Why should I invest more in FSX with Flight coming soon (I'm guessing Christmas '11)? I admit, I've spent close to 200.00 dollars (U.S.) in the last month or so on add-ons to FSX (after going a couple of years without adding anything). I was contemplating more, but am reminded of the impending release of Flight. What are your opinions?

My opinion is that we know what we have with FSX so enjoy it for now; and that even if stock Flight is a 100% improvement on every feature, it will be some time before a wide choice for addons will be available for the new title.

If you can get FSX running and looking how you want it then them dollars won't be wasted.

On the other hand if you can't?


Bryan.

I highly doubt flight will come out anytime soon, it's still in alpha I thought, and it wasn't shown at e3, so hopefully it's a bit closer to being finished for 2012 e3.

Though I feel the same, I have also bought a lot of payware lately, enjoy the now. Probably be years before I can get an A2A product for flight

Maybe I'm a bit behind on this. Can someone explain it to me?

MS kills off MSFS and then announces Flight?

Why did they kill FS again?

Are there any indications that Flight will take FSX and earlier scenery or aircraft? Will all the expensive external gauges still work?



What was the point of killing FS if they were just going to do Flight anyway?

The only thing Flight will do is kill my FS2004 install. I'll still have FSX on my hard drive after the investment i've made.

For me FSX has only recently gotten to the point where I can play with realistic add-ons and maintain decent FPS with my decent PC...

My guess is Flight will inherit a lot of the FSX code (for good or bad) and with an unknown team since they let the old team go, also unknown whether it will be sim versus eyecandy or even when it will ship 2012? 2013?

So for me, FSX with the awesome add-on aircraft that is coming out these days (Orbx, Carenado, Aerosoft, A2A etc.) and the awesome add-on scenery regularly coming out (Orbx), I plan to enjoy FSX for the next couple of years.

Even if flight comes out and turns out to be an amazing sim, it will probably have MS's "generic" airports and lightly modeled aircraft and it will be a while before we start to see the detailed add-ons which we have become accustomed to for FSX.

The main thing I am looking forward to in flight is support for modern graphics systems (Dx11, SLI/Crossfire etc.)

No one really knows (except MS) what Flight will be like so its probably best to enjoy what you have. Likelihood is, based on recent sim games releases, it will be a mess on release, it will be arcadish, and/or it will require permanent internet access to play - all of which are good reasons to stick with FSX for the reasonable future. They say it will be a departure from the present and past games and that is enough to get me worried. Its true the add-on system could do with simplifying but as for the game itself, flying is a complex matter most of the time. I wonder how simple they are expecting to make it and how they are planning to widen the popularity of the game without losing the main reasons for the ongoing popularity of the game - variety, realism of flight and systems, visuals, exploration, player choice/customisability, and the excitement of flying.

all good points and definately worth continuing as you were:)

You guys remember FS 2000 then came the much improved FS 2002? I'm not saying FSX is bad, other than horrible frames for most users, it's actually a pretty good sim. I just think that Flight will be the product FSX should've been. Sort of like 7 after Vista.

BTW, I will never uninstall FS 2004!

Thanks

I wish I shared your optimism. The fact that Microsoft has dared to abandon its firmly established "Flight Simulator" branding and has already said that "Microsoft Flight" will be a different kind of experience, I think what we'll see is something FSXish but designed to be even more appealing to casual gamers and to the Farmville crowd. I also think that Microsoft will make it more proprietary and will require Windows Live for multiplayer. I also think that X-Box 360 will be included in this new vision.

So in my opinion the version comparison will be more like comparing "Flight Simulator 2004: A Century of Flight" to "Combat Flight Simulator 3: Battle For Europe." In other words, some shared technology but otherwise very little similarity or compatibility.

Nope.

Microsoft will indeed build in experiences that will satisfy non-core flight gamers, and Windows Live will serve as the main backbone for gaming - but Microsoft stands (and has stated) that they will support 3rd party. Your comparison is wrong.

Microsoft Flight will be a full sim just like everything else. Just a different name.

Relax.

IMHO, the name change is the brainchild of marketing geeks who believe the word "simulator" in the title scares away more casual gamers. It's always about money; and money is always about sales. They are doing everything they can to market this next "flying software" to the masses. Whether that means scalability from arcade up to full-blown sim is unknown. But they dropped the word "simulator" from the title as part of a carefully crafted strategy to try to sell more copies than any previous release.

