Out of curiosity I gave it a try- thought to be openminded would be the best thing for an approach. I really had a few hopes for Flight, cause I am certainly part of the "low and slow" and eyecandy crowd and not necessarily fixiated on system depth.
Well, the cliff-coastlines pleased my eye, the shadows are nice too, but that was about it really. The whole setup/menue is already too gamish to me, the water is horribly cartoonish (itīs not great in FSX either, but still better) and it even runs less smooth than my current FSX install.
Moreover I completely dislike to create a Live account to get "more" options, aircraft let alone purchasing another few more "islands in the middle of nowhere". Donīt get me wrong - this does not go against Hawaii! - but I am a "homeflyer". Primarily I am flying around my own area (80%) and places I know (Germany, Europe) and only exploring the rest of the world for 20% (including Hawaii) of my limited flying time. So whereīs the thrill for me (at the moment)???? And if the added world later on will look as blank as this cartoonish "beast" (as I can imagine remembering how the default scenery of my favourite places always looked on any FS-release in the past) I will not spent any money on it or even create a LIVE account.
So for me personally I will keep an eye on it, but will enjoy my FSX for some time much longer. Moreover it makes me feel good to spent the little money I can on our precious addon-developers who created our "little world" over so many years.
Just my opinion here. We will see...
Yep, well put Alex.:applause:
I took Heywooood's advice and dropped an opinion or two on the "Flight" Facebook page. Just to let them know we are watching, lol. From the very beginning posts about the existence of "Flight" it was rumored that it would become a "pay to play" closed system with everything coming from MS and no 3rd party access. That alone was enough to raise the ire of a lot of folks who have become staunch supporters of our 3rd Party Developers. The rumors have become reality and despite the fact that I spoke these words when FSX was released ("I'm sticking with FS9"), the sentiment takes on added substance based on my age, retirement status, fixed income and a lengthy list of other factors. I have scaled back my buying tremendously since being unemployed and now that I've accepted retirement I'm buying even less, so a new computer is out of the question and having to purchase the rest of the world plus aircraft to fly is not in the cards. At some point I'll leave all this behind either due to boredom or inability to run FSX anymore due to HDD crashes or some other computer catastrophe and at that point another generation of simmers will be in charge anyway. I hope they get something better than "Flight".:salute:
I waiting for Microsoft to stop registering and activating FSX all together when you go to change OS or computer, to force people out!!!
when it ever comes to that, rest assured the community will find a workaround
Originally Posted by Marvin Carter
FWIW I agree that Flight is somewhat disappointing - but as MS offered it up for free I am not as upset about it as I might have been
I get the direction they took with Flight - trying to make it more appealing to general users in a nice idea, and capturing ALL of the development revenue is less draconian than it is pragmatic..
I think it will not pan out the way they had hoped. I think it will appeal more to people who are less likely to be bothered will additional content (casual gamers) than FSX does to ardent flight sim enthusiasts
and so will attract less money overall. If instead they had made a trademark usage deal with 3rd party developers - a "You guys can do whatever you want - but if it is "For FSX" then MS gets 5%" approach - they would realize far more revenue than they will by taking 100% from casual., disinterested, transient gamers. And when they allow freeware to be developed they likely realize far more core sales than they otherwise would so dissallowing freeware harms MS Flight too.
But - if they adapt Flight to a slightly more FSX model in time, and they could - Flight can still have ATC and AI and Heavy Airline equipment added and it doesnt have to be payware...it is TODAY - but alot can change in a day. In the mean time, this Stearman is a blast.
Yep, well put.:applause:
Originally Posted by heywooood
I agree with what you have said Heywooood and after a dissapointing first run and rant by me in the Flight forum, I came back
and had another go with it thinking that maybe I had been quick with my observations.
Well I now have to report that I have not changed my mind in anyway, to me it's just a game and always will be,
but I must say that it's taken a hell of a lot of money and time to get FSX to the stage I have it at now, it,s now what I thought it was going to be when I first bought it so .
Me too, regarding FSX - I have it looking right and working well with relatively high settings and it only took 5 years, two computer builds, FTX and REX, endless .cfg tweaking, and a pile of payware planes amounting to a staggering sum of money...lol I mean staggering
Originally Posted by Bruce Thompson
And I think Microsoft noticed - and wanted a bigger piece of the action
So here is Flight - looking (and performing) in its infancy like FSX of two years ago and with far fewer features...and yet all of the placeholders are there FOR those features to be added later (probably for a price that, by the time Flight contains as much as FSX did at release, it will have 10 times the pricetag) - now the million dollar question is...will anyone care?
Because it has already turned off so many potential customers - customers who had been faithful to the frachise for its open architecture and comprehensive depth, who have really made the MSFS franchise what it is. Customers who would have been automatic had Microsoft continued in the same vein as FS9 and FSX but who now appear to be about 85-90% against Flight - non starters...
Microsoft failed to see that, one of the biggest reasons the MSFS community buys these programs is that they know the 3rd party development community will eventually take something good and worthwhile..and turn it into something extraordinary.
They didn't include us in their new business model...they either don't care if we come along - or they just think we will because we always do.. eventually
I think that's partially why the initial release of Flight is free - we can either take it or leave it - making the choice without spending a dime.
