Gibbage

Im just wondering what about the cockpit was less then appealing? What cockpit? This is a personal question, since I modeled almost all of them myself. I dont want to steer this away from the current topic, so please reply via PM. Just looking for some feedback.

First we need to get the tools in shape, then we can see about new aircraft. I dont have a lot of time, so I would need to make sure that if I were to model an aircraft like the 172, it would be financially viable. It takes months of work to build even a simple aircraft like the 172. Im doing the Seabee for free because its already made its money in FSX =)

Any reward system I would have would be acceptable from the perspective of a proper pilot!!! Nothing like flying inverted under a bridge, or something that would be against FAA rules. For Alaska, I was thinking of having you fly from airport A and land at airport B, but keeping the flight level under X. Forcing you to fly between mountians and into vally's, simulating bush flying. This would unlock the Kenmore air livery or something, since this is what Kenmore Air does! Kenmore is famous in the PNW, and started as a Seabee sales office. People would come into the office, and ask the pilots to be dropped off on a lake, or in the wild. Thats what got them started, so its history, not mockery. THATS what I want in Flight, and I think the mission system is a great tool.

I will ask Stone about cargo, but I see no reason it cant! I loved flying cargo, and laughed my &@($* off when I inverted a cargo load full of chickens.

Im not sure if multi-engine is possible. I do know that the C-46 is in, but it could be a simplified flight model that only acts like a twin engine, and not a real twin. I never downloaded any of those worthless warbirds, so I cant really check how it fly's. Cessna 172 is possible, and I even have access too a Cessna 177. I flew it around Seattle for about 2 hours last week (in real life).

Thanks everyone for buying the Seabee. I put it up for sale on Aerosoft for people who dont like the Flight 1 wrapper. http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/us/iboshop.cgi?showd,6496239010,D12766 I have a question for people who play Flight though. One of the options I have available, is to also have unlockable skins, like they did with the original aircraft. Like fly X miles, and you unlock a skin, or land at Y airport, and unlock another. Do you guys LIKE this feature? What I would like to do is have all the default livery's available, but have "special" livery's unlockable. Like a Hawaii and Alaska themed livery for people who compleated spacific task's, as a reward. I personally liked this feature in Flight as long as it was not abused. When you flew around on servers, you would wear your badge with pride! They wont be hard missions/goals, but something you would need to work at to get. Like flying a long distance over Alaska, or island hopping all islands in Hawaii in 1 flight. Something like that. So what say you?

Its possible, with some sacrifices. Flight was modular, and components were to be installed over time like jet mecanics, and glass displays. Sadly that did not happen, so we will have a limited selection of tools at our disposal. You can have a Cessna 172, but it will need to stick with steam gauges. No G1000 in Flight... Thats why I stated that the aircraft must be simple.

Its not QUITE abandoned. We are working on a way to put 3rd party aircraft into Flight and have had some success.

Let me just say, as one of the former developers on the Flight team, reading stuff like this really makes my day. I truly wanted Flight to introduce simming to a new generation, and im glad it did to some extent. It also holds a very special place in my hart, and the engine truly has massive potential if it could ever truly be tapped.

There really is no money needed. We are both doing this in our free time, and money really wont help things go by faster. If you like the Seabee once its released, feel free to donate money for it though, or buy the FSX version.

I think the haters got tired of hating and went away thinking its a dead sim, and there mission is accomplished. If we can open the sim up to modding, I really think it could revitalize the sim. I never liked the direction MS took with Flight (cockpitless warbirds), but the heard of Flight was a sim much more advanced then FSX in many ways. The team was just never able to tap those advancements!

Then everything is working fine! You were always a bad pilot.

Here are some updated screenshots of the Seabee, with some fixed shaders.

Just wanted to pop in and say YES, stonelance and I ARE working on porting FSX aircraft into Flight. There WILL be limitations due to a large amount of technology changing between FSX and Flight, but simple aircraft should be possible. Stone is doing the vast amount of work on this project, with moral and art support from me. Right now, we are running up against a flight modeling wall and would like to talk to someone who knows FSX's flight model well to help us out on the project. Here are the screenshots. Its still early, but it shows that stone has made some great progress! Here is the BIG news. I will be giving away the Seabee for FREE! I spent a lot of time working on Flight, and sad that it didn't really reach its full potential, and this is my gift to those who still fly. Hopefully we can get more 3rd party work into Flight. Hopefully we can work our way around the current roadblocks, but this is in no way an easy project.

Its nice and refreshing to see so much desire for ACES/FS to come back. If only reality would match our dreams... I would be all for the re-forming of ACES, just as long as its NOT under the Microsoft banner.

Sadly, this is rather old news. When ACES closed, LM purchased ESP and turned it into P3D. When that happened, they took on a few of the ACES crew. So in reality, its been this way for the last 5 years. I don't know if LM has hired more of the ACES crew (haven't heard anything) or if this is a new step, but I would take this information with a grain of salt, and nothing that says ACES is reforming or anything. From what I have seen, the crew at LM are very small with a limited budget. Maybe they just got the go for a bigger budget? It would be nice. I played around in P3D a bit, but I didn't see anything greatly improved over FSX other then the addition of under-water, and a slicker UI.

