MathijsAerosoft

As far as we know we have no product that does that, we always default to the Aerosoft folder so it is easy to see what is installed. We are studying the new options of 2.5 btw, but in placement of product files and in new functionality. There are some things that are mighty interesting.

I'm sorry that you did not get any reply from us Griphos, contact me on [email protected] and I'll make sure we sort your issue out. Do include the ticket number of the support.

Ohhh, sorry. Sometimes my fingers work harder than my brain cells. I am highly protective of the work of the people who work with me on the projects (always keep in mind I do not do much) and have been known to lash out like this. It's stupid but hard to prevent.

Okay, then you will not get a free copy and you can keep on calling it rubbish without knowing what you are talking about. If that makes sense to you, fine for me. Leaving this conversation now.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion (even if it rather nasty to speak bad about a product you have not used and only based on hearsay and not reviews or customers feedback), but this a customers award and the big majority thought the Airbus was the best. The work of FS2Crew was very important for us, it is there work that helps to make the Bus to what it is now. As you feel it is acceptable to call the product rubbish, I will take the liberty of calling your comment rubbish. You do not know what you are talking about. if you contact me I will gladly offer you a free copy so you can have an opinion based on facts.

You do know they already released three DLC products for FLIGHT right? Like the $15 Maule that is less functional then the one we got 'for free' with FSX. If that would be released for FSX at that price it would be slaughtered in reviews. And if they expand as you predict this will be the most expensive product ever.At this moment you can spend $40 on FLIGHT, and that will give you get you 4 braindead aircraft, one set of islands and bunch of missions. While I like the free base, the add-ons right now do not even come close to what customers started to expect over the last few years. At this rate it would literally take thousands of dollars to get it into a simulator that can compete. $15 for AI Traffic? $15 for ATC? $15 for real weather? $15 to get the AP's working? And keep in mind that to link Hawaii to any other place you need an aircraft that can fly the distance so it will need to be a bit more complex, so say $25. And you need a big airport to land on at the other end, $20 at least. And then you can fly back to Hawaii. Yeah! And to make matters worse... if you want to yuse your new bigger aircraft to fly to another location you will need to buy a new airport and all the scenery in between (or do with the 500 meter pixels now used). We must be in the $300 now.FSX costs $35 and has far more functionality. They would have to tweak Windows 8 not to run FSX to make that work. So FLIGHT will stay very much as it is. A fine game. We'll get new 'locations' like Hawaii, likely the Seattle area and you will fly around there a bit. In the same braindead kind of aircraft. And that's good, that makes it a good game. But not a flight simulator as the AVSIM visitors have learned to love.Am I the only one who sees the problems here? Again I like the base sim, great fun and a fine game. But just think about the add-ons you need to keep you busy. You will need to pay for every single bit of scenery you see.

Evening Tom, I was incorrect saying there was no serious answer to that and I apologize for that. The fact I cannot agree with the arguments should not have led me to say there was no serious answer. Next time we meet I'll buy the Belgium beer.

Perhaps AVSIM should review the available add-ons and see if they are worth the money.It is hard to fault a free product, but Microsoft now sells add-ons as well and in my opionion asking $15 for an add-on aircraft that has no radio and no working autopilot is really asking a lot from it's customers.

Not because it will not 'fly itself' but because it for sure gets closer to an arcade game if very serious features (and easy to implement) features are left out.Your simplifications do not really help the discussion. These people have bought an add-on and I think they got the right to expect a feature like radios or autopilot to functions. This is not about the free sim but about a paid add-on that would be totally unsellable if it was an FSX add-on.

