited missions, and a small area of the world to play with gets old really quickly. The big thing about DLC games is, well, DLC and flight is sadly lacking. I am now so frustrated that I have purchased FSX Gold just so I can fly where I want in what I want.

 

If the purpose of Flight is to appeal to console gamers then Microsoft has succeeded but at the expense of alienating FSX players and other hardcore flight sim players. I think the last thing Microsoft wants to hear is someone moving from Flight to FSX but until they give me a good reason, my money is going into FSX.

Well nothing was double counted in my post and as for misleading marketing I would love to see a single link to back that up. As for the FSX people who hate Flight MS can't do anything for you.

 

I have a few games I have purchased I absolutely hated and I didn't waste my breath crying over them in forums.They got boxed up and put away or sold.

Well nothing was double counted in my post

 

Sure it was. You added everything up individually, then you put the bundle packs in the middle of the DLC list, so the bundle contents were up twice in your list. Heck, the Mustang was up there three times because you counted it as a warbird, part of a bundle, AND as a "free DLC plane.

 

and as for misleading marketing I would love to see a single link to back that up.

 

Spin. You left out the key word, spin. And not Microsoft's spin, your creative counting spin, perhaps unintentional, above.

 

As for the FSX people who hate Flight MS can't do anything for you.

 

Thanks for the laughs.

 

(You really should read a forum a little bit before making a statement like that. But, welcome to AVSIM!)

 

My original post said "Is Flight Just a Stepping Stone?"

 

I think that what I was getting at is that Flight, for what it is worth, is crafted to be better than anything we have seen before but is so short on content that, at this stage, it is little more than a flying game. Every other virsion has been published as a complete sim, open to improvement by 3Pds yes, but in essence everything is there. Whereas Flight is like just a teaser of what could be the best sim ever. Not necessary whole world but definitely all aspects of the flying experience needs to be included i.e everything that has been listed as requirements by the potential users. Perhaps Flight will achieve this over time but, if not, maybe other devs will use Flight as a stepping stone to something that will satisfy all of our requirements.

I believe I have expressed this idea before, but I really just read accross Joshua Howard's interview yesterday, and found out that he was a "foreigner" to flight simulation games when envited to manage the MS FLIGHT Team.

 

One of the major aspects that their marketing strategy has induced probably on many users who, just like me, in the past have invested huge amounts of money/time on their hobby is some sort of anti-addictive control.

 

I understand those who spend hours in front of a PC playing airliner jobs, to the detail of fully programming their FMCs and following RL procedures, or even interacting with extremely "professional" ATC networks. FSX and some of it's best add-ons shine in providing such an experience, but for most the fact is that the time spent on such activities can easily become limitative in our lives, constraining our relationships, professional lives, etc..., not to talk about the stress of continuously waiting for the next add-on, buying it, trying it and soon aim for the next, just like many kids who are offrered way too many toys to play and really can't learn how to enjoy and give the right value and use to each one.

 

"Flying" many ours every day in front of a computer can be so unrealistic compared to what RL GA pilots do as we really wouldn't like our flightsims to be... If one starts the sim and makes her/his flights as close to what a real private pilot license could allow her/him to do, then I am sure that with time one will taste a different, a lot more relaxing, profitable and enjoyable flightsimming activity.

 

When I installed MS FLIGHT I thought that doing so I could risk getting back to a state of addiction I was really not wanting to experience. With a sufficiently huge area to fly (Hawaii), many missions and aerocaches/achievements to play, and a more than (for me) sufficient amount of good aircraft, "deluxe" or cockpitless, to fly, I couldn't ask for more.

 

For me MS FLIGHT, apart from being an excellent flight siumulator from the physics, game oriented, etc... points of view, is also a very interesting environment for the flightsimmer to learn enjoying flight simulation from a different perspective.

 

P.S.: I have some difficutly expressing my ideas in english, I hope I succedded passing the message... ;-)

Sure it was. You added everything up individually, then you put the bundle packs in the middle of the DLC list, so the bundle contents were up twice in your list. Heck, the Mustang was up there three times because you counted it as a warbird, part of a bundle, AND as a "free DLC plane.

 

 

 

Spin. You left out the key word, spin. And not Microsoft's spin, your creative counting spin, perhaps unintentional, above.