And we still have FSX while we wait and see whether their idea is sound...or a complete mistake.
I'm hoping they will see the F'n light with Flight:kilroy: and open it up - they had a really good thing going if only they would have made a less radical correction.
This may be a bit of an unpopular opinion, but....
....What if the things you see and hear of Flight right now are just scratching the surface? Don't get me wrong...I am not defending Microsoft....but c'mon. These folks are being paid a LOT of money, to develop something for the PC aviation community, young and old, and everything in between. Who says there is not a 'FLight PRO' version in the works? Or, expansion packs that offer the specifics a lot of us are waiting for/want to see? I don't like the idea of MS closing off the 3rd party developers at all...but maybe they will be allowed in once Flight reaches a certain maturation point? I will have to take a wait and see attitude here. But, I will never dismiss that which I do not know. And a company as large and capable as Microsoft is no dunce. They know what they are doing. They know we are here. And they know we are waiting.
If you recall, back when FSX first released its demo, there were many noted third party vendors who commented about how they were already developing products for FSX. You do not hear that chatter for Flight.
I suspect this is an official divorce between Microsoft and third party open-ended development. I also think it meets the goal that MS announced a few years back toward online gaming where you paid a subscription fee.
Now, personally, I think this is a very flawed marketing model. I think customers are going to balk at a recurrent fee to play PC-based and/or X-Box-based video games. But, MS is going to have to feel the pain to figure that out. What concerns me the most is that the suits will see the failure, but instead of returning to open architecture, MS will just totally abandon the flight sim genre. You see, the man at MS who was responsible for the FS series no longer works at MS (Paul Allen). Paul was and remains a huge booster for general aviation. In short, the man loves flying.
Paul's latest flight venture is to sponsor Bert Rutan's Space Ship One that won the Ansari X Prize. Now, that venture is on the cusp of pioneering true commercial space travel with investments from Paul Allen and Richard Branson.
Paul also includes aviation in his many charity projects by sponsoring the Flying Heritage Collection, which is an assembly of vintage aircraft and warbirds.
As long as Paul Allen was one of the movers and shakers at MS, you could count on the continuation of the FS series. Nobody wanted to sit at an MS board meeting and explain to Paul why the FS series was going away! But Allen retired in 2000 and it is no secret that the level of committment to the FS series has ebbed since then.
I hope I am wrong in all this and that you are right. But, my pragmatic side doesn't believe this to be the case.
Ken, my opinion (which rarely means anything) is that the powers that be behind MS Flight don't really care whether the FSX/FS9 crowd comes along or not. They are moving to the gaming platform (specifically the "Live" Gaming platform) and that's a whole different market than those who are diehard Flight Simulator enthusiasts. As far as the 3rd party developers being involved, it was understood a long time ago that all addons would be handled in-house by Microsoft, hence the lack of chatter amongst the developers. . . .it was one of the things that early on began turning folks against what was coming. . . .basically a pay to play video game for kids with everything emanating from the Microsoft Empire.
I also believe that if "Flight" nosedives at some point and nothing right now says it will, but if it does then MS can finally wash their hands of the Flight Sim genre satisfied that they gave it their best shot and use all that wasted space in the home office for something that will make them the big bucks, lol.:salute:
If Flight tanks, MS wont give flight simming a 3rd chance. If Microsoft failed at making money on flight simming, and all other company's have folded or closed (Fly, Flight Unlimited and the rest), no invester will ever touch a new full-scale flight sim project for a LONG time.
Sure, we will still have XP, and FSX will still be around, but there wont be anything new for a really really long time. Do you really want simming owned by a monopoly? I dont. Competition is a good thing. XP is slow to advance as it is!!!
I think the one lesson we've learned is not to panic. Sims with the kind of loyalty seen on SOH die hard. I am still an ardent FS9 user, who only now, after all these years is about to take the plunge into FSX usage and development. So for me, FSX is a whole new playground that I intend to get as much out of as I have from FS9 for the last 8 years. So what I am trying to say is, if Flight bombs, personally speaking as a slow adopter, I am not worried. All the more so if MS truly are not intending to cut 3rd party folks into this. We've still got plenty of development potential in these 'older' sims let alone what opens up in this new puppy...
I can't help but sit here and feel the deja vu from when X came out though - a point that has been well-made in this thread :)
Are you sure about that? What about when M$ decides FSX is at "End Of Life", and discontinues support? How are you going to reactivate it the next time you need to re-install?
Originally Posted by Gibbage
The Flight interface reminds me more of CFS then the FS series but I'm still enjoying it immensely. I hope they continue to expand it.
I'm not that worked up over MS retaining development control at this point, particularly if they have a development path in mind that they wish to control; from how I'm reading the interviews third-party development could become a reality in the future. The IL2 series followed a similar path and it didn't hurt that franchise but did allow them to control it's evolution.
On a side note, I'd love to know how much MS has made off the FS series compared to the third-party community; particularly when you look at how long the last three FS versions have remained active, the initial cost of the game and the cost of the addons (many of which cost more then then host program). I know for me, the MS element of the hobby has been by far the cheapest.