Rush1169

I truely believe Flight will include jets (really good ones) and longer routes and probably sooner than later. I also believe there will be ATC, real-world weather, AI planes, and most of all the other stuff that FSX has today. It took 25 years of programming to get from it's humble, limited scenery, low-and-slow beginnings to what it is today. However, with the Flight reboot, MSFT is sitting on a stockpile of knowledge and code, so it certainly won't be another 25 years before that stuff is seen again.In it's simple form MSFT has basically taken the sim back to FS1.0 with modern graphics. It seems logical to me that their end-target would be an improved version of FSX some day. Again, not 25 years, but much more quickly. MSFT has really lost most of it's financial incentive to continue FSX development. The problem is that it has been patched to death with each new release building on legacy code and hardware and it's reached a critical mass that it's really due for an overhaul. The time between the FSX release and the closing of Aces is when the 'writing on the wall' was obvserved as they went to work or planning on FSXI. Aces was probably saying, "OK, let's add this and this and this" and the coders would reply, "OK, that will break this and this and this and we're not sure what will happen to this and we're still running short on CPU cylces". Realizing the core needed to be fixed which will render 'add-ons' largely or completely incompatible there were some potential decisions. Rewriting the core was the first decision - it was decided that had to be done to ensure the future of the franchise - a 2 year undertaking. Once the core was in place, then they have to program all the "components" that's been added to FS over the last 25 years (read: all the stuff that's missing from Flight), so figure a year or two. Once those components are in place, we'll need to either code a 'middle-ware' interpreter to allow most add-ons to work with the new Flight-OS or we're just going to have to render the add-ons incompatible. If they chose the former, add another year or two to the development and subtract the revenue from the add-on sales (regardless of who gets that revenue, for now). If they chose the latter (which they did), they saved 2 to 4 years of development (just a rough guess).So, had they decided to "start from near scratch" with the engine, retain everything that is in FSX, and support legacy add-ons, starting when they started developing Flight, we'd still be another 2 to 4 years out before we'd have anything. MSFT would sell it for $79 to $99, some would stay with FS9/FSX (granted, far fewer this time), and XPlane would have an additional 2 to 4 years under it's belt (risk). On the other hand, they can release Flight 1.0 and give it away and cash-flow it's development over the next 2 to 4 years that it would have taken anyway (with $0 cashflow and avoid added competitive risk) as it builds up to FSXI.As for 3rd party stuff? Well, had MSFT taken the 1-2 years to program the 'middle-ware' interpreter to allow an FSX PMDG add-on, then many/most of us would not buy it again (bad for PMDG), those who are new buyers could buy that plane only because MSFT just spent $4M developing the 'middle-ware' interpreter for that add-on to be compatible, of which they get very little for their effort. So, MSFT gets zilch and PMDG get's a small set of incremental sales. The best scenerio, and MSFT is not 'dumb' to this idea, is to eventually provide an SDK for commercial add-ons (that are not backward compatible with FSX) and sell those products through it's store. PMDG wins by selling it's planes again. MSFT wins by getting a cut of the sale. Consumer wins because it works a lot better than it does now.Lastly, it would seem rather difficult to have an SDK available on Feb 29th seeing as Flight has comparitively little to 'interface' with in Flight. More logically, the SDK would be made available once all the missing components are added to the Flight engine. DISCLAIMER: Flight may never become anything more than it is today.

Yeah that one seems like a pretty easy addition for future content. What comes to mind is however, seeing as we'll all be flying in Hawaii, it will be interesting, if not kinda cool to play in a 16 user "room" that has 15 other human controlled planes flying around. I look forward to see how that all works out.

