Jnin

If Microsoft go that approach no chance they don't spin it off into its own product, would make more sense to sell a "Microsoft Truck Simulator" separately than bundle it all into Flight Simulator. That said I would be interested in seeing them trying to refine the tech further, I remember hearing about Microsoft Train Simulator 2 around the time it got canceled, and hearing that was gonna have autogen system from flight simulator. Always disappointed me we never got that, would've loved driving around my local railyard in the same way I can fly around my local airports.

Something I'd point out is that these days even a warbird would be easier to see than the older jets like 707, DC-8, or even the 727. Yes nobody's using Spitfires to defend their nation anymore, but there's still many flying around going to various airshows. Doing a quick check on Wikipedia (which I'm sure is a little dated, but still in the ballpark I'm sure) I see mention that there's 60 Spit's still flying, compared to around 30 727's still around, and there's actually almost as many airworthy B-17's as DC-8's at this point, and in the case of the jets they're all in regular service, not being flaunted around at public events, which I imagine makes a huge difference in terms of public interest. My personal take away is until someone decides to start a "free the airliners" fund and get a DC-8 or 707 on the airshow circuit I don't see the public interesting increasing, either that or we need a show on Apple TV that focuses on the death defying life of a 707 pilot in the same way Masters of the Air does a B-17 crew.

Hot Coffee wasn't able to be access in normal gameplay, but the fact you could use GameShark or Action Replay does make a difference. You're not gonna find anything spicy if you hacked Mario Kart Double Dash even if you try, where as someone underage could accidently find something they're not supposed in the case of GTA3. I agree that it's kind of a dumb decision, it's not anymore graphic than anything else in GTA, probably a little bit tame compared to everything else honestly. But the logic behind it actually is a little more reasonable than you're giving it credit for, and I'd actually be more inclined to agree with the ESRB on their decision if it was a game which wasn't already rated 17+.

People don't play Zelda to get a high score, they just want to solve puzzles and partake in some sword combat, that was true with the OG Zelda in 1986, and that's true of the more recent Zelda games. What games have varies from game to game, scores aren't a constant. What's also true is that console players don't like being patronized to either, and it's kind of baffling to think otherwise when many old consoles games didn't really bother explaining things to you. The OG Zelda starts off without explaining anything to you, much like how the OG MSFS releases just plopped you on the runway at Meigs without warning. On the other side of things Valve's known for being a expert at tutorializing players in games like Portal & Half-Life, and they've always been a PC first company. The idea things like scoring or tutorials are some how a "Xbox" thing is just silly, if it's tied to anything it's tied to technological advancement more than anything.

The team behind Flight was a early incarnation of the current Gears of War team, I really doubt their decision was due to not owning the code. Simple fact is Flight really didn't bring a whole lot to the table that MSFS didn't replace itself, the flight modeling might've been better than X, but if you're gonna replace it like Asobo did that doesn't really matter. Same could be said of it having a better Alaska & Hawaii, the advancements made with Azure made that pretty redundant. Reverting back to the platform that everyone in flight simming knew how to develop for already, and had features like ATC & AI traffic still implemented are likely what pushed them to use FSX as a base. The only real elements I can say I miss are the jobs, and aerocaches, well kind of. The jobs were a nice way of finding something to do if you were bored and couldn't think of something yourself, personally not really a problem I have with FS, but I can appreciate the thought. Although it also does make me wish they went further and went full on Euro Truck career mode, having to purchase bases, aircraft, and try and keep your company in the green. As for the aerocaches they were fun and a nice way to encourage some exploration and dumb stunts. That said as fun as they could be they definitely clashed with the sim aspects, I wouldn't want it back in MSFS, and landmarks kind of serve that purpose anyways in MSFS and in a way that isn't encouraging you to pull 10Gs under a bridge with your Icon.

Not directly comparable to the ATR situation, but from what I understand the Russian manufacturers actually have similar issues, not so much with damage modeling but systems modeling. The NATO based companies are pretty ok with even mid-2000's F/A-18's & F-16's aircraft being made in high fidelity. Meanwhile it's a battle just to convince the Russia to allow a 80's era MiG-29 to be developed, which is why that doesn't exist yet, and why there will probably never be the likes of the Su-34 done at a higher definition. I also believe that's why the Ka-50 actually received some elements from the Ka-52, because Russia likely will not allow the 52 to be made due to it being too new. Again, maybe not directly comparable, but I bring that up to note that DCS does have these issues, at least in some capacity.

