I agree completely, but it's still a very interesting test. Most people will already have the basic Carbon Cub. The people who buy the deluxe version will either be those who really want cockpits, and those who buy everything just to be complete. Even if you did the test you mention, they'd still want to do this one.

 

Hook

Yeah it will be an interesting test to see how the numbers go. I really hope MS does pay close attention to them and apply what they learn for future releases. In a dream world they would make a post saying something to the extent of "75% of all Alaska owners bought the Deluxe Cub"... but that won't happen.

They can identify the population of "completionists" simply by looking at their other purchases.

 

But the numbers of people who would buy the cockpit-Cub will be impacted somewhat by it already being in their hangar without a cockpit... they may not actually use the non-cockpit version, because it doesn't have a cockpit, but they may balk at buying "the same plane again" to get the cockpit.

 

 

Count me in this group... I already have a Cub, and I'm apparently one of the more casual fliers, so paying more money just to have the cockpit isn't worth it to me. If I want to navigate, I use the Maule...

But the numbers of people who would buy the cockpit-Cub will be impacted somewhat by it already being in their hangar without a cockpit... they may not actually use the non-cockpit version, because it doesn't have a cockpit, but they may balk at buying "the same plane again" to get the cockpit.

That just made me think, I wonder how many blue cubs we'll see flying any more? I never saw it in the marketplace, but from what I read it was shown with yellow or red paint schemes. The guy in blue will still be in the standard Cub.

That just made me think, I wonder how many blue cubs we'll see flying any more? I never saw it in the marketplace, but from what I read it was shown with yellow or red paint schemes. The guy in blue will still be in the standard Cub.

 

That assumes that the deluxe cub is an entirely separate aircraft and not the addition of a cockpit and additional paint schemes to the basic model. If it's the latter, then you could still fly around in your deluxe cub with a blue paint scheme.

That assumes that the deluxe cub is an entirely separate aircraft and not the addition of a cockpit and additional paint schemes to the basic model. If it's the latter, then you could still fly around in your deluxe cub with a blue paint scheme.

 

We only have the Red Tails P51 as past history... I'd love to just see the aircraft once in the hangar. (I'd also love the previews to disappear from Games for Windows Live after I've purchased it)

Nope, I don't think that announcement from Microsoft was terse enough. Surely they could have communicated in their usual way and simply grunted meaningfully.....

 

Do they have a communications department at all over there, or is it somebody from the mail room? ...

 

Well, looking at this jewel of competent communication they released recently, investigated by a number of people in and out of group sessions:

 

... We’ve included some downed planes in the Alaskan Wilderness Experience Pack – can you find them?

• A WWII bomber survives on the west side of Atka Island. This B-24 Liberator is the only intact combat veteran of its type to be preserved at its crash site.
  
• Next to Nikolski, a small village on Unmak Island, you’ll find a crashed DC-3.
  
• Look for another DC-3 near Reindeer Lake.
  

 

Taking them one at a time:

• The WWII bomber isn't there. On the east (not west) side of the island, 2 nm north of Atka, there's a derelict DC-3 (not B-24) like the one next to Nikolski.
  
• The Nikolski DC-3 is next to the airport.
  
• Reindeer Lake (AK) is a few miles NE of Fairbanks Airport. There's no downed DC-3 there either. There is, however, a crashed DC-3 next to a Reindeer Lake in Canada, on the border between Saskatchewan and Manitoba, around a thousand-odd miles away (give or take).
  

So out of the three downed planes they've invited us to find, only one of them is actually there. Now, what could this tell us about the state of Flight's development team, and how much they communicate with whoever produced this jewel of customer communication?

 

IMO, this is an indicator of some serious problems.

There is, however, a crashed DC-3 next to a Reindeer Lake in Canada, on the border between Saskatchewan and Manitoba

 

Gee... maybe Canada is the next DLC area. :D

 

... or maybe not.

 

IMO, this is an indicator of some serious problems.

 

I wish I could dispute this.

 

Microsoft was recently advertising for a project manager for Flight. Two people that we know of have left the Flight team since it began. I hope one was a project manager.

