I don't think anyone here was implying there will never be anymore cockpit planes.

 

This game has so much potential and it can be upsetting to see that it hasn't lived up to the standards yet; with a HUGE emphasis on yet.

 

Bottom line is, there isn't a huge market for flight sims. Microsoft knows this, and I'd rather them take their time than rush something to market. If they need to build up some more capital with cockpit-less planes, the more the merrier.

 

Microsoft is obviously listening to us (trackIR), and they know what we want. Just be patient....any game that starts as free-to-play is going to have a small team. Making a cockpit plane is a serious programming undertaking...Microsoft isn't just going to be throwing out full-cockpit planes every month. They first need to see what people are interested in....and see what is going to sell well enough for their time investment.

Ow god THAT explains a LOT! Your one of those guys that have cruise control on a motorcycle with a seat big enough to be a Lazy Boy.

 

P.S. Here is MY bicycle.

 

 

It looks as though you are an all-weather rider as well.

 

To be honest, the seat on my bike is only good for about 3.5 hours. It becomes unbearable after that.

So far from its release, there has been no aircraft released with cockpits.... Troubling news. Like I said, I wont buy Alaska without knowing they will release aircraft WITH cockpits. Im not going to invest in a game that wont invest in my hobby.

 

My feelings exactly!!!

I am having a hard time with this, I mean, they have the resources of past models at their disposal, I know it isn't hard to use existing mesh and add to it (extra detail, features, HD textures, etc) to produce a new aircraft that is up to Flight standards. Plus with any small amount of marketing insight whatsoever they should have had resources ready long before now for future DLC, including complete aircraft. Guess we'll wait and see

There is a chance that they only have a relatively small number of people working on content and the rest of the team are working on the core code base. We can only speculate.

Making a cockpit plane is a serious programming undertaking...Microsoft isn't just going to be throwing out full-cockpit planes every month. They first need to see what people are interested in....and see what is going to sell well enough for their time investment.

 

That's a bit untrue. A Cub doesn't have much as far as systems or gauges. It wouldn't take extremely long to model a virtual cockpit or code gauges. There's another reason that they are being cheap...

I'm not sure that's how I'd interpret it - the way I read it, if the basic version is free, there could be a deluxe version you have to pay for.

That's a bit untrue. A Cub doesn't have much as far as systems or gauges. It wouldn't take extremely long to model a virtual cockpit or code gauges. There's another reason that they are being cheap...

 

I don't mean any offense at all, but do any of you actually have video game programming experience? There is simply so many factors that we, the public, are out of the loop on. They might have to jump through 100 different hurdles to get them working correctly.

 

Everyone here makes it sounds like it's super easy to create one of these.....for a small team it's quite a serious undertaking to get a full-scale cockpit working correctly with all the "gizmos". I'd be willing to bet the MS Flight team is considerably smaller than any of the teams that worked on the FSX games.

 

But I totally agree with you on the virtual cockpit point; there's really no excuse for basic airspeed/attitude indicators being omitted.

That's a bit untrue. A Cub doesn't have much as far as systems or gauges. It wouldn't take extremely long to model a virtual cockpit or code gauges. There's another reason that they are being cheap...

 

Yeah, it could be that they are anticipating a bunch of changes to the gauge code they just ripped out of FSX. They may be planning a bunch of optimizations and don’t want to rework a bunch of planes.

Stating that you will receive a basic version of the Carbon Cub implies that a deluxe version will be available. This is something we've wanted to see for a while: two versions of the same aircraft, one basic and one deluxe, and how many people will buy the deluxe one.

 

Good news, in a way.

 

If there is no deluxe model there will be a few upset people.

 

Hook

I honestly would not fly Alaska without a good GPS. The terrain blocks VOR signals and there are very few stations.

 

And here we thought a panel was the so-called "foregone conclusion"... Leaving us just to dream about the various avionics that might be included...

 

We can only speculate.

 

I hate speculation. More flying. Less speculation.

Stating that you will receive a basic version of the Carbon Cub implies that a deluxe version will be available. This is something we've wanted to see for a while: two versions of the same aircraft, one basic and one deluxe, and how many people will buy the deluxe one.

 

Good news, in a way.

 

If there is no deluxe model there will be a few upset people.

 

Hook

 

I for one will be thrilled with 1.2 million miles of scenery and airports in Alaska, and will be willing to adjust to a cub with no cockpit for awhile.

I hate speculation. More flying. Less speculation.

 

+1 But only time will tell.

I for one will be thrilled with 1.2 million miles of scenery and airports in Alaska, and will be willing to adjust to a cub with no cockpit for awhile.

I will buy Alaska if it is the same price as Hawaii. I would buy it at that price with or without a new aircraft.

But I want to believe that "Basic" is not cockpitless too. It did not said "No cockpit view" as it was told for the warbirds ;)

 

It is entirely possible that, in the face of months of abuse, MS may have decided to "redefine" their previous definition of Basic Plane meaning that it has no cockpit.

 

But I wouldn't want to figure the odds on that wager.

Bottom line is, there isn't a huge market for flight sims. Microsoft knows this

 

Ah, but do they know this? Do their marketing people want to believe it? The stated aim for Flight was to widen the appeal of flight sims - that is in fact one of the reasons why they dropped the word 'simulator' from the name - and it has in fact done that to quite some degree as the popularity of this forum alone and the new members of Avsim it has garnered have evinced, although if we are to believe the rumoured numerical predictions of a massive wave of popularity, then we can concede that it has fallen short of those rumoured and speculative numbers.

 

Some naysayers have suggested that the notion was either a forlorn hope, or one which might end up with a product that is so far away from being a flight sim, that is in fact no longer a simulation at all, either in name or in nature. But whether one subscribes to that viewpoint or not, the danger is, as we all know, that the baby might go out with the bathwater. It's a risky tightrope MS is walking along, quite a few people are enjoying Flight at present based not only on what it presently offers, but also on the promise of more to come, but they are taking a lot on faith, and it won't take much to upset the fragile equilibrium there is at present.

 

Either way it will be interesting to see what transpires.

 

Al