The End of Flight?

[Faire 0]

IMHO I can get exactly the same smoothness in FSX by simply turning off the same features that were missing in Flight (e.g. Turn off ai traffic completely, use default weather themes,fly in areas like Hawaii and Alaska and avoid major cities, and use simplified default aircraft).

 

Could you test it? It interests me quite a bit.

[HiFlyer 9,363]

IMHO I can get exactly the same smoothness in FSX by simply turning off the same features that were missing in Flight (e.g. Turn off ai traffic completely, use default weather themes,fly in areas like Hawaii and Alaska and avoid major cities).

 

I had this discussion once with Mathjis on the Aerosoft pages. What I found was that due apparently to some unique properties of FSX task sorting, turning off features actually created slowdown on my system and many others. He concurred that his testing showed the same, so I already know that wont work for me. Upping the complexity helps with my system. To a point.

 

But never to the degree that flight gave me every day with no such efforts. It was one of the reasons I jumped so enthusiastically. I dont think any of us longtime FSX users and admirers jumped ship and left behind thousands of dollars in addons lightly. I think some of us were just at the end of our ropes. (and our patience)

[RobberK 0]

Hello

That was never promised, and that could have been what turned many away.

 

Ok, a poor choice of word. I meant that Flight, in its design and structure, suggests it as a possible future, and not that it was ever promised by the development team in black and white. (And, by the way, how many people seriously fly trans-oceanic in real time, ever? The guy had a point, even if it might have been more delicately put, given the audience.)

 

 

And while I'm at it...

FSX allows you to fly simple GA just like Flight does. Flight could have had all the simulation aspects of FSX and still offer also simple GA flying for those who want it, nobody forces you to use ATC or any little more complicated features of GA planes of FSX.

 

FSX allows you to drive a boat, too - but it doesn't do it very well. It is universal, for sure, but "simple" (as you term it) GA isn't done particularly well in FSX. Flight, on the other hand, from the scaling of its scenery (trees in particular, but higher res textures and that clever texturing of cliffs as well), to its flight model, comes an awful lot closer to the experience of flying a light aircraft - it focusses on doing one thing well rather than being average at lots of things.

[FIVE-BY-FIVE 453]

:o This thread will go over 20fps, i mean 20 pages :lol: by the end of the day.

[Eric Bakker 7]

Apart from x-plane/DCS...who else is developing flight sim now?

How about aeroflyFS?

http://www.aeroflyfs.com/index.php/en/

I didn't try it yet myself...

[BobP 56]

I was certainly skeptical of Flight's ability to capture a new audience and am disappointed for the member who supported Flight. The project manager for Flight basically ditched the opinion of 'hard core' simmers and ran along a path with little hope for success with inexplicable decisions (no cockpits). The project never connected with the Flight community. What baffles me the most is how MS management was sold on the project in the first place. I also hope MS, after Balmer is fired, ( I own MS stock) will re-consider a starting the FS franchise up again.

 

Bob..

[Geofa 108]

 

 

 

"Could you test it? It interests me quite a bit."

 

Already have. From day 1 FSX has been about setting it up (e.g.) reducing some features to get the desired performance needed. To this day for instance if I want to fly hard ifr with real weather I'll turn all the ai traffic off to maximize smoothness. Personally I've always preferred having the choice myself of choosing the features I want to get the performance I need.

[RobberK 0]

jimmydean, interesting that it's not just me, then. GFWL has been nothing short of a nightmare; several accounts (which you can't delete) because of incorrect country settings (which you can't change), credit cards that work fine on amazon, Apple, you-name-it, but are somehow not palatable to MS and which customer support tell you must be invalid... right up to, having finally purchased MS points, not being able to download the actual content with "Try again later" errors... it has been months and months and i have only now finally, finally got the Maule which i have been coveting. No, GFWL has not helped Flight's revenue one bit in my case, despite my best intentions. If my experience isn't unique, then am certain, certain, that in the Flight team's offices, GFWL would have been one of the most common sources of water-cooler moaning. I wonder how much it contributed to Flight's demise.

[RYR738 9]

Yes, it is official. One of the Devs on the beta site has confirmed it !.....................................

