Virtual Reality

I am sorry for my comment to benorg. I was angry that instead of posting a constructive reply back, he posted one for which I viewed as offensive.Although I didn't type it up well, what I was actually trying to do was to know whether it was normal for it to be going into BETA with so little information about the game/simulator actually released. From experiences with other game developers and publishers, they would have usually released a general overall of what new features would be in their product by now.It appears that I was wrong in making this thread and from reading the replys it was like this for Microsoft Flight Simulator X as well and that there is still many months ahead before FLIGHT is set to be launched.Cheers all for the replies.If an admin could close this thread, I do not want any more bad-feeling and my thread question has been answered.Thank you,Matt

"Now compare that to when FSX was about to be launched:"That is what I said, but to suit your needs, taken from simviation when FSX was announced,http://simviation.com/fsx1.htmYou can see that from that I already know,3rd party compability 24,000 airports were to be included Wide variety of aircraft General new features that are to be included Also I swear that website 1 and 2 were both made before FSX Beta and were the inital launch website for FSX until FSInsider was made after Beta was complete and just before launch?Cheers,Matt And making a stupid immature comment such as that means you do as well? Idiot. <_<If I have made a flaw point it out such as Jim has done, that I am welcome to. Firing a personal attack at me (taken from my point of view, in saying that I don't have any common sense) I find rude.Cheers,Matt

Dear all,Yes, I have no real or solid information about Flight, but I am rather annoyed about the PR surrounding FLIGHT and how this has stopped me from being excited about the new simulator.It appears that the simulator/game is to be released soon as it is now entering the first stages of Beta testing, but I find it amazing how we are at such stages of the simulator/game now and yet so little is known about the simulator/game.From looking at their website I have so little knowledge of what FLIGHT is, that I can't even say if FLIGHT is a simulator or a game!Were at beta stages (starting in January 2012) and we still don't know the following: A full list of aircraft that will be included in FLIGHT Whether the simulator/game is Hawaii only or includes the world What new features are in FLIGHT Whether 3rd party development is included What's different compared to FSX Teaser or Trailer video showing features rather than of a plane flying around Hawaii. Any decent FAQ's Any developer video's or input, like "Microsoft's FLIGHT Lead Designer Q&A'" etc... The list goes on and on...Now compare that to when FSX was about to be launched:http://www.microsoft...ash/default.htm [WEBSITE 1]http://www.microsoft...orx/default.htm [WEBSITE 2]http://www.microsoft...ames/fsinsider/ [WEBSITE 3]Can you see what I mean as to why I am so annoyed about the market side of things surrounding FLIGHT, and why I feel it may not be the simulator we all know and love. This is why I made the title of this thread "If Flight is the same as this then it will be a failure" because if the lack of effort and commitment is the same amount used in FLIGHT that I have so far seen by the market side of FLIGHT's development team then I feel that it will one massive let down.I hope in the new year things will improve and more information will be released, but so far I feel annoyed that FLIGHT has been in almost a year's development (from what I know) and such little has been said/shown. This is why I made this thread to see whether anyone else feels let down or disappointed about it as well.Thank you for reading,Kind regards,MattThings that they have said from quickly looking on FLIGHT's website:- New Clouds- Improved Sound- Shown a couple of new aircraft (Pictures/Videos)- Hawaii Included (Pictures/Videos)Not really a lot seeing as FLIGHT's been in a years development!

Hey everyone,Thank you for your kind words and advice, I am slowly getting more into X-Plane everytime I use it, always something new that I haven't seen as of yet! Thanks peppy for telling me how to get the pan system to work in X-Plane, i'll do that in a moment. Donald I do have X-Plane 9, but have only used it briefly, just as a benchmark against Flight Simulator 2004, having only played it for about 2-3 weeks I decided I would stick with FS2004 (and at the time didn't have my SEAGATE external hard drive for which to have X-Plane on). That is why I didn't get the controls properly figured (other than the Axis of course)!I do agree though, that with time and reading more into it, through the manual and guides on the internet, I am starting to get to grips with the user interface and gameplay now, I will even look at converting FSX scenery over to it and doing that XCountry as the X-Plane King Air does look great to fly over a long distance!I hope my review was balanced as I didn't want to be on either side, but to give a person who reads it a bit more insight into what I experienced, as from previous exeriences better knowledge of a program before buying it is always a great help!Cheers,Matt

