Posted before I'd finished.

 

Anyway, I'm not sure paying for additional scenery only will hold my interest for more than a couple of hours.

To me it's an investment. And to everyone that's responded so far, it's an investment. You're just not seeing why. When you invest money in the stock market, you are looking for some sort of financial Return On Investment. When you invest in video games, your ROI is based on enjoyment. So, those who haven't "invested" in Flight yet, don't think the enjoyment they'll receive will justify the money spent. For a lot of us with many hobbies, we need to pick and choose where we put our money. And the money will always go to the hobby which will see the greatest enjoyment based on the money spent. That is an investment.

^{Now that FLIGHT has got me back to flying again I am looking at dropping $330.00 bucks for TrackiR5 and Saitek PRO flight combat rudder Pedals. So I will get Alaska and all the birds that come with it. I am done with aircraft without a VC however, not again. How many of us have spent mega bucks on software that is just sitting in the closet gathering dust after very little use. So yes, I do consider FLIGHT a excellent investment plus the hardware will have other uses down the line.}

Jc, I'd think carefully before you choose the pedals over trackir. With flight. It totally changes the experience and now I can't fly without it. Maybe others with both accessories can comment. Im flying the Stearman all the time now. And when I first loaded up the Maule, I swore at my screen, the immersion was so good! And Roboray's just chimed in with a similar thought too I see. It's freaking awesome! Plus you look like a real pro, with headset and cap on.

 

I agree, I have a set of CH pedals , and haven't even bothered to hook them up yet, since the twist on my joystick is fine for rudder control. The Track IR, on the other hand, makes flying Flight a while new experience.

To me it's an investment. And to everyone that's responded so far, it's an investment. You're just not seeing why. When you invest money in the stock market, you are looking for some sort of financial Return On Investment. When you invest in video games, your ROI is based on enjoyment. So, those who haven't "invested" in Flight yet, don't think the enjoyment they'll receive will justify the money spent. For a lot of us with many hobbies, we need to pick and choose where we put our money. And the money will always go to the hobby which will see the greatest enjoyment based on the money spent. That is an investment.

 

Agreed. Obviously I try to avoid spending money on something of which I know I won't like it. But my point is that it seems a lot of people won't mind spending 40 bucks on a game of which they KNOW they will it only probably play for a few weeks (or hours) but they won't spend that same money (or less) on DLC for Flight, even if they know they will have the same amount of fun with it, if not more. Somehow to them money spend on a flightsim is only worth it if it can be used for years: hence why they want to know about the future of Flight before they 'invest'. But when they buy some offline first person shooter they don't mind if the game is done in 8 hours (or sometimes even less).

^{Now that FLIGHT has got me back to flying again I am looking at dropping $330.00 bucks for TrackiR5 and Saitek PRO flight combat rudder Pedals. So I will get Alaska and all the birds that come with it. I am done with aircraft without a VC however, not again. How many of us have spent mega bucks on software that is just sitting in the closet gathering dust after very little use. So yes, I do consider FLIGHT a excellent investment plus the hardware will have other uses down the line.}

 

I was trying to guess the amount, but I would think I spent at least $1,500 on FS9. You spend that much on something, and you stick with it as long as possible. Look at all the folks still flying FS9.

I game for about 15 years now and in that period a lot have changed. Dev companies getting bigger spending huge amount of money for games. This year i have bought two or three titles that i played for about one or two hours, only to be disappointed with the end result of the game. The market is heavily focussed on graphics and personal i see a dip in game play. Flight is a great product. I have bought it an flew hours and hours, mission after mission...and then suddenly i did not want to fly any more. Why? Because is all the same. There is no challenge whatsoever. Picking passengers with the maule, cruising at 5 for 80 miles, descent,land happy passengers...next. I miss ATC, AI traffic and dynamic weather. While MS stated to invest in the XBOX i think its a perfect strategy, except for our pc based flightsimmers. Planes without cockpits, no ATC or AI. Its all focused on sitting on the couch with a controller and just fly a bit. I don't say its bad but im more into simulator style flying: DCS A-10 for example. You will never ever see that title on a console.