I guess I don't understand the IF-THEN relationship of that question?I'll take a shot at 're-wording' your question, as I understand it, so please correct me where I err. "If 24,000 airports is too many to model with any degree of realism, other than the NAVAIDs and alignment of the flat concrete, then why is MS modeling all of them in much greater detail in a smaller area?" Of course, that can't be the correct wording, because that answer is obvious. . . I'd bet very, very few people refused all earlier versions that didn't have their local airport. In other words, the lack of having one's local airport was rarely, if ever, the reason someone skipped that version. Even if someone did, they should have never been under the impression that a future version would actually include their local. They just kinda showed up one day.Yep - Once my local airport become available, I did go there and check it out and was completely underwhelmed. Other than the alignment of the concrete and radio stuff, it looked *nothing* like real world. It's cool to pretend sometimes that it really is my real-world airport and fly to another nearby airport that also doesn't resemble what it should look like with enroute scenery that also doesn't resemble real life, but those flights could'a been from any generic airfield to any other and it would have looked, felt, and immersed me just the same.Anyway, there is plenty missing from Flight that are more important for a vast, vast majority of all simmers than the lack of 24,000 airports. It's not that that feature is not important, it just that it is less important (in general) than the other missing items.

Vertibird - Oh goodness - my favorite toy as a kid. We had one where there was a large ship attached ahead of the controls with a helipad for virtual ocean rescues - hated getting hit by the blade, but it was worth it :)Found it:

To have or to not have (20K airports)? That is the question. I'd guess the decision wasn't easy, but keep in mind, the first 7 releases of FS had had 250 or fewer airports. 3,000 in the 8th release and not until the 9th do we have 20K. If you think of the pros and cons of each decision, in view of all users and MS, they probably made the best decision for Flight 1.0 for greatest appeal. I understand that decision is not appealing to some, but most people can get more immersed in smaller, 'lush' environments than the entire world. Seems like XP10 now has 35,000 airports, but even though that's 10,000 more than FSX, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of excitement about that fact, in general. Surely, some bought XP10 just for that fact, but probably a very insignificant number.I think MS knows that Hawaii alone will never sustain Flight in the long-term and they have no intention of leaving it at that. On the other hand, I think they also know that having 24,000+ airports is not a requirement for a great product. Flight, with fewer airports + vastly higher detail can, someday, be superior to FSX in every other way in the opinion of everyone except those who expect 24,000 airports. I don't know the math, but I'd guess that ratio to be 9,999:1. Again, I completely understand the viewpoint of the right side of the ratio, but everything considered, it's probably the best route at this time.The lack of a 24,000 'airport' environment is very insignificant factor compared to the other things currently MIA in Flight and, again except for a very small fraction of users, the ATC, AI, jets, TrackIR, 'real' weather, and all the other things that are missing on Feb 29th are of more interest to typical simmers. In other words, if Flight were released on Feb 29th with all those missing features, but did have 24,000 airports, some how I don't think the Anti-Flight group will be any more excited.

Back then a pubic, free-for-all SDK made sense. Today, it doesn't. Times change, it's different now - thank Apple :)

+1 on the Dell 30" - If desktop space is not an issue, I'd think a larger, yet lower res monitor would be preferrable. I need the high resolution and size of the Dell for work stuff. Although I have a i7 and super-duper video card, I don't *think* I run it at native resolution for FSX for performance reasons, something lower, although certainly not as low as x1080, but not at full native. . .I'd probably prefer a x1080, larger size, and better framerates over smaller, higher-res, yet slower FPS.

I'd too pay $2,000 for top-quality global coverage if my hand were forced. . .Where I get 'confused' is what is "top quality scenery that covered the globe?" Hawaii apparently has at least one major city (is there more than one?) and at least one major airport done in HQ and, I assume maybe a port or two. But, when you say "top quality scenery that covered the globe" does that mean including the city structures and detailed airport features or are we just talking about the 'mesh' and 'landclass' features? If the $2000 includes major airports, major cities, and the HQ mesh/landclass stuff then I think $2K is cheap and would nead years to produce and significant bandwidth and maybe even significant storage.Just the US with Flight level airport detail? I'd do $2,000 for that - you're talking JFK, O'Hare, DFW, Atlanta, LAX, SFO, and at leat 50 other airports not to mention all the scenic stuff. . .If they did a 'generic' world coverage (strips + navaids) and 'plausible' landclass with decent mesh as a semi-required download for additional, detailed scenery - along the lines of what included with FSX just to give us a foundation, I'd think $100 is reasonable.That being said, I'm with Meshman - I'd rather have smaller (18,000 square miles in say, 10 different and interesting areas @ $30 each) detailed areas than 196M square miles with 25K airports (strips) for $100. Even if that means there is never scenery available in my neck of the woods - The default FSX scenery that represents my local airports is so generic that it's only distinguishing features are the radio frequencies and placement of the concrete. Yep, other than the novelty of 'seeing' my locale, I'd rather have HQ scenery from anywhere in the world than my area as it's portrayed in FSX.