Dear all,As I was saying earlier, I recieved my copy of X-Plane 10 today, after using it for a good couple of hours, I thought I would share my experiences with it so far.I am using an Alienware M15x Laptop with the included things: Intel i7 740QM (1.73GHz Clock Speed - Can run up to 2.8GHz in Turbo Mode) Nvidia GTX260M 4GB RAM Windows 7 with Service Pack 1 installed SEAGATE 2TB External Hard Drive - Therefore I can install the massive 75GB hard disk space X-Plane 10 requires if the user wishes to install all scenery. Saitek X52 Joystick Review:Case/Box:I recieved X-Plane 10 through the post after buying it directly from X-Plane.com, the case is low/standard quality, by which I mean, it is not anything you would put up for display. The case is literally made just to hold the disks and included no full manual (the user must visit the URL printed on the case to view the full manual) instead their is a simple guide printed telling the user on how to install X-Plane, launching It and how to configure essentail yoke/joystick functions. It appears that the Installer problem people were saying has been fixed for both Windows and Linux users as there was a label on the case only saying Mac users needed to use the online installer. Their are 8 DVDs included, other than that their is nothing else on or in the case that can't already be found at www.x-plane.comInstalling:I inserted Disk 1 in and up came the familiar X-System (for people who have used previous versions of X-Plane), I went through the list and selected to install the full world onto my SEAGATE 2TB External Hard Drive, which in the long run means I can go anywhere in the X-Plane world and fly, but for installing prepare for the most boring 4-6 hours of your life. On the case it does warn you that installing the whole of X-Plane will require around five to six hours with each disk being thirty to sixty minutes.Therefore I recommend to anyone wanting to install the whole X-Plane world onto their system have something else ready to do while you wait!Launching X-Plane 10:After I had finally installed and updated X-Plane to the lastest version (X-Plane 10 Beta 4) I was ready to test it out. After double clicking the X-Plane 10 shortcut it booted up and launched straight into the simulator itself, which on my system took a good 5 to 10 minutes to load. Once done X-Plane 10 requires you to have Disk 1 in your CD drive otherwise it will keep X-Plane 10 in demo mode only (only allowing the user to play for 10 minutes before it disconnects the Joystick), afterwards it checks whether there are any updates and then your ready to go!Playing X-Plane 10:I tested X-Plane in the following areas: KSEA (Seattle) / TNCM (St.Maarten) / EGKA (Shoreham) / EGKK (Gatwick)The simulator loads you ready on the runaway in the United 747-400, on its default set up. The first thing I went to do was to configure my joystick (Saitek X52), and it if i'm honest, flying an Airbus A380 on final in serve weather conditions is probably easier to do than to go through the X-Plane 10 User Interface (To any hardend X-Plane user, it is probably extremely easy to navigate through the X-Plane user interface, but for a beginner such as myself, it was a nightmare).Controls:So I go to the control settings and firstly you have to configure your controls Axis, which was pretty easy to do, but then you come to the "Buttons" area, (I chose Buttons: Basic, because I wanted to just get up and fly) so slowly you go looking through the options so that you can configure each button to a command, but in some cases they can make you baffled as to why they listed that command as a "Basic Option" but other one's not. Overall after playing around with the buttons I was configured and ready. ( I am annoyed that X-Plane doesn't pick up that my joystick has a Hat-Switch and sets it so I can freely look around which FSX does automatically. It can probably be done, but as a beginner and just setting the Buttons already becoming annoying after keep having to look up and down to find the command you want set to that button frustating, I have left it so far)Rendering Options:I already knew my computer wasn't handling well the current default options X-Plane had set, so the next step was the "Rendering Options" after yet again playing around for a good 10 to 15 minutes of settings I got what in my view was an alright set up. Settings are of personal choice in X-Plane and takes a lot of time to fiddle about with, in order to get that set up your wishing for. I found that it doesn't require settings to be on high/maximum to get a decent looking X-Plane, and on the settings I have, I still get lots of fun out of it.You must remember, just like FSX, in a city area such as Seattle or London you are going to get lower FPS than in a place like St.Maarten, so when going through the rendering options ask yourself whether your more likely to fly from city to city, or be more of an VFR flyer, flying out from small remote areas and base your options around that. There are three main things in X-Plane 10 which will kill your frames from what I have found in my experience so far (this may be different from person to person). 