frankla

wow...the disagreements about Flight has become very civil here. Since the moderators did not over moderate the arguments, things have cooled a lot. I think it is like letting steam out. I hope I don't jinx it though.

I really do want Microsoft to make money. I maybe selfish cause I don't care who makes the money, 3pd or MS as long as I have what I want :diablo: . But I really don't understand Microsoft's decisions. Lets look at some of the decisions: 1)Would the young crowd whom they are trying to attract (entrants) want a WWII plane or a modern fighter or jetliner? I don't think most young people care about WWII. Most don't identify with history but with current world environment. (I am 48 and I don't identify with WWII planes much. :Just Kidding:) 2) Do people tend to like to fly over an area that they have some connection to or do they not care where they fly as long as it is new? I dare say most people do not fly in areas they don't have some sort of connection to. That is why I never flew in say Chili, or Morroco in FSX. This does not mean that a gamer would only want to fly in their home area, but that he has some mental connection to the area they want to fly over. How would releasing on small area of the world and promising two areas a year address that issue? 3) Why incorporate such realistic flight dynamics and realistic navigational aids if MS do not care about enthusiasts? If they intend to bring on the enthusiasts into the fold in the future (by offering DLC such as ATC, Long haul flight,etc,) why alienate them as Josh Howard did in his interviews? Microsoft is wavering and does not have a clear vision, they have put one foot in the water (offering navs, realistic flight models etc. for enthusiast) and have left the other foot on the dry land (not committing to ATC, real weather, global scenery, telling enthusiasts that Flight is not for them). They seem scared and sheepish to decide. If they don't have faith and confidence in their product why would you? 4)Prior to the Flight's release, I remember that there was agreement in the community that if Microsoft decided to have an on line store, it would not open the store without several products. After all how can you have a store with barely anything in it? To many people's surprise the store didn't have much in it. Worst yet, we were told we would get 2 sceneries a year and one plane a month. Am I the only one that thinks this is way too little and too slow for a casual gamer to keep his interest in Flight? If the Flight enthusiasts are moaning already about getting bored with Hawaii, do you think a newb will keep his interest for six months? I don't think so. 5)Microsoft , through interviews with Josh Howard, has indicated that it will adjust and produce future content according to how well their current DLC is doing. In fact many of you are ( rightly) concerned that if people will keep buying the cockpit less planes then MS would assume that people want cockpit less planes (Which is not necessarily a right deduction). Doesn't this tell us that Microsoft is winging it and did not do a good market research originally? Doesn't it mean that they don't have faith in the product? I love to be proven wrong, and I don't have an MBA so can't bet my life on what I think. But it just doesn't make sense.

I don't know why I found your comment funny :Just Kidding:. Perhaps I can imagine myself doing the same thing. I don't think I could ignore and then not wonder what it was being said. Have fun guys.

:LMAO: Thanks for the laugh A. I really needed some cheering today

We are not against having low complexity and not against new entrants. But why not allow for a toggle to higher complexity for others? Why invest in the game engine and deliberately exclude others and those entrants who would want to graduate to a more realistic flying?

What does that mean anyway? I absolutely was shocked that the Flight store didn't have a lot of DLC from the beginning. To me two months old and still what they have offered does not offer optimism for me. With the rate they are going, what I want might take a life time.

Problem is that the administrators decided to not allow ANY negative opinion; even if expressed in mature polite way. They created the rule that says only posts that help others are allowed in Flight forum. Based on that rule this whole thread should be banned. Praises for flight should be banned too for they are not intended to help users with their problems. But they decided to only enforce the rule to negative posts about Flight. That was a hypocritical enforcement and I believe thats why Arwen quit. It was a courageous principled move. I applaud her for it.

I think if you let people vent, they get tired of it..and let steam out. But the reason they keep popping up is that people are not allowed to vent by rules created for Flight forum. I'd say let them let out steam until it dies down.

I am sorry for you leaving Flight as a moderator..but very principled move. Bravo for your courage.

Haven't been here for a while, did Arwen get banned?

Have you tried ORBX sceneries?

Then please accept my apology. Since it was right below where my post was, I assumed it was directed at me. Thank for clearing it up Chase. Frank Lavizadeh

It would have been just as effective and I would have gladly obliged if I too was explained the rule rather than rudely threatened and scolded like a 5 year old.

