I think Microsoft has jumped the shark.



This looks really poor relative to their other releases, but its free. Yikes.

Free - and worth it!

It will end up being a gigantic hit...


Wheels

Hmm looks like X-plane 10 just won for me. This looks like it was built for the console and console players. As a flight simmer I almost feel left out after watching that.

It triggered a couple of gag reflexes with 'achievement' and 'unlock', but maybe this is just the trailer for the console crowd.

FSX currently has addons like Accusim, where the sim is just the base, maybe this Flight will only be an interface for more sophisticated paid content - which MS will now sell through their version of iStore. Wonder what will happen to the publishers?

I'm not sure I see what the problem is. It's clearly marketed for the console generation, but it still looks like a Microsoft Flight Sim to me. Was FSX any different out of the box? I'm sure that the quality of the experience will improve over time as (if) more 3rd party addons are converted to the new software...

Thank God for Eagle Dynamics.

Hey, we can zoom through caves on the coast! It ain't flying but it's great fun!

I guess this was to be expected when they cut "Simulator" out of "Microsoft Flight Simulator"...

Microsoft Flight.... - from reality!

I don't get it - I play FSX and FS9 because I like to fly around where I live and I enjoy the visuals of each new title in the series. Why would this be any different? I'll certainly try it for free and check out how NS looks. Is it the departure from simulation that's ruining it for you guys?

All I'm saying is that the DCS series, to me, represents the ultimate in flight fidelity at this point. MS Flight might turn out to be fantastic - who knows. It sounds like they are giving away the core, then going to charge for DLC or subscription or something. I tip my hat at the new business model. As long as the core is good enough for guys like Level D and Aerosoft to work with, I'll be a happy camper.

There is a lot to be revealed yet I'm sure..

The more effort that goes into making it a GAME, the less effort goes into programming Hi-fidelity flight modelling. You can't have your cake and eat it.

I think something inside me just died a little when I watched that trailer.

Look at the money that iRacing makes with downloadable content.

Also iRacing has a lot of 'achievements' they keep track of.

I'm more of a sim fan myself though.

Will not replace FSX+ORBX for me where I fly most of the time, but looks like it could be a fun diversion (like XP10), maybe the free model will introduce a bunch of new gamers to the flightsim bug.

Hope those of us who signed up for the beta get to see it soon.

They didn't say it right out, but I get the feeling that perhaps additional parts of the world might be DLC?

I can't get all depressed. Given how many aircraft populate the FS9 and FSX worlds, as long as the "works" give addon developers what they need to build quality addons there's hope. The real worry is the lag before the quality addons start to hit the market. Unfortunately it seems as though it takes half way through the FS product life before the addons start to really bloom. And then when the sim is nearing replacement, some really interesting projects seem to get lost in the transition.

With players demanding ever more detail in visuals, sound, and technical modeling, quality addon development may extend even longer. And potentially more delicate "free to play" market type for the series, in which MS expenditures on supporting the free to play product may depend on meeting DLC sales projections. Considered together, these issues may present problems.

Yeah Good chance that it will have more high detail DLC locations and planes so maybe will compete with Take On Helicopter and not so much with other "full world" sims.

More details here:
http://flyawaysimulation.com/news/4317/m.../#ixzz1iViQ3c2q

No 3rd party SDK likely means most devs of hard core addons will not be involved unless MS does like they did with Acceleration and outsource the work for internal release.

For me this is actually good news, it sounds like we will be getting a nice free to play light GA MS flight sim which is easy on the eyes, plus all the awesome FSX addons I bought this year (ORBX scenery, high quality aircraft etc) did not get made redundant by MS Flight, and since this doesn't seem to compete with FSX for that hard core sim enthusiast hopefully Lockheed Martin will be allowed to proceed with their enhancements to FSX via their Prepar3D product and market it to us hardcore home simmers without MS standing in the way.

"Additional downloadable content will make this a very special experience."

Maybe you can stick your arms out with Kinect and fly all around the room.

I already do that after 3 shots of tequila.. *

* You don't want to know what happens after the fourth...

Thanks for the link. That article would appear to sum things up.

Is it certain that it is 'free' rather than just 'free to play' like all games used to be - no monthly subscription.

From the info release today it looks to be free as long as you are happy with the initial aircraft and Hawaii scenery, additional stuff will be paid DLC:

No scenery development kit...makes sense I guess if you are depending on DLC.

Left a lot of developers hanging with that one.

In theory I think it's great that they are building more of a game into this. If they have a cargo pilot career in Africa lined up as dlc I'm willng to live with the colourful balloons..The way things are going these days with games and movies becoming more and more dumb, I'm not so sure it will turn out well however.

-C-

Besides the arcadish feel this might have, the whole "free to play" idea just sucks. What that means is no SDK for modders or 3rd party stuff as they are relying on DLC to bilk cash. Of course you have to be married to GFWL. Just think how FSX would have been without any 3rd party stuff. Have you ever seen a user created plane in ROF? Thats probably how this will be.

I don`t think Flight will replace my FSX soon.

Good one!

Oh, so it's FarmVille....but with wings. Nice.

I'm interested in this. I enjoy flight 'games' but really don't have the patience or time to learn start-up procedures and the rest of the work that comes with flight 'simulations.' The most in-depth I've ever gotten is with the Strike Fighters series, and I had a lot of fun with that. So, a Flight Simulator 'lite' is right up my alley. Will definitely check it out.

If it were a lesser company, I might be persuaded of your POV.

BUT...this is Microsoft we're talking about here. They LOVE to sell the same program to the same customers year after year after year after year...

They also seem to have mountains of cash with which to do R&D.

So let's review: this is the same company that has been making flight simulators since what, 1982? And releasing new versions ever since? This is the company that is making special OS's for certain systems onboard real Boeing aircraft. This is the company who's owner LOVES flight and was the big push behind FlightSim in the first place. Who's owner happens to also personally own a Boeing 757-200. This is also the company that has made FS2004 and FSX, which most people would consider high fidelity flight simulators for today. FS2004 was a very high ranking sales product in the world of PC games, sometimes in 1st place I believe.