1. AI Planes 2. Shadows 3. CloudsOn a positive note though, like I said earlier, X-Plane doesn't require a hardcore gaming rig in order for it to look nice and it really depends on one's taste and what they are willing to "accept" as good and bad.Flight Model:Flight model is on par with previous version's of X-Plane and simulate pretty well the flight dymanics of aircraft. I cannot say on my heart whether they are "just like real-life" as I am not a pilot myself, other than flying a couple of hours in different GA aircraft, but on the whole they do offer a challenge and do add that extra touch. Although I have found especially in the Cessna 172 that sometimes a simple touch of the controls can make the plane go into a beserk state and flip over.Clouds:Clouds are no way near REX standard of clouds, but unlike FSX all of them are from what I can guess, appear to be 3D. Flying through them is a bliss and feels just like the real thing and they are effected by time of day etc.. (If your flying in the evening some of the clouds will have that orange glow on them from the sun, while others will appear dark and gloomy. Just like real life) Also from what I've heard, you should never see two of the same clouds which I thought was really good, as when do you see two of the same clouds in real life? The downside though is that because all the clouds are 3D they are a big frame rate killer.AI:AI Planes: While they may be lovely to look at, follow ATC perfectly, I feel this to be probably the worse problem with X-Plane 10. To sum it up take FSX, the AI in it uses basic models which look pretty, but don't include systems or anything fancy, because at the end of the day you just want them to look nice and fly from point A to B. Now instead take that PMDG 747 your flying in (with it's systems and attention to detail) and use that as your AI. What do you get? A stupid AI system which not only kills your frames but allows you to only have about 20-30 AI aircraft if your lucky before you overload your computer/laptop. This is exactly what X-Plane has.Therefore I have turned the AI Planes off.AI Cars/Trains: On the other hand, the AI Cars and Trains are 10 times better than the FSX cars and don't require a lot of FPS until you start to choose the higher settings. It is a great addition and always a pleasure to look at while flying.Scenery:Scenery is brilliant, if your computer can handle it, your in for a treat. All buildings are 3D and don't have ugly flat roof's on them like FSX does. From flying around buildings don't appear on roads, but next to them which therefore adds to the realism. Roads are placed on their real life position, to give you an example I even found the road where I live at! The scenery textures on high/extreme res look beautiful at low-level and overall I am generally pleased. On a X-Plane playing field it is a huge improvement over X-Plane 9, but at the moment if your using FSX with Orbx scenery there's no rush to change.Seattle appears to be the only airport i've been to that includes airport buildings, but i'll have a look around to see if I can find any more places.Overall I was very happy with the scenery.Default User Planes:Default planes are nothing special although do add a bit more than the default FSX planes do (such as some include virtual cabins) some of the default plane's have been updated to show X-Plane 10's new protential, such as the United 747-400, with a nice looking VC, but other planes have been imported from previous versions such as the British Airways 777.ATC:Best default ATC I have seen, and probably the closest you can get to real ATC in a simulation, too much to discuss and I haven't done a proper IFR flight yet, but top marks for it. Although VATSIM clearly is better because of obvious reasons.Night:I had to save the best till last. If there's something in X-Plane which makes you go "yep that alone makes my $90/£60 worth it" it would be at night. Night lighting is incredible, almost eye-popping. Cars and Trains all have their own lights (headlights etc..), every road is lit with its own street light's, your lights have an affect on the world, such as your landing lights shining on the car traffic below are exactly like that in real life and the whole X-Plane world really does comes to life at night!Overall:There' so much I still haven't done or found out yet, but I hope my review can give any potential people thinking about whether to buy X-Plane 10 or not a little bit more insight. If your an X-Plane 9 user, X-Plane 10 is a must have upgrade and certainly worth your money. For FS2004 or FSX users it depends. Addons are lacking compared to FSX/FS2004 and while there are many things X-Plane 10 has which FSX does not, its a learning curve and a really comes down to personal taste. Not to mention Flight being around the corner.To best sum it up to you, Your either going to love it or hate it. Personally for me (as an FS2004/FSX/X-Plane 9/X-Plane 10 user) I love it and will be the platform I use for my VFR flying from now on, but for IFR I will stick with FSX.Finally it seems Austin and the X-Plane team have put a lot of hard work and effort into X-Plane 10 and I congratulate them for that, it really is the best X-Plane made so far and I will be playing it for a great deal of time. Seeing as it's my first Chirstmas present I am extremely happy with it and would recommend it to anyone who asked.I hope this mini review has been helpful.Many thanks,Matt