In theory, your DLC purchases will be tied to your account/password. So, if you need to reinstall, you should be able to without paying again. At least that's how some other DLC models work. . .

I agree - My mind has gone overboard with the possibilities of what Flight could be some day (I mean really, why would it ever have jets, ATC, weather, AI, 3rd party stuff via an SDK, additional scenery, or TrackIR support? That's truely outlandish thinking!). When I post that enthusiam (ie 'fanning the flames'), the response is that none of it could possibly be true. Many of the posts here seem to be very intent on only allowing "facts" - speculation is met with anti-speculation, so I'm just sticking to the 'facts' - which encompass all the things not found in Flight as we know it today. And the anti-group is technically correct - Flight is nothing like FSX and is so lacking in content that it really can't be seen as anything but a toy as compared to FSX.

Hi Oz,I *totally* understand why you'd want to. You see, not too long ago I thought Flight would be more than a carplane, coin chasing game. You can see here: http://forum.avsim.n...-never-grow-up/ and here: http://forum.avsim.n...cassette-tapes/ when I posted what I thought Flight would be. However, I learned from other, much more astute forum members that both of those thought-processess were nothing more than a pipe-dream. I was quickly corrected by many people on this forum that Flight is just a silly toy game produced for kids to play Xbox style. I being facetious again. . .On a serious note: I think Flight will be good and am very excited for Feb 29th.

Hi rtodepart - No really, it's true - haven't you read these forums at all? No jets ever, no ATC ever, no 'real' weather ever, no AI traffic ever, no SDK ever, no 3PD ever, only Hawaii ever, no TrackIR ever. Although Flight can be played with a simple joystick, it really shines with a mouse or Xbox controller with the motion thingy strapped to you head and it's best played with a carplane. Even though a 'hard core' FSX user will fork over $2,000+ for add-on FSX content, MS has no interest in that market. Nope, MS wants the occasional $15 plane sale and that's about it. . .And that'll last about 10 months and then Flight will go 'off line' and everyone will have wasted all their $15 purchases for nothing. It obvious.

But of course. I didn't mean to imply that MS would ever release anything but more coins to collect, I'm just saying they are *aware* that many *would* spend $2,000 on scenery. Obviously Flight will never have that nor will it have anything other than coins and some weak GA planes and they will stick to the $15 DLC model of toys and stuff.

I think MS is well aware of how much money the hard-core group is willing to spend (wink).

I'm hoping they avoid any/most of the planes in FSX and go with something different just for variety. . .

When do I expect the area I want the most to be released in HQ? I'd wager big money that answer is never. Simply not enough interest. I do think there will be somewhat steady stream of large-appeal areas released at a rate that corresponds with the decline in sales of the previous release.

Yeah - new to me too, but they were new things that give the impression that he's trying to appease more serious simmers and there will be none of that around here :)

http://www.gamespot.com/news/microsoft-flight-aiming-to-please-sim-fans-and-newcomers-alike-6350136Nothing new, but interesting to read anyway.