About “Flight”: yea, frankly this video doesn't appeal to me. I want to actually pilot, not “fly”, a real plane. Yes, it seems to be encouraging silly and dangerous behavior, but let's face it, so does Grand Theft Auto...which doesn't pretend to be a racing simulator even though it's got fast cars and lots of driving in it.

Microsoft saw the writing on the wall, with FlightSim costing ever more to produce new versions (higher demands, higher costs, more detail to render and simulate). But they also had this beautiful game engine, with aircraft already available...that they could create a “game” out of...probably for dirt cheap, and quick. That is aimed at a TOTALLY NEW CUSTOMER, the console gamer.

The way I see it, if “Flight” makes lots of money, they'll have money to improve the visuals. Which will be dual-use and feature in whatever next version of Flightsim 11 will come about.

Entirely too many people are dependent on MS Flight Simulator for Microsoft to abandon: millions of real world pilots who keep their skills sharp. Millions of new pilot trainees. Look at how many add-on software products are built around MS FS...it's downright crazy, there's nothing else remotely resembling that industry in PC games. You have to look at Ebay's career resellers, and career Facebookers to approach this level of 3rd party providers.

No, I don't see “MS Flight” as being a threat to “Flight Sim”. I'm more concerned about how MS apparently doesn't have all the “Flightsim” employees it once had, a decision long before “Flight”. Maybe they retained all the “essential personnel” and laid off the “Expendables”. Also, I suspect it may be 3 or 5 years before we see another “Flight Sim” sequel again. But I do think we'll see one, and it'll be better, higher fidelity and realism. And it will have improved graphic eye candy, from yearly sequels to “Flight” to benefit from, along with high framerates. No, I'm not worried.

You start singing karaoke?

Considering to Download/Manage the DLC for the Game you have to have a Games For Windows LIVE account (or Xbox Live Gold).


TBH it looks like whatever system they ran it on had the GFX optioned lowered, and the coloring was adjusted post recording.

None of the FSX Engine's were used in Flight, its a new engine from the ground up

eeerrrrr yea .....

Ill pass thanks

weee..... invincibility!

Complete disgrace is all I am going to say.

Actually, it looks fun. I don't have the time to really dive deep into FSX or FS 2004. I need some light civ fun (Like Flight Unlimited), I'm sorry but practicing perfect 3-point landings in a 747 in bad weather conditions with so many failures to trigger at some airport or planning out a 5hr trip from one point to the other in FSX is not my idea of fun...

I hope he was invincible in that video tho, or that they add some better damage modeling like ROF has. That's my only complaint.

Flight Simulator meets Crimson Skies!

So I've read every post in this thread so far and it seems that the simmers who have plenty of time to devote to a flight sim are the ones most vocal about the changes in direction while the simmers with very limited time don't think it's such a big deal.

I like this from the article link posted earlier:

Aerocache Hunt is a fantastic idea that will suit anyone who likes to explore. Aero-cache’s are scattered around the island, and exploration for them exposes scenery and landmarks that users may have otherwise missed, or might be attracted to. Players can play the challenge mode to try and find specific ones, or find them in free-flight, as they are a constant in the game and will be there in any mode. If a player chooses not to sign in to Live, there will be three Aero-cache Hunts’. On the other hand, if they do sign in, there will be hundreds, with more added everyday, including themed ones. For instance, on the 4th July, one might lead you to a hidden fireworks display.

Seems like a fair observance...

One of the main reasons why I never got fully into civ sims (Like MS: FS or X-Plane) was because there was simply too much of a learning curve. Coupled with that, there was nothing really fun for me to do while learning. With combat sims it's different for me - I am trying to shoot or blow up something, while getting shot at. It forces me to learn my aircraft, what weapons do what, how it handles and so forth. That to me is fun!

Also, I like destruction! I like the fact that when I get shot at in a combat sim, my aircraft takes visual damage and behaves differently. I like the fact that I can run into things or blow things up and cause damage I can see. I hope that Flight has a visual damage model as well as an internal one, otherwise they are missing out on a huge draw for some...

Ah, the A-10 Cuba days... Anyone remeber that?

I don't buy it. Even the buildings and trees look the same, the water looks the same, the planes seem rendered the same.

Yea, it's "from the ground up", but that's what they said about FSX too. I also remember them talking about a core engine that would be used for all sorts of applications, including ship simulators and I think they might have mentioned trains too.

Did those ship and train simulators kill off the creation of FSX?

Did having "easy sliders" hurt development of the realism side of FSX?

FS2004 and FSX had "missions" in them...really not altogether much different from this, other than now the game expects you to fly like a reckless redneck on moonshine...but really: so what? I'm not going to be flying this game. And I'll fly the next civil flight sim when it arrives.

Say, how many of our military simulators use more traditional methods of navigation anyway? Maps, compasses, beacons? Too often I see arrows, moving maps, waypoint displays all while flying aircraft in service long before GPS was imagined. How's THAT realistic?

Or how about icons displaying the dots of aircraft way in the distance at the edge of visual range...often flown with red and blue/green notes of who is friendly/enemy and what they are. Also "arcade unrealism".

Many have complained that simulations don't have more people to push the developers to make new products. Many non-sim people love aircraft, but when confronted by the complexity of the controls and cockpit displays, the relatively unforgiving controls, run away screaming at the top of their lungs after just 10 minutes. That's a major barrier to entry.

If "MS Flight" gets a ton of new people interested in flight games, gets them comfortable enough with the basic controls of flight handling (by effectively 'hand holding'), then I'll bet that a large number of them a few years down the road will then want to try the "simulation" side of the tracks, who otherwise would NEVER have even bought Flight Sim. Or Eagle Dynamics. Or any of the IL-2 series.

More new fresh customers wanting flight SIMULATORS may well push the industry to create new sims that otherwise would never have come to light.