Thanks Goran for the quick reply Matt

Hey Guys and Girls,I've just recieved X-Plane 10 and was wondering how I turn the AI off. I would rather use that extra processing power to up my scenery and make the world more appealing than having 4(Seeing as i'm using 4 cores) AI planes fly around.(Sorry if it has been answered, i've tried looking around, but to no luck so far.)Cheers,Matt

This is just a general thought here, so don't take it as if i'm trying to be rude, but do you think X-Plane has been rushed and launched way to early just so it doesn't miss "another" deadline that was promised? I was surprised when Austin was presenting X-Plane 10 at FSWeekend and he saids it was the first time every part of X-Plane had been put together to make the full product, and were now what only 2-4 weeks on and the demo has been launched.It just feels that no proper Alpha or Beta testing has been done, otherwise they would of picked up on these mistakes.I also feel that there was little PR before release, all we got was updates on the news feed on X-Plane.com, which is quite hard to find as well. There were no trailers, no videos showing all the protential XP 10 has to offer, it was only when they launched the demo did they include some new screenshots, but that was about it. I just feel i'm paying for a simulator I have very little knowledge about. They should of built X-Plane 10 up a bit, like most companies do, instead of me going "o WOW this is amazing, this looks like a whole new X-Plane, can't wait to buy it!" i'm actually just feeling like its an update to X-Plane 9 because of such little excitement that was made during the launch of X-Plane 10.Overall I think X-Plane 10 was rushed, so that it could be launched before Christmas as it would be embarrassing to miss another deadline again, and so they could get those Christmas sales as well. It's sad because X-Plane 10 seems to have so much protential going for it and had the developers just done some proper Beta testing, ironed out the bugs, flaws and awful frame rate problem, X-Plane 10 could of actually of been put on par with FSX or better.Thats my two cents,Matt

I fully agree simmerhead, thanks for explaining in more detail! All MS needs to do is just release the SDK and that's the hardcore simmers happy, the rest can be done to please the "wider audience" they are trying to get.Sorry to come across as a little rude in my last post, but the amount of times I come on here and people post replys looking to pick a fight, no hard feelings I hope. :) Virtual Reality

Yes, but it is pretty obvious to anyone that "Microsoft Flight Simulator" is of course a simulator, just by looking at the title.If Microsoft wanted to put everything to rest and confirm to all that "Flight" is a simulator, they simply had to just add in "Simulation Game" but they didn't, instead just putting the word "game", which makes it questionable that "Flight" isn't just the same old same old we've been use to like the previous titles. The over use of "game" in the news story just made it seem like it was being put forward as a, well... game, instead of a simulator.I'm not having a go, or trying to get one up, like I know everything, i'm just taking it for what in my opinion it appears to be, but then I could be wrong, and Flight turns out to be an all singing, all dancing flight simulator, we'll just have to see! :) And the winner of the "most stupid reply on this thread" award goes too...Please, if your going to shine down your holy knowledge to all, do it in a more constructive way, than posting a idiotic comment, which is intended only to start an arguement or cause a clash. Cheers! Virtual Reality

Quoted from the October news about "Missions": Unless Microsoft consider Hawaii the "world", I don't think Flight will just include Hawaii, but that marketing are simply using Hawaii as a benchmark in showing what Flight can achieve from out of the box. Although I too am still looking at Flight with my glass half full, I could not mention the amount of times they used "game" in the news story, they did not once use the word "simulator". Maybe they are just doing it to not put the scary "simulator" word in it, so that new players don't think it's going to be diffcult/complex to get into like the old ones, but just annoyed me that it sounded like they were marketing "Flight" like a platform-game, something you would for a game appealing towards a Xbox or Playstation 3 fanbase, than a simulator fanbase. Pictures look nice though, shading looks a lot better and overall the detail looks of a better quality than that of straight out of the box FSX scenery. That's my thoughts on it, I liked the missions in Flight Simulator X, and FSX is still called a simulator? I hope Microsoft keep with this approach and make "Flight" a simulator with missions/extras included, than a game based around missions that includes certain elements of simulation in it. But we'll see, only time will tell! Virtual Reality