I am not sure If I will upset anyone here by duplicating my post, but I want my view heard by the staff. This is what I wrote in Flight forum in response to the severe scolding I got. I would appreciate a counter view or a response from Tom or anyone else in the staff. The following is what I got in response to exchange of views in the threat: "[Alert]A forum member that includes ANY reference to the P3D EULA, especially dissection or interpretation, will be suspended or banned depending on prior incidents. AVSIM is NOT a court room or a legal office. This is not appropriate discussion here. Consider yourself warned![/alert] The following is my response: "I am stunned at the level of your scolding. Even though I am not sure I understand the offence (which I really don't ), I am sorry for breaking any rules. However, it feels lousy to be threatened with a ban and scolded like a little child when I didn't even know that what I was saying was wrong. So, that I avoid walking in this mine field again, please explain what EULA is and if the ban on discussion of its kind is unique to P3D? Furthermore, please let me know if I was warned about this rule in any of the agreements I made when I joined AVSIM, so I can go back and refresh my memory of the terms of use. While I appreciate that AVSIM is a privately owned community and we are all guests here at AVSIM, this place has become a lot less welcoming and a lot less tolerant since I joined over 6 years ago. While us members need to be gracious guests, one would think that AVSIM, as a host, has a moral obligation to not offend and alienate its guests. As your above reaction is an indication of the recent attitude in AVSIM, I feel very not welcomed. Sincerely, Frank Lavizadeh"

I am stunned at the level of your scolding. Even though I am not sure I understand the offence (which I really don't ), I am sorry for breaking any rules. However, it feels lousy to be threatened with a ban and scolded like a little child when I didn't even know that what I was saying was wrong. So, that I avoid walking in this mine field again, please explain what EULA is and if the ban on discussion of its kind is unique to P3D? Furthermore, please let me know if I was warned about this rule in any of the agreements I made when I joined AVSIM, so I can go back and refresh my memory of the terms of use. While I appreciate that AVSIM is a privately owned community and we are all guests here at AVSIM, this place has become a lot less welcoming and a lot less tolerant since I joined over 6 years ago. While us members need to be gracious guests, one would think that AVSIM, as a host, has a moral obligation to not offend and alienate its guests. As your above reaction is an indication of the recent attitude in AVSIM, I feel very not welcomed. Sincerely, Frank Lavizadeh

Forgive me if this has been mentioned before, but why would once choose FSX now that this Academic version of prepar3d is offered for $49.95? Do all the add ons from FSX work on this? http://www.prepar3d....par3d-academic/

1) Prepar3d has been extensively modified to use multi core capabilities. Also the code has been so modified as to allow under water simulation. So to say it is the same as FSX is really not true. 2)As for tweaks and performance? We don't know if Flight would be performing as well as it does if it had AI, ATC, high res clouds, automobiles, animals, etc.. 3)I wonder why MS is allowing it? Could it be because they realize they are never going to expand Flight to have more complex simulation aspects? 4)Keep in mind that not only Pr3pared is being constantly updated, but that third party developers such as Orbx are actively working on improving the platform. The only thing I don't like about it though is the Prepar3d watermark on the top corner of the simulation.

If many people did what you suggest, Flight may not be available in a year.

:Just Kidding: Very well said

I don't think people from those countries would play games that involve bombing their country. So I don' think it is hypocrisy. Its just about who the software is marketed to.

I agree...most current gamers expect a more dynamic living world out of ANY game they play.

You need contiguous regions to fly jets, even small ones. I agree...I think they need an AI DLC like yesterday. That is the main reason I have not purchased (invested) in DLC for flight. Because no one has told me (advertised as you said it better) that Flight will morph into a simulator that I consider to be serious. Don't get me wrong, I am not bashing Flight, but I won't invest in it until I know one way or the other if it is going to become a serious simulator in the future.

ACES was well beyond having done most of the work and thus expense on FSX1 anyway. MS is a huge company that can't steer fast enough and manage projects well. Even their explorer browser is months to years behind Mozilla and Chrome. Would JH tell us it did not meet their expectations, if it didn't? I am not sure he would

I agree...your statement above is proof that MS has no clear strategy. Tom was this interview done on phone or in writing?

Strict Standards: Declaration of group_forum_breadcrumb::sendOutput() should be compatible with that of output::sendOutput() in /opt/webdocs/newsite/forum/hooks/group_forum_breadcrumb_d29bf565a59f776807044fd19e49258a.php on line 107 couldn't agree more.