Simply put, WHY? Why would MS spend money doing updates for games that are so old? It wont sell any extra copy's, and patches only effect people who ALREADY OWN THE GAME! FSX works. Nothing left to patch. I dont see it this way. What does MS "owe" you? FSX works. Sure DX10 is still a "preview" but it works. I dont get this mentality that MS "owes" you something. You paid for a game, you got a game, and you enjoyed it. Do you think your entitled to a lifetime of free updates? Thats not how it works.

I think if a totally new sims is to start, it must start off SMALL, with visible growth SUPPORTED BY THE COMMUNITY. Flight started small, but growth was invisble, and not supported by the community. Those last two area's is one of the big things that failed with Flight. Flight's engine has some amazing potential, and it was built to expand easy. If someone picks it up, they will be years ahead of the curv in terms of technology. The question is if MS would be willing to let it go, or if someone has the money to buy it. Another potential source is Aerofly FS. Im extreamly impressed with what they have! What they need to do is get an SDK out and grow on the technology in place, like clickable cockpits and more area's to fly in.

I have seen the first question asked over and over and over. I think the 2nd question should be asked first. Please let me explain. I was working at ACES with MS closed the studio. They let go 90% of the close to 250 staff, and kept a core group of guys to start what would be known as Flight. I can say this since its been said publicly by people way over my head. The flight sim "group" was never 100% disbanded. When we were working on Flight, it was known in the office that this was THE LAST CHANCE in MS's eyes for flight simming. We knew that, so we put 110% into everything we did, so simming would have a future with MS. The problem is, the big leaders of simming like Bill Gates, Bruce Artwick and Paul Allen are no longer at MS, so nobody high up the chain was fighting for simming. It was a loosing battle against corporate pencil pushers, and leadership that only did things "by the numbers". Flight under that type of atmosphere has no chance. Now that Flight failed, MS has re-assigned or dismissed ALL of the simmers. From what little I can tell, there is no more "core" to build the next product. They all have been fired, or assigned to non-simming jobs within MS. Simply put, simming is dead within MS. It just wont make the numbers that will even interest MS, and there are no leaders willing to fight for it. RIP. That brings me to the 2nd question. SHOULD THERE BE ANOTHER MSFS? After what happened to Flight, I say no. Microsoft, while a great company, is no longer a fit for producing a flight sim. Like I said, you NEED leaders high up the chain that will FIGHT for simming. You also need a company willing to gamble and take a risk. I said it over and over, but I truly dont think a flight sim under Microsoft's flag will work. Is there no hope for simming? I wont say that. There is a void, and as we all know, all voids are filled. There IS a market, someone just needs to be willing to fill that market. Who will? Maybe Lockheed Martin? X-Planes? (doubt that) How about Aerofly FS? Maybe someone new? I dont know, and it may take years to fill this void, but it wont be from MS. P.S. Why do I say X-Planes wont fill the void? They seem to be more interested in the "professional" simmers, and not entry level. Without entry level, there wont be a lot of "professional" simmers who are not already pilots. There MUST be an easy entry to simming, or simming will die from attrition. Im not saying Flight easy, but easier then XP!!!! Kevin "Gibbage" Miller

I really dont understand your post. Are you saying that you have information that the next DLC area would be New York? I dont even know what the next DLC area was! Would of been great to fly around New York in Flight. It seems the engine was able to handle city scapes a LOT better then FSX was. Seattle is a slide show for me in FSX!!!!

So many errors. Sadly, the person in the video is the type of customer MS was marketing Flight for!!! As a new user, his experience is im sure what a lot of people thought about Flight. Dazed and confused!!!!

Not going to happen. Live is deeply integrated into Flight and its locked down tight.

If I recall, the windmills on Hawaii also face the wind. Flight is all about the little things. From the creaking of the control cables in the Stearman, to stuff like this.

I loved B-17 Flying Fortress.

I worked on a project many many years ago that was going to create a US Navy based combat flight sim. We asked Grumman how much they wanted to license there WWII aircraft (F4F, F6F and so on) and they wanted $60,000-$100,000 per aircraft type. Grumman also sued IL2/Pacific Fighters for using the aircraft without permission and Grumman's name and got around $250,000. Ubi paid it off without a fight. It was cheaper to pay the bill then fight with layers. Years ago even Cessna started attacking 3rd party dev's. Its a legal nightmare, and thin ice we all tread carefully on. I think Flight did make money, just not enough money for a big company like MS to really care. In an interview, Joshua said he though he could get 20-30 MILLION people flying. If he promised those numbers to the big wigs at MS, and only got say 1 million (a HUGE number), it would be deemed a failure, since it didnt match his estimate. Simming is sadly a small group, and MS simply isent interested in making small change.