Wow, this is great. We're finally here, making addons. Thanks a lot for all your hard work on this MVGibbage and Stonelance. 

 

Hopefully this is just the beginning of a new life for Flight. Maybe some time in the future we will have the whole world to fly, But I'm afraid too many people have already written off Flight as another Microsoft failure. 

 

Anyway, thanks again. Can't wait to fly the Seabee!

It is a great pleasure to learn that this magnificent Simulator too quickly abandoned will experience a new life.

Congratulations for their efforts and good luck to Stonelance and MVGibbage in the realization of their projects with the  Microsoft's comprehensible blessing.

 

Chris

 

As for explaining Microsoft's approval, there really is nothing to explain.  Stone asked if he can do this, and they said yes.

 

This isn't true.  The Flight community team at MS is aware that I made tools to add liveries to Flight.  I didn't ask for permission on anything I'm doing, and I don't know if they know much about my efforts to allow converting aircraft from FSX to Flight, but I also doubt they care.

Are there licensing costs that might make releasing some aircraft too expensive?

e.g. perhaps the C-146 was chosen over the DC-3 because of license costs? 

This has been a slippery slope for ALL 3rd party aircraft makers.  95% of the time, the manufacturer does not care due to the VERY SMALL scale of flight sims.  We really dont make enough money to be on there radar!  For a company like Microsoft, its another matter all togeather.  A company would not even bat an eye for a small 3rd party, but a big company like MS, then things start to change.  MS had to apply for legal rights to represent ALL the aircraft in the game.  Some were very willing, like Icon and Vans who had a new aircraft they wanted to promote, and some were not.  Also from what I understand, the PUBLIC has rights to MILITARY aircraft since it was funded with PUBLIC money.  Thats one reason why you see a lot of warbird sims.

 

Sometimes, a company like Cessna or Boeing will work with 3rd party's and give there blessing (with a fee), but mostly 3rd party's work in a grey area and below the radar.  Trust me, with the little money we make, it would not even cover there lawyer fees, plus the public backlash of a big company chasing after a little guy.  Cessna made that mistake a few years ago, and it hurt them a lot in PR.  Same for Grumman before that (they went after IL-2).

 

Are there licensing costs that might make releasing some aircraft too expensive?

e.g. perhaps the C-146 was chosen over the DC-3 because of license costs? 

If it's possible to bring the FSX bell 206 into Flight I will have to reinstall ASAP

 

Nice work guys!!

As I have said before, I would be happy with a Bell 47 bubble. It would fit right in. It is back in production you know, but the original would be great. There is a great story in the latest addition of AVIATION HISTORY magazine entitled "Birth of the BELL 47 BY Trial and Error." Very interesting, Just dreaming. Maybe some day.

 

Steve

Are there licensing costs that might make releasing some aircraft too expensive?

e.g. perhaps the C-146 was chosen over the DC-3 because of license costs? 

 

I'm sure most right's holders wouldn't care about small addon makers.  The Flight team had issues though.  We actually had one popular plane ready to release and another half way, but the company that owned the rights to them wanted an amazingly large amount of money, so the DLCs got killed.  One of several nails in the coffin for Flight.

 

For most addon developers, asking for forgiveness, not permission is probably the best route.

At some point will you and Stone begin working on adding TOOLS to allow/import/convert FSX scenery into Flight? It would be nice to know that this may be possible at some future time, and provide some hope that the scenery world of Flight might be expanded.

I actually started this process by converting FSX scenery models since they are much simpler than the aircraft. I have a bit of code that can convert placements and models, but the main problem is that several of the BGL formats, although similar, are different in Flight. I have limited knowledge of those formats and creating tools to create\convert them will take a while. I decided it was probably better to focus on aircraft. Hopefully sometime I will be able to revisit it. One issue is that so much of the FSX scenery is so old and low detailed by Flight's standards that it won't be a very good experience. I know there are lots of high quality addons that are as good or better than Flight, but I think the way Flight deals with scenery, autogen and terrain has changed a lot.

this is all great news guys keep up the good work .....

stonelance, on 08 Jul 2013 - 9:48 PM, said:

I actually started this process by converting FSX scenery models since they are much simpler than the aircraft. I have a bit of code that can convert placements and models, but the main problem is that several of the BGL formats, although similar, are different in Flight. I have limited knowledge of those formats and creating tools to create\convert them will take a while. I decided it was probably better to focus on aircraft. Hopefully sometime I will be able to revisit it. One issue is that so much of the FSX scenery is so old and low detailed by Flight's standards that it won't be a very good experience. I know there are lots of high quality addons that are as good or better than Flight, but I think the way Flight deals with scenery, autogen and terrain has changed a lot.