POTENTIALLY...this could be a really good thing for us. It just might take a few years. And resist the urge to try this one out. Or not: it might just be the ticket for when you only have 30 minutes to play, and you are really stressed out from work, have a few arcade laughs...just think of it as being like playing Duke Nukem in a plane.

Yup. And it was fun!

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-01-04-microsoft-flight-free-to-download-this-spring

MSFS has ALWAYS had the ability to dumb down the flight model, turn off failures and make the weather perfect so I don't know what you're talking about.

Yea, I once experimented with the "easy" settings in FS2004. I could belly land a plane and slide, then come back up into the air again. It was almost more fun than an arcade game.

FS2002 was alot of fun online, havent Updated to 2004/FSX. Though I may later this year.

my time all goes into SF2, and DCS Titles, and a Few titles not publicly available (yet)

It's a JOKE! - You can see that from the tone in the rest of the blurb...

http://flyawaysimulation.com/news/4317/microsoft-flight-behind-scenes-at-microsoft-studios/
Microsoft Flight: Behind the Scenes at the Microsoft Studios

BTW: what's everyone flying these days, FS2004 or FSX ???

I ask because it seemed like for the first couple of years, FSX just got shunted to the side because of performance issues on the typical gaming rigs that were out for the first two years. But...have ALL of you switched to FSX, or do you still fly 2004 because of all the add-ons and aircraft?

I never upgraded to FSX. Still fly FS2004 here.

Yeah, but then to do what? The whole purpose really of FSX is to teach you aircraft systems, proper procedures and handling, and give you a variety of places to do that at. Turn down the realism kinda defeats the purpose of FSX or FS 2004... I love to sight-see as much as the next flier, but after a while a mountian range looks just like another mountian range on the computer. I've tried some of the FSX missions, a select few are fun but not really any others.

I also echo what adlabs6 said. Turning down the realism doesn't really net you anything. It doesn't really save you from being able to fly thru tunnels, thru or under buildings, surviving an air race, doing stunts in an air course with obstacles or any of that stuff... Mainly because you can't do that stuff to begin with! (With the exception of flying under a bridge) I sure would like to try and land on a bridge though with full realism! Or atop some sky scrapers (With an airplane, not a helo) and not just have "You Crashed" with a stuck plane model in a building or something.

I know there are military add-ons for FSX and FS 2004, but without the visual damage model it's kinda moot. I'd love to see the results of my botched carrier landing in an F-14, instead of just a stuck aircraft in the carrier's model saying I crashed.

FSX only ATM. The add-ons are of such high quality (e.g. PMDG 737NGX; A2A with AccuSim, OrbX scenery) that it leaves X-Plane many kilometers behind. Maybe in some dark corners of the flight envelope X-Plane is a bit better, but most mortals that are no pilots probably wouldn't know the difference.

Prepar3d may be an option later if they also go for a full "user" version.

I have to disagree. I think the "whole purpose of FSX" is for people to have fun pretending to fly airplanes. Some people think it's fun to learn the systems and practice procedures. Others think it's fun to experience a realistic version of flight without so much button pushing. Others think it's fun to do things like fly inverted at 5' MSL under a bidge and do barrel rolls between sky scrapers. Niether is right or wrong or superior or inferior. It just depends on who the person is and how much time they have and what entertains them.

Is this a replacement for FSX or FS2004? Doesn't look like it. Is it still a "sim"? We won't know until someone tries it with "full realism" and tries to fly from point A to point B without flying between balloons or through caves. Either way, I'm sure it will be fun for a lot of people. Even, god forbid, for people that otherwise consider themselves "simmers" and spend some of their other time learning systems and pushing buttons in FSX/DCS/Falcon or whatever.

I think it's interesting how worked up and negative people are getting about this.

I stand corrected.

I think a lot of the grief you are seeing about MS Flight is not because FSX fans think everyone should love hardcore civil air sims or even indepth flight sims, but because MS has turned it's back on all the loyal fans of a long time flight sim series, they fired the studio that developed it a couple of years ago and now after much hush hush hinting and marketing without being clear about whether it was a sim or not, they put out a sim lite product with none of the hardcore sim options fans of the series have had in past versions (no ATC, no air traffic, no real weather, no TrackIR etc.)

Personally I am not mad at them as the signs that Flight was going to be simlite were there throughout the last year for any skeptics like me that paid attention, and I also hope that Flight might create some new sim fans out of casual gamers.

But the anger is understandable, just imagine if ED fired all the DCS developers and for a year two worked on a new "DCS" title which they only provided hints and screenshots for, and then when it releases it doesn't contain any enemy to shoot at or weapon systems, just an A-10 that you fly around a small area going through hoops and prizes and trying to find "hidden caches", I think you would see something similar from the loyal DCS fans, not because they don't think everyone should be a hardcore simmer, but because a series that they loved had been turned into a simplified Nintendo/Wii game version of itself that barely resembles the original and is such wasted potential.

The anger is the part I don't understand. Microsoft doesn't owe anyone anything unless they paid them for it. I don't think anyone here pre paid for FS11. Just like all other businesses, Microsoft is in existence to (and stays in existence by) making money. Regardless of how much money we all think MS was making off of our loyal support of the FS series, they determined that there was no longer a business reason for continuing with the series and that there is a valid business reason for Flight. I'm sure whoever made that decision gets paid a lot of money to make decisions and is more qualified to do it than we are.

Can we be disappointed that hi-fi sims don't rule the market anymore? Of course! But developers are probably just reacting to marketing demand. There's no reason to be angry.

What if MS has come to a "brick wall" in terms of development of hardcore sims?

Think of it: how much visual improvement is there between FS2004 and FSX? Not really all THAT much better comparing stock vs stock, but there is an improvement. BUT...when you factor in the fact that there's not a mountain of addons, but many "mountain ranges" of freeware and payware terrain addon improvements...MS's ability to offer a new visual improvement is drastically diminishing.

Simulation fidelity? Well, near as I can tell, between addon weather products, and highly tuned quality payware aircraft...is there really that much more room for improvement, that they can be certain you'll convert to the "new" sim?