 

I really really don't want to badmouth the Flight team, but it's apparent that the guy who maintains the payroll software isn't the same one maintaining the aerocache of the day. I used to maintain a company's payroll system. Getting it wrong is not an option.

 

Hook

 

Funny how such a news announcement always leaves more questions then it gives answers.

 

Not really - Flight continues to be something of an enigma for me.

 

One thing I DO know: it would have been a lot better if MS had released Alaska without a plane at all and simply kept the complete Carbon Cub for coming wednesday. That would have saved us a lot of 'trouble'.

 

This I agree with completely. In my view, I have already bought the basic Cub, as part of the Alaska package. I am prepared to buy the VC as an upgrade, at an appropriate price, but I am not prepared to buy a whole new version at the de luxe price. No way.

Well either way they go, I am certainly very glad to see finally a pane with a vc, or at least a vc for an existing plane, being released.

I will be glad to grab it up, and also finally get to fly the Cub as I have had no desire to give it a try without a vc.

I'm sorry to say that I am not one of the subscribers to the thought of buying anything with a VC, so as to encourage Microsoft to keep making deluxe planes.

I agree but I love the cub. I've had more fun with than any other plane. My wish was that the Alaska would have a VC plane with a float version but as we know that didn't happen. Now I was hoping for the VC cub to include a float version but I suspect that's not going to happen. The Next area DLC is going to have to sweeten the pot a bit more than Alaska if I'm going to buy any more but I got a feeling that isn't going to happen either.

My guess is that when the Deluxe goes on sale, there will be some people that will refuse to buy it and fly around in the basic version forever. Others will download it the minute it goes on sale, fly around in it , take screen shots and post about how much they like it. A debate will go on for weeks regarding this topic, and the price that MS charged, and the people that didn't by the Deluxe version will tell us all the things that are wrong with it and how it is overpriced. The folks that buy it and like it, will try and defend it, and away we go again......

Well, looking at this jewel of competent communication they released recently, investigated by a number of people in and out of group sessions:

 

 

 

Taking them one at a time:

• The WWII bomber isn't there. On the east (not west) side of the island, 2 nm north of Atka, there's a derelict DC-3 (not B-24) like the one next to Nikolski.
  
• The Nikolski DC-3 is next to the airport.
  
• Reindeer Lake (AK) is a few miles NE of Fairbanks Airport. There's no downed DC-3 there either. There is, however, a crashed DC-3 next to a Reindeer Lake in Canada, on the border between Saskatchewan and Manitoba, around a thousand-odd miles away (give or take).
  

So out of the three downed planes they've invited us to find, only one of them is actually there. Now, what could this tell us about the state of Flight's development team, and how much they communicate with whoever produced this jewel of customer communication?

 

IMO, this is an indicator of some serious problems.

 

Reindeer Lake Alaska...with plane.

 

http://msflightforum.myfastforum.org/sutra3177.php#3177

 

Second post and on.

So in the end, MIcrosoft got it right, the detractors got it wrong (yet again) and in the process created a chilling effect for other users.

 

Now if someone could just find the WWII bomber, even if it's just a generic "wrecked plane" model.

 

Hook

Hi Folks

 

LMAO,

I'd been searching around a different Reindeer Lake,

one just E of Holy Cross airport.

 

Hook -

The supposed bomber is misplaced by 41 miles,

and positioned in-game just N of, & slightly right of, Atka runway.

 

So in the end, MIcrosoft got it right,

the detractors got it wrong (yet again)

and in the process created a chilling effect for other users.

1 out of 3, then yes MS got it right.

 

Anyone found references/urls to the IRL crash

that's supposedly happened at this Reindeer Lake ?

 

HTH

ATB

Paul

Hi Folks

 

LMAO,

I'd been searching around a different Reindeer Lake,

one just E of Holy Cross airport.

 

Hook -

The supposed bomber is misplaced by 41 miles,

and positioned in-game just N of, & slightly right of, Atka runway.

 

 

1 out of 3, then yes MS got it right.

 

Anyone found references/urls to the IRL crash

that's supposedly happened at this Reindeer Lake ?

 

HTH

ATB

Paul

 

 

In real life, aren't aircraft wrecks supposed to be in an exact location? I mean, do they expect rescue planes to have to actually fly around and search for the wreck???????