Reading between the lines then this doesn't bode well for future scenery for Flight, although I understand you're not completely ruling it out. Nevertheless, thanks for the info and for what you're attempting to do with aircraft addon's.

Reading between the lines then this doesn't bode well for future scenery for Flight, although I understand you're not completely ruling it out. Nevertheless, thanks for the info and for what you're attempting to do with aircraft addon's.

 

It is definitely possible, but I just had to choose one to focus on.

The more I read, enthusiastically, with a special feel on my heart, about this amazing progress in MS FLIGHT, something some believed would eventually happen, while others, just like me, gave up long ago, the more the sensation of a huge loss in terms of what I still consider the best civil flight simulation experience I ever had grows on me.

 

It is great to know stonelance and mvgibbage are giving us the chance to continue enjoying the best of this sim. It's also good to know that Microsoft isn't raising any impediments, and I thank them for that. It's even better to think that, maybe some day, MS will find the conditions to relight this great flight simulation project.

 

Most shot on their own feet when they received with so much egoism the business model of MS FLIGHT. They were scared by the perspective of their business suffering a dramatic loss with it, and started shooting at MS FLIGHT all sorts of bashing and accusations. The end result is what we know.

 

Certainly MS didn't think about all the consequences of their new business model, and should have adopted a strategy more like that of, for instance, DCS World, where while the model of downloadable content is adopted, 3pds are not kept away, but rather encouraged to participate, and we are seeing the best flight dynamics model available for PC growing with very promising add-ons already being developed. All will profit from it - ED, the 3pds and us users :-)

 

A very BIG THANK YOU to you guys - stonelance and mvgibbage - for your efforts, and to Microsoft for allowing this to happen!!!

 

Long lives MS FLIGHT - The BEST CIVIL FLIGHT SIMULATOR EVER MADE AVAILABLE FOR PC!!!

Due to NDA (lasting upwards to 7 years) I really cant get into detail about the goings on behinds the scenes at MS, but a lot of MS's choices had to do with licensing. In FSX, MS has no control over what 3rd party's do. If Boeing has a problem with an FSX 3rd party add-on, they need to take it up with the 3rd party. Since they dont have any money, they dont. If MS were to have a store selling 3rd party models, then Boeing can go after MS, and MS has big pockets. This could be a possible (and rather logical) reason why MS initially excluded 3rd party's from Flight. That really soured Flight in the communities eyes, and the backlash really damaged Flight as a sim. Add to that, marketing poeple telling MS that "casual gaming" was the way to go, and suddenly you get P-51 Mustangs (US property, no license needed) with no cockpits.

 

Rock, meet hard place, and MS was smack dab in the middle. It makes me really sad, knowing some of the aircraft (many that I worked on) that got cut out due too licensing issues. And no, dont bother asking what aircraft they were. NDA. =)

 

Most shot on their own feet when they received with so much egoism the business model of MS FLIGHT. They were scared by the perspective of their business suffering a dramatic loss with it, and started shooting at MS FLIGHT all sorts of bashing and accusations. The end result is what we know.

 

Certainly MS didn't think about all the consequences of their new business model, and should have adopted a strategy more like that of, for instance, DCS World, where while the model of downloadable content is adopted, 3pds are not kept away, but rather encouraged to participate, and we are seeing the best flight dynamics model available for PC growing with very promising add-ons already being developed. All will profit from it - ED, the 3pds and us users :-)

Makes sense... I believe even DCS had recently a few issues with licensing, which kept the Huey from being released sooner than it was, even if still in beta...