The HI to CA scenerio certainly seems like a strong possibility (with a capable plane). . .but something to consider: It may be that many people are not interested in making a 5 hour flight between the two. I know I've never done a 5 hour flight, in real time with any version of FS. I'm sure some people have, but I'd bet that's a very, very small percentage of users. Yeah, I've slewed between or used the time multiplier, but never real time. Heck, anything more than about 20 minutes of straight-and-level and I'd rather do something else. Matter of fact, for me, the enroute portion is so incredibly boring that most of my virtual flights are to the next closest airport that's large enough for my plane. I love all the flight phases of FS except the enroute portion - Maybe that admission takes me out of "hard core" status (and that's OK), the point is, even if we could fly from HI to CA would *that* many people really want to (and actually do it) without slewing/time multipling. If you do use slewing/time multipling, why not just pick a closer destination, that's a bit more "real" anyway?

Yeah, no kidding - life would be so much better if Flight never existed.

I can see Flight sucking a LOT of money off my credit card if it goes in the direction I want. If there are a dozen HQ scenery areas @ $20 each, a couple dozen HQ planes @ $20, a dozen mission packs @ $10 each, and a couple dozen 'enhancements' (like ATC, RW weather, etc) are relased at $15 each - I could easily see myself buying every one of 'em over the course of time. Yep, easily over $1K in easy to chew bites. Then again, if it's never more than a carplane game, then I'll probably stop well south of $100.

Love it! Rolling laughter, sitting at my desk where no one can hear, so had to post :)

Yeah, I guess it would be rather pointless to offer an achievement that would be impossible. Excellent point. I thought of this too and I do think Cali will be available fairly early, but not too early. . .this is my reasoning: If California was, for example, the very next area then we'd really be up a creek without a plane able to cover the obvious HI to CA flight (the elephant in the room problem). Because my internal premise is that Flight DLC will be a "one baby-step at a time" progression, I'd think that long distance planes would need to come before the elephant appears and that more complex, yet short distance planes would need to come before the long-haulers. So, to avoid the elephant, they may go with an area far removed from Hawaii until such time that a plane is capable of making the trip.Of course, on the other side of the agrument, maybe they do do CA next for the "big city" areas and we just can't fly between HI and CA until the bigger planes are offered (which we'll be chomping to buy at that point).Another thought - Maybe additional scenery is well into the future and by the time it's offered, Flight DLC already includes everything we'd need to make the trip. . .

So, we know we'll have additional Hawaii scenery, a couple more planes, and a few missions, and aerocaches for release day. . .what do you think is in the pipeline for near future DLC?------------For planes, I think they will do progressively higher peformance planes. Taking into account the Flight seems to be a "beginner" platform and the nature of DLC, I'd think they'll go with each new plane being a little faster, a little more complex with each plane released. I also think along those lines, they'll do maybe a trio of planes with each step up in performance: One GA, one bush style, one commuter/commercial style. Maybe a 4th into the mix being military. With each 'generation' of releases upping what was available.For scenery, that one is a bit tougher. The Carribean seems almost too obvious - as faster planes become available, the Carribean islands seem to be a good fit. But really, their choices are pretty endless in this department, so who knows. Certainly NYC or Tokyo are good choices too. I don't think they'll go wrong with any major scenery area - I'd look forward to any of them on par with what I've seen with Hawaii.For more advanced features, that one is not so easy either. Based on what I think will be included with the initial release and the premise of Flight is to slowly, steadily introduce more 'complex' facets of aviation, and the fact that some beta testers say the weather is not all there, I think additional weather features will come pretty early on. I also think some AI planes will be seen pretty early as it is nice to see some other traffic. I think we'll see 'missions' or some other type of interactive 'mode' that teaches basic navigation and how to use the nav radios / GPS.My guess is Flight will progress much along the same lines as a RWP would progress from their first day behind the controls of a 152 to the 'last day' when they become captain of a 747 (or military fighter or any other representation of the 'end of the line' so to speak). The DLC will probably progress in much the same direction.--------NOTE: None of the content in this post is meant to represent factual information concerning Flight. It is quite possible that Flight is never anything more than what we know about it now.

Weird. Seems most comments are negative towards their product and have been for quite some time and they've allowed those posts to stay. Heck, they're even allowing posts that promote competing products to stay on their wall. Wonder why they only delete some negative posts, but not all. Weird indeed. Thank you for the all caps warning.