Concerning Alaska...yep, its a different environment but in the end it will be as boring as Hawaii. First i will look into the reviews and keep a close eye on this forum. I will buy Alaska if the gameplay has progressed into deeper simulation aspects. Its MS choice to follow this strategy, its my choice to decide whether to follow it. At this point i don't follow their strategy and thus i will wait for the time to come.

"snip"

 

But my point is that it seems a lot of people won't mind spending 40 bucks on a game of which they KNOW they will it only probably play for a few weeks (or hours) but they won't spend that same money (or less) on DLC for Flight, even if they know they will have the same amount of fun with it, if not more. Somehow to them money spend on a flightsim is only worth it if it can be used for years: hence why they want to know about the future of Flight before they 'invest'. .

 

I get your point here. But you have to remember, some of us have been using flight sims since the Sublogic days and we know what we like and what we don't like. Personally, I'm not a fan of taildraggers or bush flying, but I can see why it appeals to a lot of people. Right now, Alaska would be a waste of money for me because I do not know what the future holds for Flight. I do not need jets or ATC or helicopters. A nice Dash-8 with VC and some AI would be nice though. So until flight offers me something I will enjoy, I'll stay on the sidelines. And if history is our guide, though it might be a brief history, I'll be able to bundle DLC on Steam for a reduced price, which will only increase my ROI.

 

And don't get me wrong here. I'm not bashing Flight. It is what it is. I'm not a fan for now. But, I'll keep following Flight with the hopes it provides me with something I like. And once it does, I will freely throw money at it. And if it doesn't, well that's more golf for me. Win-Win imo.

Yes, but I can get a 2nd-hand Saitek for €60, while the TIR costs a LOT more, way above my simulation budget :-)

 

There are DIY alternatives to TIR. I use to use something in FS9 that would track a single light mounted on a ball cap. It allowed me to look turn left and right as well as look up and down. It worked pretty good. There is one called FreeTrack that a buddy of mine uses. He put it together for the price of a PS3 Eye camera and IR LEDS. He uses it in FSX and it seems to work pretty well. I didn't like the head tilt, i.e. roll effect when I tried it because I kept thinking the plane was banking. I don't know if it works in Flight because he is a member of the anti-Flight crowd. I also tried it with Far Cry FPS and I may build a single LED version using just a web cam to play around with FPS games.

I get your point here. But you have to remember, some of us have been using flight sims since the Sublogic days and we know what we like and what we don't like. Personally, I'm not a fan of taildraggers or bush flying, but I can see why it appeals to a lot of people. Right now, Alaska would be a waste of money for me because I do not know what the future holds for Flight. I do not need jets or ATC or helicopters. A nice Dash-8 with VC and some AI would be nice though. So until flight offers me something I will enjoy, I'll stay on the sidelines. And if history is our guide, though it might be a brief history, I'll be able to bundle DLC on Steam for a reduced price, which will only increase my ROI.

 

And don't get me wrong here. I'm not bashing Flight. It is what it is. I'm not a fan for now. But, I'll keep following Flight with the hopes it provides me with something I like. And once it does, I will freely throw money at it. And if it doesn't, well that's more golf for me. Win-Win imo.

 

Fair enough. I don't think anyone could argue with that or question your opinion.

 

Like anything else in life, Flight may be the best choice for those who's interests lie in what it offers (or will soon), but it certainly among the worst for those who's interests lie elsewhere.

 

For me, while I've never loved tail-draggers, they are growing on me. I do love "low and slow GA" and I'm fascinated with bush flying, so Flight is working out nicely for me.