It's all about the Benjamins. As in "Franklin."

Mmm from the articles in pc pilot, that is true, they dropped simulator from the name because it intimidated people. (not us people obviously)

They have also said it will be adding more features to what FSX has not taking them away. It will have a marketplace, they said the fsx code was too bloated, so time to start from scratch.

And as pure speculation I'm going to say we will see flight on xbox also. Since that's were the money is.

Agree with all above. As for the Xbox version -this will be coming but the current 'box' only has 512mb of gpu/cpu deployable RAM (it is shared) so it will be a rather stripped version.

Having said that - the Xbox does have a triple-core PowerPC cpu so it has grunt to spare.

I don't think I have ever seen a console game yet I would actually want to buy. I look at them occasionally in Game whilst I am trying to find the single PC games shelf and I honestly cant see why anyone would buy a console game - they all look so dreadful. And no its not my age either. When I was in my 20s I still preferred to buy decent flight sims/space sims/tank sims not shoot em ups. Just cant see what the interest with most kids is with consoles myself. We actually have a PS2 and hardly ever play anything on it - use it more for playing DVDs than games. Even my 10 year old daughter doesn't play on it for more than an hour at a time without getting bored.

I bought a Xbox and Xbox360 just for multiplayer racing like Forza. Extremely easy to setup and fun, just plug everything in and off to the races. I wore out 3 steering wheel/pedals sets before I sold it. No regrets at all but flight sims need far more buttons and switches than are available for a console.

My 20 year daughter is addicted Halo 3 on the Xbox 360. I don't why. I really don't get the appeal. On the other hand, the Xbox 360 has the greatest boxing series every made--the Fight Night series. Fight Night Champions is the latest and easily the best. One reason the Fight Night series for console is the best is because the PC does not have a boxing sim. Unfortunately. So I bought Fight Night Champions. About once a month I will hijack my kids' 360 and enjoy the best simulation of real boxing every made for an hour or two.

Well I'd have to agree - I can't stand Halo, COD, any of those stupid FPS games. The genre has been truly and completely run down with saturated nonsense (give me the original 'Doom' or 'Wolfenstein' any day) but I absolutely adore GTA4 and its 'ilk' including L.A. Noire. They have made the 360 worth it imo. (not to mention the Assassin's Creed series)

Not much else of recent worth though.

Well I did really like the original COD - superb game, probably one of the best I've ever played and one of only 2 linear games I've ever finished, Doom 2 being the other one. And I do like ARM2, Batman, Hearts of Iron and Civ 5 at the moment. RoF though is my favourite game by far presently though and ranks with the best games I've ever played (those being EF2000, TFX, Tornado, F117 Stealth Fighter, Gunship 2000, M12 Tank Platoon, Lemmings, Frontier Elite, TAW, Red Baron 3D, Wing Commander, X-Wing, Simcity, Civilisation, Silent Service 2 and XCOM) as does MSFSX.

First i doubt we will see Flight for a couple years. Secondly we have no idea what we are going to get. Third, it will take a long time to get decent add ons after it is released.

In other words, there is absolutely no reason to hold off purchasing FSX add ons. Imo of course.

yup,

exactly. Plus, we don`t know the business-plan behind, so we don`t even know if it will be oben to third-party addons. If not, the addons will come even slower and fewer, be it scenery or A/C.

I really cant see them locking out 3rd party add-ons.

They know that a very large part of FSX and previous FS's popularity and continued success is because of there expandability. If it turns out that Flight cant be expanded it will die out very quickly.

But like others have already said I think its quite a way off yet so keep adding to FSX for now and get the most out of it until the Flight add-ons start appearing.

Personal choice really, if you want to spend more or not.

Do you think the money you`ve spent so far has been worth it? If yes, then if you have the spare cash and are willing to spend it, it won`t hurt to spend more.

And once Flight is released, there is no guarantee you will like that game (just for argument`s sake).

In the end only you can answer. I haven`t spent any money on this game, but I certainly wouldn`t hold a grudge against anyone who did. As far as hobbies/past times go, this is a mighty fine way to spend your time.