This question is stupidly simple to answer, and I'm surprised this hasn't came up more, it all depends on the price. If you're gonna charge the same amount that FlyTampa or Drzewiecki Design's do for their airports then I'm going to expect the same level of quality, including modeled interiors. If you aren't going to offer that you either need to seriously increase value elsewhere (like say include a second or third airport and/or a landmark park), or you need to decrease the price to compete. I wouldn't pay Fenix pricing for a Captain Sim jet just because I want better performance, don't see why scenery would be any different.

Except the NGX wasn't innovative by your logic, PMDG did in fact do a 737 for FS2004, same could be said for their 747. If innovation is constantly doing new/different aircraft then neither line can be considered innovative. Not that I think that logic's sound mind you, there's far more behind whether something is or isn't innovative then whether or not the developer made the aircraft type before.

I don't see anything from them on their Facebook, and their forums don't seem to have had any sort of activity going on within them. I know that the A310, DC-3, and Spirit of St. Louis's developers have all came forward, and I know several months back Microsoft confirmed they had hired a third party (can't remember them off the top of my head) to do the gliders, so I'd assume the two gliders are their work. So Milviz are either working on Helicopters or the DHC-2, and I feel the latter's far more likely of the two.

Wrong, Aeroplane Heaven themselves confirmed it's their handywork, check their Facebook page.

Not from Boise, so ain't gonna tell whether all the gate placements are right or anything like that. But I gotta say I feel like the taxiway textures could use more work, they seem underweathered in many areas, and the whole airport seems rather lacking in clutter. I have the London City airport Orbx did for MSFS, and looking at that I don't see really see issues with either the taxiway textures or the ground clutter, both seem fairly well done in that airport.

I think he did state within the past few months that the next aircraft they'd show after the 737's the 777, so while it wasn't confirmed, that did heavily imply the 777 was now further along.

I'm pretty shocked it's taken this long for KMSP to come about, I distinctly remember right after Denver came out that they were talking about it. Granted, not gonna complain too much, if anything just means it will turn out a lot better than if it launched back in 2020.

I was referring in comparison to other fairly high end airliners, sure a Captain Sim 767 in terms of raw price is pretty cheap, but it's clear that it ain't anywhere near the same league as Fenix or PMDG. so i find It's a bit silly to compare them. The BAE though? I think that's fair to bring up, it's a fairly advance airliner in its own right,, same goes for the Maddog. And in both cases they're close to, or higher than what PMDG or Fenix are selling their products for. Just because PMDG were at one point the most expensive addon back in 2004 doesn't mean that's going to hold true here, there's a lot more high end developers for flight simulator than back in 2004 after all.

The BAE 146 is right in the middle between PMDG and Fenix, which to my understanding while a step above the CRJ isn't quite on par with either the A320 or 737 in terms of systems. Then there's the Maddog which seems to be about on par with Fenix and PMDG, but it's price quite a bit higher. Also I know TFDI's pricing strategy for their MD-11 isn't that much different than what the Maddog's doing, so it's not like that's the only aircraft intending on going higher in price. Personally I have to see more higher end jets coming out at the price the Fenix is to be convinced that their pricing is sustainable long term. Because as is the higher detailed airliners that exist right now honestly suggest to me the Fenix is going to be on the very low end of what's possible in terms of pricing of high end aircraft. And honestly I think the PMDG 737's $70 - $75 price point is going to be where pricing averages out, if not a bit higher considering it seems stuff that is more obscure seeming will either be priced higher, or be lower detail to hit a lower price point based on what we've seen so far. Mind you even Fenix didn't go for this pricing because they were certain it's the right call, they said in their blog announcing the price that they're taking a risk pricing it as low as it is. Granted could be wrong, it's still early days and more places could release airliners at, or even be dropped to that $60 price point. And i would be more than happy to be wrong mind you, would absolutely love to see the Maddog & MD-11 come down to $60 or less for sure.