I fully understand, of course, if someone won't buy Alaska because he or she simply doesn't like what Flight has to offer. That's logical! I would do the same! But I simply wonder why (for some people) flightsim-software has to have a future while other games (that may cost even more) need no future at all. (I don't know how to put it more simple. )

I fully understand, of course, if someone won't buy Alaska because he or she simply doesn't like what Flight has to offer. That's logical! I would do the same! But I simply wonder why (for some people) flightsim-software has to have a future while other games (that may cost even more) need no future at all. (I don't know how to put it more simple. )

 

I have paid $30-35 for one aircraft in FS9, flew it a couple of times, didn't like it for one reason or another, and never flew it again. Just part of simming in my opinion. I never thought of giving up the hobby or not buying anything else again, and believe me, I am not wealthy. .

Like others have said, I treat these GA sims a little bit more like an investment (compared to an xbox game or even a combat flight sim) because they are so add-on intensive.

 

I don't want to spend hundreds of dollars on FSX (REX, ORBX, Accusim, etc...) if I'm eventually going to abandon FSX and play Flight all the time. That's a lot of money I could have used for Flight DLC! Likewise, I don't want to spend $40 on a couple Flight scenery areas if the development of Flight is going to go in a direction I don't like and drive me back to FSX. Then that would be $40 I could have spent on something for FSX.*

 

But, J van E, you make a good point. Have I gotten my $20 of fun out of Hawaii? Yep. I will probably get $20 worth of fun out of Alaska too, regardless of what other planes get released or what direction the game goes in the future.

 

* Those were simple examples I came up with to illustrate the point. Not necessarily my real concerns. Let's not debate those examples!

I get your point here. But you have to remember, some of us have been using flight sims since the Sublogic days and we know what we like and what we don't like. Personally, I'm not a fan of taildraggers or bush flying, but I can see why it appeals to a lot of people. Right now, Alaska would be a waste of money for me because I do not know what the future holds for Flight. I do not need jets or ATC or helicopters. A nice Dash-8 with VC and some AI would be nice though. So until flight offers me something I will enjoy, I'll stay on the sidelines. And if history is our guide, though it might be a brief history, I'll be able to bundle DLC on Steam for a reduced price, which will only increase my ROI.

 

And don't get me wrong here. I'm not bashing Flight. It is what it is. I'm not a fan for now. But, I'll keep following Flight with the hopes it provides me with something I like. And once it does, I will freely throw money at it. And if it doesn't, well that's more golf for me. Win-Win imo.

 

Having started with FS2 and working my way though all of them, I guess I don't understand why folks that like heavy jets, AI, ATC, and all the stuff that FS9 and FSX has to offer, would even bother visiting his forum. I got rid of FS9 and FSX, and am never interested in visiting those forums anymore because there is nothing there of interest to me. From the way Flight is now, I can't see them ever trying to turn it into an FS11. It runs very smoothly, has great graphics, doesn't crash or lock up, or any of the other problems that are probably exacerbated in part by 3rd party add-ons and having 15 things running at once. I think it is kind of like the Apple system, where they control what is on their devices, which makes it easier for them to make it simpler to use for the average person.

 

I love the fact that I could fire up Flight this morning for 30 minutes or so , before I have to leave for work, and fly some take offs and landings and I know it is going to work. Nothing is going to malfunction, it looks good, I just shot a crosswind landing in the Maule with 30 knot gusty winds and intermittent rain and had a blast. I can't even begin to estimate how many times I fired up other sims, and would run into one or more problems during the flight and wind up trouble shooting or restarting the flight , or giving up in frustration. The average person today, with better operating systems on their computers, and better software, doesn't want to go though that beta testing experience anymore, and doesn't want to edit files, and look for duplicate BGLs, and all the other hassles that we used to have to go though on a regular basis. This is the thing that I think will attract folks to flight. I made one edit to a file on the program regarding cockpit zoom, and now that I have Track IR i didn't even need to do that. It just runs, and runs well.

Indeed, that is yet another great "feature" of MS FLIGHT... In my whole simmer life I never spent so less in a sim and yet get so much return from it!!!