Reason To Choose MS Flight: 1. So I can act like a real pilot.2. So I can brag to everyone that I know everything about real-life aviation online.3. So I can spend $100's of dollars on addons and then complain that MS have ripped me off because they haven't included backwards compatibility when they launch the next sequel to MS Flight.4. So I can join in with the arguments here on the AVSIM Forums.5. So that I can buy it on day one and then complain it's awful, instead of waiting and reading reviews and feedback from it first.6. Because I've got nothing better to do with my life than sit at a computer and watch the altimeter and airspeed indicator say that i'm cruising at 35,000ft at 320kts for 10-12 hours as I fly from EGLL to KLAX. (Just some little banter.. please don't rip me apart ) All I would like to see in MS Flight is it's performance being acceptable with today's current hardware. That's about it really. Virtual Reality

Hey all,Title saids it all, but what aircraft do you think will be added to the game, especially as Microsoft are appealing to both the "casual and hardcore" flight simmer.Are we likely to see well known fighters and famous aircraft like the F-22 Raptor, Airbus A380 etc.. to please the casual players, while planes such as Boeing 737 or Concorde added for the hardcore/plane-lover user? I personally hope they mix it up this time, not the same old same old we have previously seen in the last couple of Flight Simulators, my list of 5 aircraft I would love to see in Flight are, 1. Cessna 1522. Airbus A340-6003. Gulfstream G6504. Dash 85. Lockheed Constellation Love to hear your opinions and thoughts. Virtual Reality

Hey All, I don't expect Flight to require a vast amount of hard disk space, atleast nothing larger than 20GB.I base this on the fact that if they are aiming for the casual user, these user's will not have the computers with vast amounts of hard disk space available. That said though, X-Plane requires 60GB+ of hard disk space (if the user wishes to play across all parts of the world) and uses 6 DVD disks. The problem with downloading scenery, on such a huge amount is that many people have download limits and speeds, therefore downloading such scenery (on such a large scale) would either use up their download limits or could take longer to download and install than by installing though the use of DVD, depending on the person's download speed. Be interesting to see, but I would reckon no more than 20GB will be used and that this will be placed on DVD format across a maximum of 4 disks. Virtual Reality

When I see an MS Flight Webisode called Performance and in the video it has the red FPS counter in the top left hand corner, showing different situations in the simulator and what FPS the simulator gets, then I'll be happy.Microsoft are a business after all, and a business wants to sell it's products, so while it's good to look at these Webisode's and Screenshots, this is not Microsoft developers posting these, it's Microsoft's marketing team and they will try and show "better-than-expected" screenshots and videos to us, in order to make us go "WOW", "AMAZING", "BETS SIMULATOR YET".Now I know everyone is different, but i'm going to hold off from buying/making up my mind about "Flight" until I see an independent video/screenshot, from the likes of IGN, EuroGamer, Reviewers and users on YouTube. Showing the "real" game/simulator, and what it really looks like for the average player and not all the different camera angles, lighting positions, effects and get-your-heart-going music in the background you currently see in the Webisode's.This is after all, just my opinion.Virtual Reality

Hey Attila,I do believe some points you are making are correct, but I don't see why people need to connect Microsoft Flight Simulator with Microsoft Flight. I always took it that Microsoft were going for the new apporach, meaning this was a new "start" in the simulator franchise. I wouldn't mind if developers just used their old models etc.. that just "breaks the compatibility" even by doing this they are then making a model that works with "Flight" instead of just simply copy and pasting a model not intended for the use of "Flight" but for an older simulator.I don't have a grudge, I don't mind whether there is or isn't backwards compatibility in "Flight". I just feel that, with Microsoft taking a new apporach, with a new title, new team and new audience, why does "Flight" have to be connected with Microsoft Flight Simulator? If they simply wanted to to keep with previous addons they should of just named it "Microsoft Flight Simulator 11" But I do agree with you in some parts Attila, and i'm not totally disagreeing with backwards compatibility at all, I just believe we need a new start.---Back on topic, The photoscenery looks good in some respects, and maybe they have included this use of photoscenery and textures to help blend different areas together.Virtual Reality