Think of it: there's probably still some who are flying FS2002...and those still flying FS9/2004...probably aren't interested in FS11 or whatever it'd be called (FS-XI ???).

The other thing is, FS2004 was the ONLY MS FS product I bought that worked/flew well right out of the box, for my machine specs. FS98, FS2000, FSX were absolute performance dogs, "unflyable" with my machine specs when I bought them...even a year or two later still dogs. I'm more pissed about that with MS than anything, one out of four that worked as advertised!?!? WTF? At this rate any next product from them might require a network of 64 parallel processing computers!

I'm sure eventually someone will make a fantastic new flightsim that offers features that FS2004/FSX couldn't possibly hope to have...a "must have" feature that will cause us all to rush out and get it, and buy a new monster-system to play it on. But I rather suspect that MS may be out of ideas that they could implement in a practical manner today and the near future...keeping a few new wonderful ideas for when our home technology catches up enough to handle it out of the box (well, download, but you see my point!).

I think what you are missing is the fact that a lot of loyal FSX fans were hoping for a modern replacement to the 5 year old FSX and MS kept them interested with the ambigous marketing for MS Flight all this year, if they had come clean from the get go about it being simlite those angry people would not have had their hopes let down today.

Personally from looking at MS Flight beta videos leaked on youtube it doesn't look like the next evolution anyhow, FSX with addons looks better so no big loss IMHO.

I have long wondered if the performance problems where what really doomed FSX. The visuals were a clear step ahead IMO, but I ran other games back in those days that were also really much better looking than FS9 with pretty decent performance. Yet by and large, guys with PCs that blew mine away were struggling with FSX. Even a couple years later, as you said. And by that time I wrote off the product completely as flawed.

I seriously think that a proper "Microsoft Flight Simulator" release is possible. Even the business model they are developing with "Flight" is a completely workable system for a great sim. Most of the "following" audience (myself included) download or purchase addon aircraft and scenery anyway. I'd have ZERO qualms with getting the free-to-play or lower cost core, and then extending it with terrain regions and aircraft that appeal to me.

Graphics scalability would be key. Look at a sim like Rise of Flight. I ran the free-to-play release of that sim with absolutely stunning visuals on my quite old PC. Just flying around and looking at the terrain in RoF, I several times wished that a next generation MSFS could look that good and play that smoothly. By far the best performance/quality ratio I've ever seen, let alone in a simulation.

The "must haves" that would get dollars out of my wallet and into Microsoft's are the GREAT aircraft models. I loved the FS2004 Piper Cub, and the DC-3. With quality flight dynamics IMO these are simply superb. Looking at FSX I always thought I'd love to have the de Havilland Beaver and Grumman Goose. Once the core was in place a new aircraft or super detail airport DLC every quarter or half would be great.

I dunno. I think they could do it.

June 1973 I was onboard a private turboprop twin, I was given a tour of the aircraft by it's captain and one of the features was a moving map display, it utlised either the Decca chain navigation system or the Loran system if the Decca was out of range, this was a much smaller and neater installation than was fitted to the local fishing boats.

I had just been hired by Decca Radar Ltd. as a trainee service/installation engineer so I was very intrested in seeing how the heavy chunky stuff I worked on was transformed into sleek compact equipment for the aircraft industry.

MS Flight:

Earlier I briefly watched the vid without sound and much attention, and it sure looked "arcade central". However, listening to what the nararator is saying...I have a different opinion about what this product really is: its FS2004 version 2.0 basic for free, but with a special "n00b arcade" mode to lure casual bystanders into our web of simulations.

Between 1:52-1:58, you can see all the cockpit gauges moving, including HSI, turn gauge, altimeters...and frankly the cockpit of the Steerman reminds me of the wonderful vintage aircraft that FS2004 came with. 

This looks like they faced a very serious fallout from FSX, and MS management read them the riot act, and told them to totally rethink their entire approach to providing a hardcore flight sim product:

-able to play on last year's mid-range model computer, so arcade guys arent turned off by the chase for bleeding edge computers

-more excitement to draw in non-sim people with an obvious "game mode"

-much better framerates on average systems, possibly by rethinking how to create terrain objects, allowing both n00b and sim veteran who's low on cash, an entry to the new product

-they clearly mention "longer missions", and "longtime fans of flight games" IMO that means us hardcore nutters

Yes...mouse controls and gamepads don't set my heart a fluttering...but maybe you guys have forgotten that they tuned FS2000, 2002 and 2004 to do the same all by mouse. I tried doing so a few times: horrible with the newer Cesnas, light planes and helis, no problem with "heavies"! That's often mostly autopilot flying anyway. Now, remember that all previous versions had many controls options, including dead zones, response delay ("realistic"), and so on.

So maybe the team was ORDERED to find some special settings specifically and only for the "n00b arcade flyer" to "game it" with a mouse or gamepad. Get them hooked, reel them in...with the promise of cooler planes if they learn a stick and more of the systems of simulation side. And I'll bet our HOTAS systems will have even better driver capability, with no "arcade mode" controls cramping our style or simulation experience.

Look at the minimum, its as if I'm looking at specs closer to high FS2004 than FSX. In fact, I wonder if its not a variation of the FS2004 engine...the Steerman gauges and framerates hint to me they are going for that, but with nicer models more autogen and better looking textures (that may not be much larger)

Look at the planes: they are all real, even the Icon A5 has flown a few years ago (to go into production later this year).

You guys have no idea how often I would tell guys about FS2004 at work, they'd express genuine interest, only to discover their "good for games" computer won't play FSX "out of the box". Or that they'd have to know how to fly before trying it...no, they didnt want to take tutorials before just zooming about the sky...they wanted the excitement from flight first...the learning can wait a week or month. 

Contrary to what you guys believe, I think this IS going to have a hardcore next generation flight SIMULATOR in it...and MS knows the word SIMULATOR scares away millions of new potential customer enthusiasts. So they ensured the arcade crowd knows they could have fun with this. And FS2004 veterans wont have to shell out $2000 on new hardware that would still choke on FSX. 

