It's Like Deja Vu All Over

[Nels_Anderson]

OK, I know Flight does not really fit the description of a true follow on to the previous Flight Simulator version, but seeing the responses here made me think of things we've published in the past, like this op-ed:

http://www.flightsim.com/main/op-ed/ed33.htm

"All I need is FS98, FS2000 isn't good enough to make me switch".

I think I could replace this forum with a bunch of articles/posts from years past and just change the names of the sims :-)

[ricardo_NY1]

I don't remember reading that article or know much about the author, but I would've thought at that time his opinion wrong as much as I would say the same today. FS2000 was not a rehash of FS98 and offered substantial visual improvements. It's only drawback is that it can somewhat be called an FSX of its time........it was resource hungry. I've written posts about Flight.......I've written posts about FSX to the effect of the fact that it was written to be run on CPU's that still do not exist, but I've never called a version of flight simulator worthless until now. Never since the FS4 days when creating scenery and aircraft, free or payware, has that element been removed, and now that it has, it's going to change a lot. You know as well as I do Nels that a huge portion of the success behind flight simulator since those days has been greatly influenced by the development of freeware and payware. Whatever simulator has the masses creating panels, repaints, AI, utilities, is the Flight Simulator. Let's see how long FSX can hold on.

[Daveo]

To me it just looks like a mission simulator.
Check out these vids from CES. I just can't see flying a plane with an X-box controller.
The cockpit, I can't even call it a flightdeck looks like the inside of an Audi.


http://www.geekwire.com/2012/hands-microsoft-flight-blast-mere-game

http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/10/2697548/microsoft-flight-hands-on-video-ces-2012

[SeanC]

When FS2000 I bought it....have always had up to date hardware...that version, although made significant advances such as the weather was horrible performance wise. It was just as wasteful of my money buying FS2000 as buying FSX Gold. To me FS2002 is still right up there when it came out as far as advancements...Custom AI capabilities (I don't count FStracks for FS2000), autogen, better looking water, and very reasonable performance on a mid range system at the time.

[ReggieF5421]

The cockpit, I can't even call it a flightdeck looks like the inside of an Audi.

That at least is not Microsoft's fault. That is the real world cockpit of the airplane.

As a Light Sport Aircraft - instruments are minimized because the aircraft cannot be flown IFR or at night. Those planes have some severe weight restrictions, and keeping the instrumentation down is a weight saver.

This is the cockpit/ panel of a LSA aircraft I get to fly. It doesn't even have an attitude indicator. That is quite common in LSA aircraft.

[loki]

I just can't see flying a plane with an X-box controller.

FSX fully supports the Xbox 360 controller, so this isn't anything new. And Flight still works just fine with joysticks.

[Nels_Anderson]

To me it just looks like a mission simulator.
Check out these vids from CES. I just can't see flying a plane with an X-box controller.
The cockpit, I can't even call it a flightdeck looks like the inside of an Audi.

You're missing the point. The cockpit of the Icon is supposed to look like a car, because that's what the cockpit of that real plane looks like. That in no way means that other planes with more standard cockpits cannot be replicated. You also don't have to fly with an "X-Box controller", it will support joysticks, etc.

Flight has a lot of problems, but the ones you complain about are not among them.

[Paxx]

Your sentiments are true Nels, for a variety of reasons.

Frankly after a 6 year wait, What did Microsoft expect when announcing a Flight title with only one island of Hawaii, and one aircraft included with future content available for purchase via download and no SDK? Howls of " Yes this is what we wanted"?

Flight is what it is. If the new direction is successful, add-ons that make it more full featured may become available. Since the announcements of what kind of downloadable content is available with the release of the Starter Edition have not been forthcoming, mystery rules the day.

[jomni]

Check out these vids from CES. I just can't see flying a plane with an X-box controller.


I fly FS2004 with a game controller. That is because it is installed in my travelling laptop and you just can't travel with a joystick in your luggage.

Yes the flying car thing is annoying because it does not have the conventional 6 pack that we expect from proper airplanes. But I guess it was built to be like a car in the first place to appeal to a different audience.

[n4gix]

CH Yoke, Pedals, Throttle console all are supported and configurable...

...AFIAK at least. :cool:

[raimondo2]

Nels optimism has to be admired !

but i asked myself - if this is the case which i do not know - :

what place has Flight at flightsim.com if :

No freeware
No sdk
No third parties payware from pilotshop

???????????

Would you just stand here and post Flight News - in front of flightsim.com - that Microsoft has released a new addon from windows live shop ?

we all can see that if Flight take that path - and again - i do not have a clue - it will be a dead donkey in the water - regarding hardcore simmers - sites - community.

[fxsttcb]

...what place has Flight at flightsim.com if :...Pick a venue! There are a multitude of forums. Most of which won't bat an eye if Flight disappears.
Just about every month you'll see some new freebies for FS98 in the library. The freeware and payware developers are still cranking out stuff for FS9 almost daily too.