But why?What is the point in making a new Flight Simulator if your just going to use addons which were intended for an older version of Flight Simulator (FSX\FS2004)? I think people just want "Backwards Compatibility" because they have invested in a lot of money in FSX addons, and don't want it to feel that it's all a waste, but then, like I said in my last post. No one is forcing you to use "Flight". If your going to invest a chunk of money into a Flight Sim, then have in mind to carry on using "that sim" well after it's intended shelf life.Backwards compatibility isn't needed, it brings no real advances, other than old addons into a new platform. As I also said, if your not willing to lose your addons to play "Flight" then just stick with FSX, as FSX is only coming into its prime as of now, seeing as techonology has finally caught up with it.I would be glad if they didn't have backwards compatibility, as then many developers would simply just convert their FSX addons over to Flight and still charge the same price, for an addon which was made for an older flight simulator. If i'm going to invest into an addon for "Flight" I want it to have the lastest techinques and techonology placed in it to work side by side with Flight, using the lastest code and features "Flight" will have to offer.(And before you say, I too have well over £200 worth of addons for FSX and FS2004, but there really needs to be a time when a line is drawn under using these addons, and with Microsoft scrapping the "Simulator" part of "Microsoft Flight Simulator" I think it's time for a change, and for Microsoft to distance itself from the old franchise and start new, with a fresh team, fresh look, fresh simulator)I think this will also allow developers to push themselves if we start new, if a developer has to make an aircraft again, he/she is more likely to add new features into the new development, otherwise if they simply convert it, its the same old same old, and nothing is really pushed or helps change the realism in Flight Simulator. An example of this is the PMDG NGX. In all honesty PMDG could of simply converted their 737 for FS2004 over to FSX, but instead they started again, building a 737NG using all FSX had to offer, and this has won them much praise. I hope this explains in better detail as to why I believe backwards compatibility is a no, no, for me.Although anyones opinion and comments, I will respect, as everyone has their own view on the subject. :)Virtual Reality

I might just be the only one happy that Flight is being made to appeal to as much audience as possible.- Having more players/users will increase addon sales, and drive demand for more addons to be made.- Having more players/users allows more people to get into the Flight Simulator hobby, which could lead these "casual" gamers becoming the next-PMDG development team over time.- Having a wider audience, means "Flight" will need the performance that matches not only to "Flight Simmers" but for the "casual" gamer. As unlike many of us, who have the lastest Intel i7 Processor's and state of the art GPU's, casual gamers will not be so keen on updating their machines if Flight doesn't perfom when launched, as to them, it's just another "game/simulator", this means that if "Flight" wishes to be successful in the "casual" gamer market, its going to need to look good and run smooth on a range of computers, not just top-of-the-line machines.- How is having more people play Flight a bad thing? The more players/users, the more likely development will continue long after Flight, if the demand is there for it. More players/users = more demand.If I remember correctly, many forum posters where complaining about "Mission's" being added into FSX back when it was in development and how it was dubbing down the simulator, and making it look more like a game, yet here we are with FSX still going strong, and people are still calling Flight Simulator X a simulator.Also I agree that it's time to move on, a new start to the franchise, why does "Microsoft Flight" have to be linked to "Microsoft Flight Simulator"? Because there both made by Microsoft?People complaining about backwards compatibility not being added in "Microsoft Flight", why does there need to be?If you want to use your FSX addons then use it with what they were made for FSX! If you want to use your FS2004 addons then use FS2004! No one is forcing you to use Flight, no one is sticking a gun to your head and making you uninstall FSX and install Flight when it's launched. If you don't want to lose your addons, then carry on playing FSX with them installed.----Other than that, the screenshot's really show Flight's protential and i'm excited as the development seems to be going well, and from what I can see, Microsoft have made some real improvements! Thanks for posting them up Brandon. :)Virtual Reality