 

" Thanks everyone. We were working hard on Flight right up until we were told yesterday. Thanks for your participation and help in the beta and post-launch to make Flight better. I'm sure there will be an official post on the website soon, but everything should continue to work, and I believe some of the recently finished content will still go out the door. "

 

Having been part of the beta team since 5th Jan, I am very sad to read this news.

Alaska was the hint for me. The detail was just not there and it looked like the focus and commitment were gone.

 

Best of luck to the Flight Devs for the future and R.I.P MS Flight !!

 

Sad day....................

 

Fred.

[HiFlyer 9,363]

What baffles me the most is how MS management was sold on the project in the first place.

 

Bob..

 

I wondered as well. It seemed an uncharacteristically brave decision, and I could only assume it was some ongoing affection for a brand that had been sort of an MS mascot for years. On the other hand, Mr Balmer is not a known as a sentimentalist, and it never seemed the project was heavily supported in any discernible way shape or form.

 

And remember, it was announced right in the middle of the time the Aerosoft Simulator was still in full swing. That may have renewed some interest at Microsoft as well. Still, I often wondered who thought it was a good idea, and managed to get it green-lighted. And if they would have the stamina to bulldoze through all the hate and stay the course.

 

Edit: According to a mod on the beta forum, this was sprung on them yesterday, probably right in the midst of our collective scream-fest. I am going to really really (really) hope that the whole sorry spectacle did not drive somebody into making the final decision that enough was enough.

 

That would really suck. (there are, apparently however, some additional finished items that may be released)

[bpsanborn 0]

What a blow! I am sad and disappointed like all of you. And I really liked Flight so much that I bought a yoke and pedals, new joystick... and TrackIR.

 

But the really great thing that flight did for me... was it made me start training for my private pilots license. I have had 3 lessons so far in a real C-172 and will be flying with a new friend in a Cherokee 180 this weekend. I finally decided to go for real flying.

 

I have gone back to FSX recently because my home airport is there. I can start on the ramp and practice all the pre-flight and pre-takeoff checklists. The flying is not as real but I do have my actual home airport to fly from and all the local airports that will be in my cross-country territory.

 

I have XP-10 and Aerofly FS but find can't find comfort in either one. I have thought about building up FSX with all the expensive add-ons. But I am not sure about what I would have when I finished. I might just have the same non-real flying with better scenery.

 

Thanks MS Flight for forcing me to finally go for my PPL.

 

Brian

[Geofa 108]

"FSX allows you to drive a boat, too - but it doesn't do it very well. It is universal, for sure, but "simple" (as you term it) GA isn't done particularly well in FSX. Flight, on the other hand, from the scaling of its scenery (trees in particular, but higher res textures and that clever texturing of cliffs as well), to its flight model, comes an awful lot closer to the experience of flying a light aircraft - it focusses on doing one thing well rather than being average at lots of things. "

 

For me flight was fun but it was the lacking in the GA department that kept me from using it much. Without the ability to fly aircraft that I do rw, cockpits without realistc or inoperative avionics/gauges, ability to simulate rw weather, and inability to fly to areas that I have flown rw or are about to -these along with others left the GA experience lacking for me. I'd even mention ATC which is also part of the GA experience but I don't use it on FSX :)

[RobberK 0]

On the other hand, Mr Balmer is not a known as a sentimentalist...

 

I think we're deluding ourselves if we think the CEO of Microsoft had much input in the decision to go ahead with, and subsequently to terminate, this product. It would, at best, have appeared in a list within a summary of the performance and decisions of a sub-group of a sub-group of management at MS. This is middle management territory - which might explain some of the poor decision-making, come to think of it.

[OmarNg7X 0]

_{I will continue to use FLIGHT as there is still much to do, both in Alaska and back in Hawaii. I still love the new Carbon Cub and will get a lot of fun out of that.}

 

+1. I bought Alaska and the Cub but haven't tried it yet because I'm still flying around in Hawaii. Alaska should bring me months of fun in the future!

[RWFeldman 159]

 

I will go back to FSX and the NGX and be keeping a close eye on P3D as the future of serious flight simulation.

 

Welcome back to the Bright side of the Force Fred. I to was allured by the Dark side, Jan 5 to Jan 11, but was saved by the FS Jedi. May the force be with you, always. :)