The Pilot Shop isn't going to have any offerings for Flight anyway.

The only entity that could dry up at flightsim.com, is the forum we're in...Don

[Nels_Anderson]

I wasn't meaning to be optimistic, just kind of bemused by history repeating itself. Flightsimmers seem to love to complain, even more then they love to fly, and the same complaints we see now have come with every new release, though clearly actual situation this time is much different.

As for where do we fit it, that is a very good question and merits a serious discussion. Flight exists and many people are going to try it, given that trying it is free. Some people will even like it. Some Flight users will discover the existence of the larger flightsim community (i.e., us). Now, we could be pompous jerks about it and deride them for playing a game or we could welcome them, help them learn more about flying and maybe encourage them to move on to a more full featured sim.

[fxsttcb]

...we could welcome them, help them learn more about flying and maybe encourage them to move on to a more full featured sim.+1

[raimondo2]

+1

that will be good ! very important point - any future has to come from the 'conversion' of flight users to FSX.bgl

[benEggleston16]

I wasn't meaning to be optimistic, just kind of bemused by history repeating itself. Flightsimmers seem to love to complain, even more then they love to fly, and the same complaints we see now have come with every new release, though clearly actual situation this time is much different.

As for where do we fit it, that is a very good question and merits a serious discussion. Flight exists and many people are going to try it, given that trying it is free. Some people will even like it. Some Flight users will discover the existence of the larger flightsim community (i.e., us). Now, we could be pompous jerks about it and deride them for playing a game or we could welcome them, help them learn more about flying and maybe encourage them to move on to a more full featured sim.
Why shouldn't you be optimistic: OK, you'll probably fall out of favour of everyone on the forum (!) but we still don't know, for example, the price of the DLC. I know we all think MS are trying to make big bucks but if a plane is just $1.99, almost everyone will buy it particularly if it's something famous like that P-51 in the latest 'webisode'. Even if we don't like the base game, we'll think '$1.99, what harm ccan that do?' and so will everyone who plays it, serious or not. Even if they are as cheap as this, FSX came with 20 planes so 20x$2 is $40, so for the price of FSX you might get the same number of planes and looking at the videos and screens, few will admit it such is the hate of MS but I for one will say they look better than FSX, particularly the lighting.
I for one would be pleased to see the FS community grow, at the moment we are all 'sad nerds' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7902468.stm and to the layman viewing this forum, we are 'pompous jerks' already. I think it's a sad thing though for microsoft that we see for newcomers, 'progression' as moving in actual fact back to FSX

[loki]

what place has Flight at flightsim.com if

Screenshots, finding out more about flying, general aviation questions and even troubleshooting (plenty of games with official forums also have communities elsewhere).

[angels355]

To me it just looks like a mission simulator.
Check out these vids from CES. I just can't see flying a plane with an X-box controller.
The cockpit, I can't even call it a flightdeck looks like the inside of an Audi.


http://www.geekwire.com/2012/hands-microsoft-flight-blast-mere-game

http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/10/2697548/microsoft-flight-hands-on-video-ces-2012

They said in the 2nd video that they were going to "listen to their customer base.....and interesting options(?) that might develop based on that" -- didn't get it all just paraphrasing here. We can wait and see if they actually listen to us. Are they referring to US when he mentions "customer base"? I thought they were turning away from us and seeking an entirely new wider customer base?

I wasn't on the forums for the transition from FS98 to FS2000, I was way behind the times when I started flying these due to the severe recessions. Without any input from anyone else, I tried them for myself. I loved them both, but noticed FS2000 was a resource hog. However with POSKY 747's and a new modernized sim, it was a real turning point, even perhaps a life changer to fly these planes in FS2000.

FSX and FS9 addons are so stunning, I just don't see how refusing us the SDK is going to benefit us. The work done on Flight, lightening it up to perform better on hardware could alone qualify as a next generation flight simulator, similar to the transition from FS2000 to FS2002. I wonder if FSX planes will run in Flight? The transition from FS2002 to FS2004 was visually stunning, while also improving performance.

I don't think it is a bad idea to have Hawaii, and just two planes, if they gave us the SDK, because third party developers have created all the rest.

We represent the high end desktop gamers, FS has always been the unlimited high end game among others. Time will tell if the lower level mass market product will leave us high end gamers behind. Are we going to throw away our 1000 watt psu's and go buy an X-Box to run lower end games? The hardware is part of our hobby, and the better graphics and realism is our reward. If we become the niche market then so what, we'll do what makes us happy. The French with their niche market Fly Legacy simulator, built entirely by their own community, are happy as escargo in a shell! Vive la niche! Vive la overclocked glowing red processor!

[ps76]

Hi!