You are right. These statements are not compatible.Yet from a commercial point of view (and all I own is paid for by flight simulator enthousiasts) it does make sense. See, while we do not got the impression that our current customers will be using FLIGHT seriously or spend money on buying addons like the Maule that sells for $15 without working radios or autopilot, we do see that people who used to be not at all interested in flight simulators seem to like it.My daughter is now using it and she thinks it is a cool game. And she is 14 and more interested in her horse then in me (because the horse understands her and I do not of course). I am blown away by the fact that people like her like a flightsim that is the topic of a discussion here!The fact that there have been hardly any new people entering this hobby is what scares a company like Aerosoft most. Our average customers is as old as I am. Just 5 years ago we used to have loads of boxed add-ons in the shop and we saw that people got interested that way. Now the US retail market is totally gone, the Asian retail was lost 8 years ago and Europe is not doing great there. So we are more and more send to the Internet. But on the internet people buy what they want. They do not browse, they hardly see stuff the did not know existed. And that was what helped us so much. Aerosoft is doing very well, we are still growing and in this market and in this world that means a lot. But if we do not get new customers, young people interested in the serious stuiff we sell, it is a dead end.And if FLIGHT! can get new people interested, I don't care at all if it is not a simulator but a simplified game. If mama Microsoft can have it downloaded to 2 million people and only 1% of those look for something more challenges it is my favorite game ever. The fact I personally think it is a nice way to spend an hour at most does not matter. I am not a hard core simmer, FS is not my hobby anymore because it is my job. But if I buy the FLIGHT Maule for $15 and find its radio not even work I start to wonder what MS was thinking. See that not a free sim, that a $15 add-on that would be considered hopelessly faulty if it was an FSX add-on. Yet many people here seem to accept all of that with hardly any comment. Blows me away. Perhaps Aerosoft should start to sell those kinds of add-ons for FSX.

With all due respect, you DO ingore arguments. I fully agree with your observations, I just offer an explanation for them! Just check the multicore use (Windows has all the tools for that) and you see FSX seems to use more cores (certainly in weather and while turning). Check GPU load and see that FSX seems to match FLIGHT. Check memory use and see that FLIGHT uses less because it is just a much simplified game.You seem to expect that Microsoft found some magical way of handling things that avoids all these things. I say there is no such way out. I will even go so far as saying Prepar3D shows more objects (if you see memory load on GPU) at the same FPS as FLIGHT does. Not as smooth though and that makes a BIG difference.

And if all of those will be a castrated as the Maule (at $15) with no working radios and no working AP..... There is not a single commercial FSX add-on that dares to ask that money for such lack of features. I am blown away that people are not upset about that. Must be me.

You simply ignore many of the arguments I posted.If you double the sightline (so you have to draw stuff twice as far away) you increase the amount of objects tremendously. Just set ideal visual conditions in FLIGHT and fly away form the islands. See when the islands are no longer seen (without any nav aids you got to guess the distance). Now do the same in FSX and see how far away you can see the islands. If you know a way of having many many more objects in view without loosing performance you know something nobody else has figured out. Now add a dozen aircraft that fly around (not static objects but they got to behave more or less realistic), clouds that move with the wind and you are looking at some serious increase in load.And that simply will reduce performance. I now have about 25% better fps in FLIGHT then in FSX with roughly simular visuals. Those 25% will be eaten up with any add-on that is more complex then the Maule that has not working radios and a non working autopilot. FLIGHT as it is now is perfect for ultralights. If I am correct you can fly those in the US without radios under some conditions.Don't get me wrong, I still like FLIGHT, but lets see if for what it is. It's 1/3 of a full flightsimulator. And as such I am not surprised it is fast and smooth.

Fact is that those forums do not see a lot of these negative posts and the FLIGHT forum does. That is at least an indication that this product does not match the users that frequent these fora. In my not so humble opinion FLIGHT is simply not a serious flight simulator at this moment. And I find the question why AVSIM supports it valid. The fine people at AVSIM however make upo their own mind and decided to add it to the products they like to see discussed in the forums. A decision not to support it would not have surprised me at all btw.

Mmmmm... FLIGHT has removed a lot of options FSX has (a lot that are hard on FPS in FSX like traffic), simplified weather a lot, has short sight ranges. So expecting good framerates and some nicer render options is the least we can expect. I dare to state that FLIGHT with all the bells and whistles of FSX will not be a lot faster or better looking.