What many people are forgetting is that FSX is still selling very well today because it's the only Flight Simulator that has a wide public appeal. Microsoft Flight Simulator is a very well known brand and anyone who likes anything to do with aircraft is surely going to pick a copy up, as it's in their general interest.I think were still seeing a great demand for FSX, not because hardware has caught up, but simply because generation after generation are buying it. I remember picking up my first copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator at the age of 13 and haven't looked back since. Microsoft Flight Simulator is one of those games / simulator's which will never have a "out of date" label placed on it. I could see myself still using FSX in 10-15 years time, if it was not for Microsoft developing a new flight sim.I think the problem FSX had at the end of the day, is not because FSX was a bad sim, but because it was a simulator that was meant to be worked on for the 2-4 years it was meant to be played on (until ACES made the next Flight Sim), as an example, ACES launched a "base" FSX and then carried on fixing and tweaking FSX through service packs until they decided on making the "next" flight sim. The problem came when ACES was scrapped, you had FSX (a simulator which was mean to be worked on throughout it's entire game-shelf life) stopped mid-way before ACES could see the problems users where having and getting the chance to fix those problems, or see how the hardware market turned and then applying service packs to apply settings which worked with new hardware.I stick by the decision still that Microsoft should just launch a good-healthy Flight Sim, able to run with great graphics on mid to high end computers (so the new sim reaches as much target audience as possible) and let the Scenery developers put the eye-popping graphics through the use of Scenery addons for the people with high-end computers to enjoy. I think that's fair for everyone.That's my opinion, sorry if some parts aren't in proper English, I'm writing this at 1:45am at night, so I may be a little dozy with spelling/grammar.I hope many others share my opinion.Virtual Reality

No offence to Level D, their 767 in all respect is one of the best addons for flight simulator ever created.But I couldn't help but notice that it's taking them longer to ceate a 757 simulation for a PC based simulator, than what it took Boeing to design and actually make the real aircraft! :Thinking:If correct, Boeing studied two variants, the 7N7-100/200 in 1978, but then got renamed the 757 in 1979 - and it's first flight was on the February 19th, 1982 and introduction was on the January 1st 1983. So from 1978 to 1983 is 5 years. Same amount of time LVLD has taken so far. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757)

The problem I am struggling to find is that this has been months in development, months of planning, organizing and testing and this is what they thought was modern?A lot of man hours has gone into this and I am very greatful to the whole team at AVSIM to put effort into a new website design, and most people did want a new layout, it's just we weren't exactly thinking to this extreme.The website has gone from extremely plain and boring to extremely over the top and messy.To me, the new website looks like one of those websites that appear when you type in the wrong URL and it comes up with a SPAM website, adverts everywhere, text all over the place and you haven't a clue what's what.I actually thought I had typed in the wrong AVSIM URL when I first went on because I was so shocked.Other than that, the libary is a different story, while there are some bugs with the search feature, the layout and design is brilliant, the libary is user friendly and appealing to the eye, so I must congrats everyone on that, as to me it looks very professional.It's a shame I can't say the same for the new website layout, i'm no boff at this, and I know a lot of effort and hard work has gone into it, but it just feels like the web designer has used a website design program like "Freewebs (Now just called: Webs)" as a method to design the new page.Hopefully in the months to come certain issues will be sorted and over time the website will become more and more appealing, but at the moment is looks like a SPAM website.Sorry to be harsh, but I had a lot of excitement over the new website, as I had countless e-mails sent to me saying about the new site, like it was going to be something which was going to really show AVSIM is in the 21st century, but like I have said, i'm very grateful to all the effort and hard work that has been put into it, and I am not crictizing that, just that the website isn't appealing at first glance and like I have said, the new libary looks brilliant as far as im concerned, really enjoying it!That's just my opinion, Cheers allVirtual Reality

Agreed, that was another reason for it as well.Look, i'm not going to get into BP, I admit I am wrong on some of my remarks. What I just wasn't happy was the immature reply from january. State a point, that's all very welcome, but to add in childish remarks afterwards was just not needed. I am sorry back for the remarks I made towards him, it just makes me angry when people have to use sarcastic comments to get their message across.All I am trying to get is that, I think, if Microsoft just posted some video's on their "Flight" website from the development team, or did a little bit more with the community, like a Live Q&A. I still think that is better than nothing at all, even if it just makes $50 more by doing those, it's still money and still extra profit for only 30 mins of time, while a support team member does a video or Q&A's, if you get me?I just thought there was a lack of input from Microsoft when they launched FSX, it was like "Here you go" and when people found bugs and slow performance, Microsoft were very quite about it, until they launched SP1. If Microsoft were to be more connected with the community which helped build Flight Sim what is is today (and I know Microsoft were at the AVSIM event, but I mean they were more connect to the general flight simmer) then I think it will regain trust in Microsoft's flight simulator as I feel many others, not just me, were a little disappointed when FSX first came out.Thank you,Virtual Reality

