For me the release of alaska was the last chance I was willing to give it. No cockpits, sloppy airfield placement, no missions, no aerocaches and no proper snow effects have sealed flight's fate to be nothing more than a casual naked money grab from Microsoft. Flight is gone from my computer for good (Well at least until an aircraft with a working VC is delivered which at the current rate will be.... yeah; for good!)

• Cockpits -- exactly the same ones we had before... we definitely need more.
  
• Airfield placement -- $15 worth.
  
• Missions -- curious that they didn't develop any for Alaska.
  
• Aerocaches -- none for Alaska yet.
  
• Snow effects -- again, $15 worth.
  

I think Alaska is a "stay of execution" rather than a death knell. But more than anything else, Flight desperately needs new VC aircraft, and fast. The Flight team should make delivering VC aircraft their #1 priority over the coming months.

Alaska missions are coming in a separate DLC with a VC aircraft or two . . . At least that's my prediction.

I can't recall how many default aircraft Fs 9 and X had when they were released but I don't recall that it was that many more than 4.

Only two days after the release I think we can say that Alaska isn't what everybody was hoping for. But... at the same time it's not so bad that everybody is giving up hope. (I think the price played an important role there!) I have the feeling I am back where I was before Alaska was released: still not sure what to expect of the future of Flight... The only difference, and to me it's a huge one, is that I now have LOTS of territory to cover while I wait to see Flights future unfold.

I can't recall how many default aircraft Fs 9 and X had when they were released but I don't recall that it was that many more than 4.

 

Really?

 

FS9 had 24 and FSX had 23 (26 if you count the Acceleration aircraft now included in FSX Gold).

Only two days after the release I think we can say that Alaska isn't what everybody was hoping for. But... at the same time it's not so bad that everybody is giving up hope. (I think the price played an important role there!) I have the feeling I am back where I was before Alaska was released: still not sure what to expect of the future of Flight... The only difference, and to me it's a huge one, is that I now have LOTS of territory to cover while I wait to see Flights future unfold.

 

I think the low price was the biggest surprise. I have a sneaking suspicion MS (maybe reluctantly?) decided to keep the price low to keep people coming back even with the lack of cockpits. But if they want to keep people, they've GOT to get more VC aircraft in there!

Flight is what it is, a game, downgraded in a lot of places and upgraded in some other places from their last sim.

Exactly. Surely it is time to accept that Flight is what it is?

 

I have a sneaking suspicion MS (maybe reluctantly?) decided to keep the price low to keep people coming back even with the lack of cockpits.

I'd suggest that the price is aimed at Flight's target market which probably isn't too interested in cockpits. That would be consistent wrth what Microsoft said a while ago.

Only two days after the release I think we can say that Alaska isn't what everybody was hoping for. But... at the same time it's not so bad that everybody is giving up hope. (I think the price played an important role there!) I have the feeling I am back where I was before Alaska was released: still not sure what to expect of the future of Flight... The only difference, and to me it's a huge one, is that I now have LOTS of territory to cover while I wait to see Flights future unfold.

 

I agree that we have a huge territory to explore but it is very, very lonely out there (and so quiet) and without a simple mission or aerocache or something to point the way it gets even worse than lonely.

 

Ray

I can't recall how many default aircraft Fs 9 and X had when they were released but I don't recall that it was that many more than 4.

 

It was a hell of a lot more than four. FS2004 had these...

 

Beechcraft Baron 58,

Beechcraft King Air 350,

Bell 206,

Boeing 737-400,

Boeing 747-400,

Boeing 777-300,

Bombardier LearJet 45,

Cessna 208 Amphibian,

Cessna 208B Caravan,

Cessna 182,

Cessna 172,

Curtiss JN4,

deHavilland DH88,

Douglas DC-3,

Extra 300,

Ford Tri-Motor,

Lockheed Vega,

Mooney Bravo,

Piper J-3 Cub,

Robinson R22 Beta,

Schweizer 2-32,

Ryan NYP,

Vickers Vimy,

Wright 'Flyer'

 

and FSX Deluxe with Acceleration had these...

 

Airbus A321,

Augusta Westland EH101,

Air Creation 582,

Beechcraft Baron 58,

Beechcraft Baron 58 with G1000,

Beechcraft King Air 350,

Bell 206,

Boeing 737-800,

Boeing 747-400,

Bombardier CRJ-700,

Bombardier LearJet 45,

Cessna 208B Caravan,

Cessna 172,

Cessna 172 G1000,

deHavilland Beaver,

DG-808,

Douglas DC-3,

Extra 300,

Grumman G212 Goose,

Maule Orion,

Maule Orion Ski version,

Mooney Bravo, plus IFR variant,

North American P-51 Mustang,

Piper J-3 Cub,

Robinson R22 Beta,

McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet

 

If I list the freebie dowloads and the payware ones that are available, we're gonna need a bigger boat. On the subject of which, it has a lot of boats available for it too, which, ironically enough, would be kind of cool for Hawaii and Alaska.

 

Al

I agree that we have a huge territory to explore but it is very, very lonely out there (and so quiet) and without a simple mission or aerocache or something to point the way it gets even worse than lonely.

I agree up to a point..Myself, I like reward-based gaming..In FSX, I play Air Hauler. It gives me a solid purpose to my flight, which I like.

I got a bit bored of doing jobs in Hawaii. I just tooled about in the RV6 most of the time or flying naughty missions..In AK, I have re-discovered the journey..I find myself seeking out the furthest jobs (up to a point) I am exploring my way up the coast, from PAKT upwards..I do all of this in FSX, sure; I have UTX AK and PFJ..but for some reason, the fact that I am racking up job miles and stats, and learning a new plane, which seems to be modelled well, according to people who know better than me, and flying it in some great new weather (REXE notwithstanding) They are missions to me..I'm linking them up like I didn't do in Hawaii; only flying a job from the base I've just landed at, and only going north..It's what you make it, I guess

 

I am doing all of this for a tenner. Nope; it's not finished, but to me, it doesn't really matter if it has aerocaches, as it's a different environment; I want SAR and remote field delivery, like in FWA..I want a bit of danger, and nasty landings.

 

There are new landing challenges, and I'm sure if MSGS could actually FIND anything to make into an aerocache in AK they would (JOKE)

I can't recall how many default aircraft Fs 9 and X had when they were released but I don't recall that it was that many more than 4.

 

Hello

Your recollection is a little off,

FSX Standard had 18

FSX Deluxe had 21

FS9 had 22

I agree that we have a huge territory to explore but it is very, very lonely out there (and so quiet).

 

Well, I think that even in FSX or X-Plane Alaska is a lonely place... so MS certainly got that right! Aerocaches would be nice, specially because they quite often lead you to some scenery that has gotten some extra treatment by the team! But they ARE coming so, be patient (again).

I agree that we have a huge territory to explore but it is very, very lonely out there (and so quiet) and without a simple mission or aerocache or something to point the way it gets even worse than lonely.

 

Ray

 

Delfina said today that there are Alaska daily aerocaches on the way.

Exactly. Surely it is time to accept that Flight is what it is?

 

Imagine if everyone took that attitude towards everything.

i think there are thousands of people that feel the same way as the TC, myself included