Downloadable content...I'm thinking they might have a something a bit like the iTunes store, so you can purchase Captainsim C-130's, PMDG 737's and Aeroworx KingAirs, and high res airports, terrains and meshes too. 

Flightsim people were probably ORDERED to make up for the FSX disaster by turning down the eyecandy for modest systems so pissed off vets like me would return, so laptop warriors can play too. They were probably also ordered to make a very strong push for totally new customers, to make up for FSX losses. 

Remember..."career set to your pace". Implying you will have to learn more about real planes and real flying. "Longer missions" like maybe a 747 flight. "Longtime fan of flight games...designed for you". "...and most laptops", important nowdays since most people are avoiding dedicated tower systems nowdays that are bulky, take up space and are as cheap or cheaper than desktops. Plus mobile gaming for the roadwarrior.

No, I suspect this could be the best thing since FS2004. And increase the number of simulation people dramatically by seducing them with fun up front, and easing them into better tutorials about flying and navigation, real airsmanship once they are addicted.

Oh and look at this:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Flight





l.


.

Flight is also said to feature a new missions system

Fail, Fail, FAIL.

I have been chosen for the BETA, but despite some of the views expressed here, I will not even bother to allocate drive space to this 'game'. I have seen and run all iterations of FS, and many operating systems, but I swear, and the likes of M$ make games like this, there is going to be a % of Gen Y who don't have a clue.

We already know that a lot of kids who f**k with guns do so because they believe that you can just get up and move on like you do in many first person shooters.....how many people are going to embarass themselves at a real flight school because the believe that it will be like a game? Depressing to say the least.

It's the same as O/S'es; I cannot believe that there are working Gen-Y people who don't know what a DOS prompt is, or what you can do with it. I can only see that as things get easier, user knowledge will just decline.

I'm happy to keep my FSX; to fly true life routes following correct procedures, whilst I cannot afford to fly the real thing. I'll feel better giving my money to Lockheed Martin for Prepar3d, despite the price tag. The manager of this project needs to be fired big time. This really IS the death of Flight Simulator, such a shame after all these years.

AJ.

So you didn't have to sign an NDA to be a tester for this product?

Based on what I saw in the "fact sheet" and the simufly? interview, this looks to be a major step away from what we've come to expect of M$ flightsim products. Even though I'm not quite as active as I used to be, I am one the more hardcore pile-it's spending the vast majority of my time in third party heavy iron (PMDG,LDS,Vatsim, etc.) around the globe. Most disconcerting is the statement that no third party add-on support will be a part of this product, which is quite contrary to their entire philosophy in that they develop platforms for others to develop against. And FSX is exactly that for me, nothing more than a base platform. Personally I feel this will be a short lived "game", soon the be relegated to the $5 bins if it's ever released in retail.

On the bright side, This could signal a big migration towards P3D or more likely X-Plane and give those products added momentum for the future of the more serious minded pile-its among us. I'm just very disappointed in what I've heard so far but M$ has been known to flip flop before so I'll reserve final judgement for now but it's not looking good IMHO.

TBh the Play4Free model that most games are switching to makes more money than a retail MSRP.

The Game is Free, but it you want more, you buy more, the Micro-transactions support development.

I'll prolly get FSX when i build my new system, as I want the SuperBug and Weapons.

There are lots of leaked videos of the actual beta and shared opinions of beta testers which reflect that MS Flight uses the previous FSX base (including some of the same file layout within compressed archive files) but did not include many of the hardcore simulator parts (ATC, AI flight traffic, real world weather, TrackIR etc), so it is a simplified dead world focusing mainly on eyecandy and arcade flying prize and timing missions and not simulating a live aviation sky, so I assume you are trusting your "faith" that MS will come through and re-introduce the additional hardcore simulator aviation features that past titles in the series had, and based on their current simlite direction, marketing and targeted Xbox Live gamer audience I am not sure that faith is well placed.



I tend to agree with you that this may be a successful simlite product to make MS money from "gamers" who would otherwise not bother with hardcore flight simulation and it may even be a gateway to them exploring a real flight simulator someday, sort of like the Wings of Prey title that was developed from the IL-2 base but that is probably insulting WOP which was much more close to the simulator parent than this is to FSX...

Expecting this to be a title that would make both arcade gamers and hardcore simmers happy is where Microsoft went wrong and where most people trying to defend it are going to have a hard time, as it is clear that MS doesn't really care for the hardcore "simmer" audience at this point (the devs might but the suits in charge don't) and is focusing on getting the "gamer" crowd and make money from DLC, both the marketing info as well as leaked videos and impressions of the beta on FlightSim focused forums clearly demonstrate that.

I don't share your faith that MS will add the hardcore simulation aspects to it at all unless the arcade gamer focused DLC doesn't make money, in which case they might try to go back and offer the "simulation" features as additional DLC, but it would still be inhouse developed and not the top caliber 3rd party developed stuff from PMDG, ORBX etc.

I applied for the Beta and so far haven't seen a response, I will say that it looks to me like they maybe shooting for a cross-platform game rather than Sim with elements of both. It even shows an Xbox controller as well as a Joystick. I would love to see realistic landscapes and weather in a Flight game to give you at least a visually pleasing experience more than systems models and real instruments over a simple follow the on screen arrows and prompts. FSX might be great to learn those things but it requires a lot of add-ons from Third parties to achieve the visual quality that it should have and although it might have every airport in the world I really wish they had made it regional with plug ins for more regions that are more realistic in appearance. This may be what they hope to achieve. The MSFS series can be overwhelming to a novice and most who purchase it may never actually see the depth of what it has to offer whereas Flight might make it more accessible to the casual PC pilot.

Every pilot begins his sentance with, "As a pilot...".