I am not sure whether you are just big headed or stupid.BP Reports $5 Billion Loss after Gulf Oil Spill (Tuesday 1st of February 2011):http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/01/bp-loss-gulf-oil-spill-resumes-dividendHave you never done anything about media? Especially towards the "Public Image" sector of it? A company invest millions into good public branding, why on earth do you think BP launched a multi-million pound advert after the Gulf Oil Spill? Money wasted in your opinion then, as by taking your termonology: A good company is that it makes money. - MS had a very profitable year, that makes it a "good" company.If a company has a bad public image, then you would have to be stupid "as an investor" to invest money in it. I mean, seeing as your the amazingly smart one here, tell me then why BP's stock market crashed after the Oil Spill? It was still making it money? (They had $50 Billion in savings, if I remember correctly.) Therefore surely it's still a "good" company to invest into? Right?Wrong. Investor's knew the backlash which was going to happen because of it, and how the public image of BP was going to be of a bad one. Companies invest money into research against Global Warming, Charities, because it makes the company look good and people are more likely going to invest there money in a "good" company than a "bad" one. If a company does good, investor's are far more likely going to invest their money into it. Why do you think at this current time, especially Libya at the moment, the UK government is distancing itself from the weapon's trade it did with Libya? Seeing as you were so eager to blast me, you forgot to see what I had put: It doesn't matter whether you make just $100,000 for good marketing/public image. That extra $100,000 is still money in the bank, which can be used.A "good" company is one which makes money AND has a good public image.Now blast me all you want, but as far as i'm concerned, i'm going to stick with what i've been told in school, than some person on the AVSIM forums, who think's that by being rude, it makes him superior. Good day Sir,Virtual Reality

If Microsoft didn't care as you suggest, why bother even making 'Flight' seeing as to how you put it, it only produces "2 million" annually. Why not use those resources (staff, software, time) instead on another game or software which could make twice the amount? If your going to do something, make it well and put the effort into it, those extra little bits like "marketing" can make a big difference. Maybe not in the short term, but in the long term, yes.A person is more likely going to invest their money into a company which they consider "good" than that of "bad" (Example: BP). Microsoft has a reputation of being "bad" (common sign around the internet as: M$) if they were to connect better with their customers, through the use of video's and interviews, it would make out they actually gave a damn, rather than just wanting my money.Sorry for the straight to the point tone, I just wanted to get a firm point across how sometimes, some of the most "silly" ideas can actually have a great affect, and it doesn't matter whether through the use of video interviews/better marketing etc.. they just make $100,000 extra profit from 'Flight', for the sake of time they have already paided a person's salary, or used that money to resource more funding for an addon pack or sequel . Thank you for reading.Virtual Reality

Thanks guys for the positive and thoughtful replies back!I totally agree with you fcerven about Freeware. Freeware IS the backbone of Flight Simulator. 'Flight' simply wouldn't work without this, I was just thinking more towards the payware market when talking about Microsoft's Official Addon Partner. There are so many FlightSim addon website's now, that it's hard to tell what's what and although I have heard no reports of this currently happening, it would be very easy for a good hacker to make a false "addon" market website, and be able to scam people. Now i'm not saying this will happen. More to the point I am trying to say is, the payware area of Flight Sim is unmonitored and it's more than just one addon market, meaning I have to place my card details in to more than just one website. This is frightening stuff to the new flight simmer (as was I, when I first started).Having payware addons in one place - especially if it was from the Microsoft Marketplace, would assure people that they are buying from a secure, official, realiable place. This is just my opinion of course.---To simmerhead: I totally agree as well with your view. I woud like Microsoft to make more effort towards bringing the people who make 'Flight' with the community who will be investing money in it, especially from the Flight Simulator community. By doing the odd video, or webcast, it builds a sense of trust and passion. There was no link when ACES was making FSX with the Flight Simulator community and this is why I don't think FSX turned out the way it did. Had of ACES talked to fellow hardcore Flight Simulator users, did polls/questionnaires and research with the community it would of learnt of the computer's in which people were using. What they would like to see etc.. etc..Having a strong relationship with the people who play the game, will only give benefits than negatives. After all it will be the customers who will be the first ones to fully test 'Flight' when it is launched and make an opinion on it. If people arn't happy, word of mouth travels very fast indeed!----And lastly cheers FlyAndFight, two cents is gone already! now four cents... what next someone will post a "My Six Cents" :biggrin:Thanks all for the replies, Virtual Reality