 

 

 

Thanks for the laughs.

 

(You really should read a forum a little bit before making a statement like that. But, welcome to AVSIM!)

 

Well at least I made you laugh this time instead of whining about Flight.

 

and the only spin is yours I counted no warbirds in any DLC bundle. The Steam bundle wasn't counted as one of the bundles or that would be 3 bundles actually. The Hawaiian Adventure pack actually doesn't come with the P51 only the Steam Starter version And despite your not wanting the Red Tail P51 being separate it is.

Feel free to stop embarrassing yourself anytime.

 

The next time you say something factual about my well-publicized (here, anyway) opinion of Flight, that will be the first time.

 

Well at least I made you laugh this time instead of whining about Flight.

 

and the only spin is yours I counted no warbirds in any DLC bundle. The Steam bundle wasn't counted as one of the bundles or that would be 3 bundles actually. The Hawaiian Adventure pack actually doesn't come with the P51 only the Steam Starter version And despite your not wanting the Red Tail P51 being separate it is.

 

Feel free to stop embarrassing yourself anytime.

 

The next time you say something factual about my well-publicized (here, anyway) opinion of Flight, that will be the first time.

 

Right. This is going nowhere. The point is that most people think too little DLC has been released since the initial release of Flight. One plane a month so far and that's all planes without a cockpit too...

 

You want to do some math?

 

1. What DLC is available from the Marketplace? One adventure pack and 5 planes (the free P-51 is the same as the payware one so that doesn't count as an extra DLC). So that's 6 : 4 = 1.5 items every month.

 

2. Let's add the inital release: 7 : 4 = 1.75 items a month.

 

3. You want to add the free island and the Stearman plus Icon as seperate products? 9 : 4 = That's 2.25 items a month.

 

4. Okay, let's add that free P-51 as a seperate one too... Yes! 10 : 4 = 2.5!

 

5. But who cares about averages? I don't. I've seen 4 released since the initial release of Flight: One VC-less plane a month. Period. 4 : 4 = 1. And most people agree that's too litlle.

 

Pick any of the five math examples you want (or make up your own): what it all comes down to is that DLC is slow.

 

And this closes the discussion about using math and averages...!!!

Well I wasn't trying to make an argument about it. so I apologize and no more said about the subject.

Right. This is going nowhere. The point is that most people think too little DLC has been released since the initial release of Flight. One plane a month so far and that's all planes without a cockpit too...

 

You want to do some math?

 

(Not really, I'd rather just make stuff up)

 

Pick any of the five math examples you want (or make up your own): what it all comes down to is that DLC is slow.

 

And this closes the discussion about using math and averages...!!!

 

The number of DLC's released per month is far less than the average suggested by intergalactic treaty. This is a disgrace. Other planets will take this as a sign of weakness, and next thing you know, we'll have to spend valuable game time fending off alien invasions. Personally, I have far better things to do with my time than blasting little green men who are trying to steal our valuable silicon resources.

 

It's all Microsoft's fault that alien zombies will be here any day! :Alien:

That's a pretty cool smiley, although for the life of me I can't figure out what it is supposed to mean.

 

Best regards.

Luis

Hi,

 

Trying to return to the subject of this thread whilst avoiding the thin skinned amongst us:

I think Flight is a stepping stone to a more fully featured flight simulator. It's my guess that a very conscious effort was made to ensure that Flight would run acceptably on even very low end computers. As more of an experiment than anything I installed Flight on an Acer Aspire One 722 netbook. With a processor that's one half the recommended (1GHZ), Flight runs smoothly with most settings set to low and a couple at medium. Referring to Flight.cfg I see this section:

 

[Traffic]

AirlineDensity=0

GADensity=0

RoadDensity=0

ShipsAndFerriesDensity=0

BoatDensity=0

IFROnly=False

AirportDensity=0

I doubt that this is a leftover from previous FS files but a means of enabling or disabling features not currently implemented.

As for the repeated references to bean counters please consider this; without financial viability Flight will not continue to exist in either its current or any future form.

 

Jim F.

What I have heard from third party devs that were in contact with Flight team during its early development Flight was first meant to be something different from what it is now, possibly more FS like. Probably those were invented at that time and then after idea of Flight changed removing them would have caused too much hassle so they were left there I believe.