I'm guilty of it. So here goes: As a pilot I enjoy flight sims because they allow me to do things I can't do in the real world. Or they allow me to do the things that I do in my profession without the responsibility or the risk to my certificate. But there is another side of me that is bored stiff with the structure of commercial or military aviation when it is simulated properly. By this I mean that I do occasionally enjoy flying an A-10 with online pilots who take planning, ingress, attack, egress and brevity seriously. But sometimes I just want to dispense with that b.s. and just...FLY. Pilots who fly for the romance and art of Flight appreciate the fantasy element of flight. Read books by romantics like Richard Bach and Antoine de St. Exupery and you will read very little about ailerons and oil pressure and a hell of alot about the smell and fear of flight. A guy that never flew but who gets it right is anime film director Hayao Miyazaki. Well the physics are all wrong but the FLIGHT is perfect.

My point is that flying isn't about a proper clearance readback or lasing your buddy's GBU. It's about leaving earth and being a bird. This is an experience that PCs and consoles now have the fidelity to nearly perfectly provide to the casual player. I hope Microsoft hits this one out of the park. I may not buy it. You may not buy it. (or download it). But if I sit next to a businessman/woman in 1st class and see him play Flight instead of Angry Pigs I am going to have a smile on my face for the rest of the flight. Quit trashing this thing and see where it goes. Because...

That laptop Flight player just might be the next Rise of Flight or DCS customer.

I almost started my post with that statement, but I was able to resist the urge!!!



+1

Isn't it possible that MS made a marketing strategy from their "beta", to show off the "Lite" side to non-simmers? And that maybe the "advanced/sim/hardcore" side doesn't have all the beacons VOR's and other nav bits implemented yet?

I dunno...see, I can understand from many's reaction to the video showing flying between buildings, under bridges and through tunnels as being evidence of a "arcade" game. However, we have both this video's host, and the wiki page assuring us that the finished product is intended to have full on simulation mode just like previous versions. I guess I'm willing to take them at their word for now. And if the finished product doesn't deliver on SIMULATION...well they won't get an install from me much less any addons.

And now this "third party add-ons":




I suspect there is more to this story than might appear at first glance in the statement about add-on support. There are SO many payware developers of aircraft and terrain...I doubt that MS would want to kill that. However, I also see there are several really major online retailers that sell hundreds of these addons...making big bucks...maybe even approaching the profit levels of MS on it's actual sim sales. I'm wondering if MS has approached the very best addon creation studios, and offered them the opportunity to sell their next product as a "official sanctioned MS download"? Basically rewarding the studio for it's efforts, and cutting out the 3rd party retailers, instead having MS play publisher and distributor for the artists/programmers who make these fine aircraft?

Or am I just engaging in wishful thinking?

I mean, let's consider the flipside: ok, you want to fly using real world navigation from Hawaii to another continent...so you "buy" that continent or a portion of it. But you aren't going to get there in a Steerman, instead you'll want some "heavy metal". And MS will want to charge for that aircraft. But...while the default vintage and simple puddle jumpers in FS are quite nice and fairly realistic...they are simple aircraft to start with. MS won't be actually making a realistic Boeing or Airbus, probably doesn't have the time or budget or crew to make it good enough for today's demanding customer. So you won't be getting an FS2004 default 747...instead you may see "PMDG 747" or "F-Lite 747" in the MS purchasing store.

Again, maybe I'm naive...but MS must know how much they have lost in sales to the hardcore simulation types that run into problems with FSX and FS2000. And I'm betting they want ALL of the hardcore crowd...not just the FS hardcore sim guys, but maybe even wanting the combat sim hardcore guys to try it out. You never know, they might try incorporating elements of MS CombatSim into it as a payware download?

The other product that leads me to think there might be more to this, is the "Acceleration pack" that featured carrier landings, helicopter rescues in bad weather, that sort of thing. Missions like that could be part of the "pay for addons" strategy.

And yea, maybe "Simulation" is a payware bit. I'd be fine with that if it works, since I was fine with paying for it in the past.

To me this sounds like a lot of stuff that will get offered, is not being shown to the "beta testers" yet. I'm guessing they just want to be certain the "n00b starting off" part that will be free, works on EVERYONE's computer. For a change!

Rick I think there is a lot of actual MS Flight info out there that may help fill in some of your thinking, namely MS has shut out the 3rd party vendors that produce the top of the line scenery/aircraft for FSX, see AVSIM posting here and lots more info on that forum:
http://forum.avsim.net/topic/358739-since-the-cat-is-out-of-the-bag/

For the record, I am completely ok with flight being a nice simlite flight game.

I own and enjoy Take On Helicopters and signed up for the Flight beta and am looking forward to playing it, the only thing that bugs me is the way MS has led some folks on as far as expecting it to also be a hardcore sim and not being clear about it, I also share the hope that it will be a gateway to introduce a lot of gamers to flight sims without them knowing and create a new set of flight simmers, I know how overwhelming FSX and add-ons can be to anyone new to it.

Saw one funny example of a non-simmer trying to describe this "airplane game" here when I was searching for beta videos hehe:

God, help us all.

The problem is we're in a lose-lose situation with developers like MS.

FSX didn't sell enough to satisfy them, regardless of how well it seemed like it sold to us.

Their answer, broaden the appeal--largely by dropping out what they deem as "off putting to other gamers" features and hyping the eye candy. This leads to 2 possible outcomes:

One, Flight far outsells FSX and its predecessors despite the "lite"-ening of the experience. This validates MS' view and encourages them to continue in that path, perhaps even to make it MORE "lite" thinking "if moving a bit away from FSX caused this sales jump, imagine what moving FURTHER will do."

Two, Flight sells similar to or even fewer copies than FSX, leading not to the conclusion that their product was crap (because that's NEVER the problem) but rather that not only are other gamers not interested in flight sims but that the core FS audience that didn't buy it (which you know many won't) doomed it themselves by NOT buying it. In other words, "you ask us to make a flight sim, we make one, you don't buy it/hate it/rail against it" (totally ignoring the fact that it was their changes in an attempt to broaden appeal that caused it). Just look at Secret Weapons over Normandy. The flight sim community was blamed for its failure, not the game being crap.
So, MS shutters the franchise again for many years. Will it be one or two? Too soon to say, but as I stated we lose either way.



The Jedi Master

After playing the demo there's so much I want to say but I'm not allowed to.

Now I'm off to play a real flight simulator...

It's ok. Really, it is. Some nice features as well. Can say any more, but it's not all chasing 'air biscuits' or what ever they are called...

Excellent post
I agree with you these kind of games if not focused for the hardcore flight simmer it can help to build up new audience.

Many years ago I met people who never liked simulators or heard about them. I just installed IL2 on their computers and they loved it, they didn't even understand why the screen turned black when they pull the aircraft too much but eventually they loved simulators and started learning more about why planes fly.

So it's the end...

Bah, will fly Eagle Dynamics simulations instead.

I going to stick my head about the parapet and say that this looks like it could be fun.

Given that I still get most of flight sim kicks from Black Shark, Warthog and RoF with everything set to realistic, I reserve the right to hold on to my "hardcore" licence no matter what the rest of you grumbling curmudgeons say.

Pizzicato you ARE right. Nothing to grumble about at the mo, and enjoyable to boot. But, I, like you said above (quote:)reserve the right to hold on to my "hardcore" licence no matter what the rest of you grumbling curmudgeons say..

This posting from RR at PMDG speaks volumes on what's in store, or more accurately, not. Looking forward to change and a bright future not likely of MS origins.


RR of PMDG on Flight

Waaah! We're not satisfied at all with free! We want better free!

lol


I'm still looking forward to this. Don't care what the inevitable nay-sayers nay say.

No guns.

No bombs.

No cannons.

Um, what was the point of this again?

And you can't mod them guns or bombs in there either.

I understand the Nay Sayers, the Operation FlashPoint name was a groundbreaking sim that blew my mind, and I became emotionally attached to it. When CodeMasters won it in whatever legal battle they did and tried to make a game that WASNT ARMA 3, it made me hate on that brand because I had an emotional attachement to the brand. "I have played OFP, and you sir, are no OFP!" I'm sure its the same with MSFS crowd. MSFS means something when you are conversing about it, and this looks to be a different animal, so far.

Resistance is futile
Just kidding.

Who knows maybe we can enjoy of better sceneries and highly detailed planes in the future. They'd be easy to buy and download and the more people demand realism they'll eventually improve the simulation aspect.

Looks like an ipad game. Love the emphasis on how little effort is required...."in as little as five minutes!". MFS RIP

Of all the comments i think Rick 50cal is on target.

I was at IFC Denver when Brett Schnepf and Hal Bryan from ACES were giving a Q&A on FSX way back when.

Someone in the crowd asked how much of the FSX engine was new, meaning, had they rewritten anything?

Short answer? They hadn't. Not a thing. If nothing else, they simply piled more code on top of FS9, which was more code piled on top of FS2002, which was more code dumped on to FS2000, and so on...

The result showed it. It was bloated code that to this day still chokes the life out of modern rigs if cranked all the way up. In the Q&A session, they said that the very first MSFS was the gold standard that defined what a PC was, and that FSX was intended to be that defining program again, if a computer could run FSX, it was a true PC.

Well, that PC hasn't been made yet. They didn't optimize the code for multi-code processors, they completely ignored the march of progress being made in the realm of video cards, the ACES team simply blew it...

And that's hard for me to say because I genuinely liked Schnepf and Bryan.`

Flight has clickable cockpit, weather, flight model based on FSX. most of the videos are made with arcade settings.
I think we need to give them time to improve it. Like with any other piece of software...

The comments by obvious non-simmers at one popular gamer site -- IGN I think -- that accompanied the announcement of FLIGHT being 'free' saddened me and made we wonder about the wisdom of Microsoft's decision to pursue a traditionally disinterested market. Many of the comments echoed a singular desire to crash into buildings; there was barely any interest or curiousity about earning achievements in FLIGHT, or exploring volcanoes, or rocking out to a driving techno beat while flying a plush Icon A5 for that matter. And I really wondered, "Who is the title for? Who will embrace it? How could it possibly not be a dismal failure for Microsoft?

Then I remembered my own entry into 'airplane games': Jane's WWII Fighters. By 1998's standards, was that a sim or a game? It enticed with the sanguine thrill of machine guns and bombs and fire, but it also featured 3D cockpits with operational guages and control towers that radioed landing instructions. I bought Jane's WWII Fighters as part of a cheap three-title boxed set and I was initially hooked not by the airplanes themselves but by the tanks and troops that populated the terrain and busied themselves with killing each other. To me the airplanes were just a tool for enjoying the ground war, simply a means to enjoying the violent little ecosystem inside my computer. Eventually, I began to learn how the airplanes worked and my confidence and pilot skills began to grow.

Then, looking for 'more of the same' I stumbled upon a "Combat Flight Simulator/Flight Simulator 98" combo pack. When I learned how to port the P-51D from CFS into FS98, Wow! That was a revelation because now I could fly around Las Vegas or New York City or anywhere in the world I wanted! And that opened up my interest in non-combat flight simulation.

I'm not saying that I personally will embrace FLIGHT's vision or business plan, but I won't knock Microsoft for trying a new approach. If the joy of collecting aero-caches and winning online trophies for finding hidden tunnels makes people happy, so be it. Is it really any different than collecting points for 'kills' against the Luftwaffe or earning medals for completing sorties flown over the Eastern Front?

Viewpoint from one of the addon developers

Probably the most reasonable post on this entire thread. Kudos!

Rick;

Yes I did sign an NDA. However, after reading other's opinions, viewing leaked videos, and realising no SDK, I did not even bother to download it. This is not only an insult to SERIOUS simmers, it's also an insult to anybody who has a good understanding of why and how an aircraft flies.

When I read the comments by the absolute twat program manager, about how he speaks of the 'Dream of looking up and imaging flying', it is crystal clear he does not have a #%&*$# clue about aircraft. Us 'real' simmers, striving to make the experience as real as possible is what has driven this entire industry really. Personally, I think we are owed more.

I have frequently been a BETA tester, I advised M$ that Windows Vista was a pile of #%&*$#, and fact is, it was.

Yes, I AM outspoken, but I am for a reason; there *are* people out there who really want 'as real as it gets', and this is cheating them. I don't like to see good, ordinary people get cheated in any way. M$ can do what they please to me, but my views still stand, and even if I have breached NDA, I have done it in the most minor way.

After this total debacle, I am happy to pay Lockheed Marting $500 for Prepar3d, at least it will be right.

Cheers :-)

Andrew.

Good link and insights there.

According to a few comments in the other link, Lockheed may not be selling Prepar3d to ordinary retail customers like you and I...is that information incorrect? And is Prepar3d basically FSX under new management?

Look, I know I'm likely wrong about SOME of what I've written, and it's all based on me making assumptions based on what was presented in front of me. But I'm not going to dump on MS just yet, I'll wait until the product is out, and see what the addons offered will feature.

One thing is certain to me: they will have WAY more pressure to make this product run on "everyone's" computer, than they ever had before! I also don't think they realise just how high sim standards have become towards accurate aircraft representation...if they think they can take an FS2004 B-747 and sell that for money, they are REALLY going to get a severe shock and backlash.

+1

Auch...

Rick;

Please don't think that I was launching an attack at you, I certainly was not. I'm very passionate about this entire thing, and in the past 48 hours, I have read a bundle of stuff about FLIGHT, and the direction that it's heading. At the moment, you can get a $10 per month subscription to Prepar3d if you are a developer. You can be a developer of simple things, such as AFCAD files, and for me, the simple fact alone that Prepar3d is compatible with most of the payware aircraft and scenery that I have purchased over the years, gives it another thumbs up.

When I 'play' FSX, my wife never disturbs me. I have detailed scenery for all of my local areas, I fly as close to real GAAP procedures as I can; I take my flight on the sim seriously, because as I have mentioned, at this time, I cannot afford a wet aircraft at $250 per hour. From FS5 up to FS9, we had a sim that got progressively better and better. It did not reach the pinnacle with FSX, but it DID with FSX and the likes of ORBX. Now, I can fly VFR that is about 90% accurate.

But, even without some of the payware, with FSX I can still follow prodecures that are *basically* correct. I've flown GA in all of the places in the world I have done it for real, and I have also simulated every single international flight that I have taken in my life. Now; FLIGHT has taken that away from me, and that is just ONE negative against this 'Game'.

The greed of M$, and this idiot production team lead they have, from my readings, the team will go the same way as the original ACES team. If I were a programmer on this product, I would be shying away from putting my name in the credits.

Again, after doing some more research on the web, LM is talking about a Version 2 of Prepar3d; apparently, they are re-optimising the graphics engine for DX11, and we will see major improvements.

It's a shame really, because now, we really do have hardware available to us which we can maximise the use of FSX with. With graphic improvements and code tweaks in Prepar3d, that will be even better. M$ have really dropped the ball on this one; we WERE made promises, and given hints about an accurate follow up to FSX. With decisions made by M$ management, in my opinion, they deserve to lose the franchise for ever.

Andrew.

One important thing to keep in mind is that Flight does not take away our enjoyment of FSX + today's awesome addons which we finally have hardware and scenery to run it as we always hoped back when it first came out.

I wish MS luck getting new people to try this simlite flight sim and I will even play it myself if I am in the mood to fly a Stearman around Hawaii, but I will continue to spend most of my time in FSX+REX+ORBX+UltimateTraffic2+Ezdok+PMDG/Aerosoft/Carenado which I really enjoy and I have all the awesome scenery and airplanes I could want and runs well on my system.

So I don't really feel threatened by Flight as FSX will continue to be supported by most 3rd party developers (thanks to MS who shut them out of Flight) and for now we can just keep enjoying that and wait and see what Prepar3D and XP10 develops into and who knows maybe even someday Flight will get some "Deluxe" or "Acceleration" version with some harder sim options that may interest us, but for now no harm in waiting and seeing, most FS fans who bought FSX on release and parked it for 2-3 years and went back to FS9 until they had systems that could run FSX will have some experience with patience.

FishTaco, I know darn well you weren't "attacking" me! You were simply offering up an opinion that was formed from having more experience with the new product. I was simply skeptical about an opinion on on this product, because of limited knowledge, and simple marketing messages from the video ad.

Rick,

Sorry if I came across as terse, it was not intended that way.

Cheers

Andrew.

Based on the trailer the first Achievement will be FAA Notification of Emergency Revocation of Permit.

Of course Flight won't affect anyone's enjoyment of FSX. It merely crushes the hopes of anyone expecting FS11 like a dictator putting down an uprising.



The Jedi Master

I'm sure it will be a Super HIT...

Just a minute ago there was thread with video from the Beta. I tried to post in it and was told I don't have permission, and now it seems that the original thread is gone. What gives??

Some one deleted it. I was the poster

I can't understand why it was deleted...

MS Flight with full realism settings and start up
Free Flight with no icons or easy flight model.

Link deleted - Did you or did you not sign an NDA? If people want to see the videos they can go search YouTube. Sorry.

I'm not too worried about FM realism. If it feels like FSX, it's not too bad. I'm more worried that things such as detailed weather, ATC and AI traffic won't make it into Flight. If that is the case, it means a serious step back that I don't think any DLC will fix.

Do a search on youtube.
"Microsoft Flight Beta Full realism settings boeing stearman startup"
or my nickname

and You'll see...

...and with any luck so will Microsoft.

That's always the easiest way...Cheap and easy.

From what I have seen MS Flight's FM compared to the FSX stock planes is in many aspects even better, you feel more and it's way less on rails.
Full clickable cockpit and procedures list to help you with every aspect of flight.
Weather has more effect on the planes at least with the Boeing stearman.

Overall at least during free flight MS flight is a copy of FSX with better optimized graphics engine (better performance) and improved FM.

No Traffic controller or AI planes I don't see why not in the final version.
Also one thing is clear. We need bigger maps...

All the videos you have seen previously were in easy settings like you could see on FSX too. Totally misleading compared when flown full realism settings.