Just wanted to add my 2 cents. I myself am quite looking forward to Flight. As a different kind of sim of course. You know sometimes with the whole world available it gets a bit daunting choosing where to fly and what to do. I'm looking forward to exploring Hawaii in Flight and then if they put up more areas exploring them too. Hopefully by concentrating on one area at a time Microsoft will give us higher levels of detail in the default scenery so there will be more eye candy to explore. I had some great times with Fly! and Flight Unlimited II and III and they were only for specific areas too. I would like to try the new Aerofly sim too as that seems to do Switzerland very well. I don't think Flight will replace FsX because it just doesn't have the scope too from what I've seen but I must go against the grain and say I'm quite looking forward to having some fun with the new "game"!

Many thanks for reading!

Pierre

[angels355]

I don't know about Fly, I think it had the whole world. What I had was Fly2K the updated Fly, it had the whole world including N and S poles as I flew to every part of their globe. Fly II also had the whole world, as of course does the latest version Fly Legacy built from the ground up all for free by and for enthusiasts, all free! Try it out if you like. Vive les escargots!

I think Flight is a top simulator, and stunning in appearance. I wouldn't be embarrassed to fly it. I just hope they give in and allow us the SDK. Wonder if they would ever turn fully around and build FSNext. Wonder if that would be designated FSXI or FSXII. Flight in my opinion is FSXI, it is just not packaged the way we are used to or want. But in my opinion the lightening up of the FSX graphics and using the FSX engine (what else could they be using, they don't grow on trees?) constitutes a new simulator. We just have to order burgers and fries with it. Hold the mayo! We loved the old format. In using it there's the one major difference, that we of course don't have the SDK so far. It seems so close to FSX though, perhaps it's not worth changing.

We'll be all right. I'm enjoying FSX and FS9, and will try out Flight.

[clutchcargo]

I luv the fact that MS Flighty is what it is. This may be an easier way for people to be introduced into flight than those who have taken versions of flight simulation in the past. I'm sure many potential simmers lost interest due to the sheer vastness of what flight simulator "N" holds (N = fill in the blank with whatever version), and where to start. MS Flighty will get them up and running quickly and should they "catch the bug" I am sure they will move into more realistic flight simulations. So this may attract new simmers which is a good thing for the hobby.

[ricardo_NY1]

I luv the fact that MS Flighty is what it is. This may be an easier way for people to be introduced into flight than those who have taken versions of flight simulation in the past. I'm sure many potential simmers lost interest due to the sheer vastness of what flight simulator "N" holds (N = fill in the blank with whatever version), and where to start. MS Flighty will get them up and running quickly and should they "catch the bug" I am sure they will move into more realistic flight simulations. So this may attract new simmers which is a good thing for the hobby.
I keep hearing this theory throughout, allow my attempt to debunk it...........FS needs no introduction aside advertising it as a Flight Simulation program. The real aviation enthusiast/flight simmer will stick to it and embrace its complex nature. The gamer or average person is going to talk away no matter what you try. Flight simmers are not created with a soft initiation into flight simulation software. You can't carve a person out that way. Do you honestly think fishing nuts like myself are created by playing a bass fishing simulation or something similar? No. It's in the blood, it's been tasted in the real world, and things are recreated in the computer when and where possible. Flight simmers already have a developed interest in aviation, flying aircraft and would embrace fidelity. Good luck to MS or anyone who thinks they can pull a person into the world of aviation and flight simulator by offering them a hybrid or water downed sim. There is a reason why 2000 people will walk past an open cockpit door and only 1 out of those 2000 will do a double take and stare as he/she walks by. Now....I'd like to see a post here of an ex flight simmer stating that he lost interest in MSFS because it was TOO vast, complex and difficult! That the world was just too darn big!

[angels355]

I have about five technician friends who are high end gamers, they have had little or no interest at all in FS. One has used it to benchmark new computer builds now and then. The others just have a blank look on their face, and blink several times, then go back to discussing Call of Duty or WoW. I've tried to get them interested, no dice.

The coins and light fountains(?), would not help it would make them laugh, plus they're just not aviation oriented. I think only children would like those features. Meanwhile, it seems like they ruined FS for their core fanbase, who are unlimited category gamers.

I see a way out for them. They could laugh embarrasingly and say, oh that was just a toy for children. We are now building a new simulator engine, 64 bit, fully multithreaded, with a new SDK for thrid party developers to just go wild. It will happen! I believe in Santy Claus!

The FS franchise succeeded and was making a profit, because of its' format, and that it was an unlimited category game. John and Martha King had videos in it introducing the simulator, and there were structured flight lessons. Why couldn't they have chosen another long standing successful franchise to modify with all their brilliance?? They could have taken MS Word, and dumbed it down to just MS Notepad, so as to attract a wider audience who might be put off or confused by spell checking or indenting paragraphs. Think of all the money they could have made! It would be perfect for X-Box!

[torkermax]

OK, I know Flight does not really fit the description of a true follow on to the previous Flight Simulator version, but seeing the responses here made me think of things we've published in the past, like this op-ed:

http://www.flightsim.com/main/op-ed/ed33.htm

"All I need is FS98, FS2000 isn't good enough to make me switch".

I think I could replace this forum with a bunch of articles/posts from years past and just change the names of the sims :-)

There is going to be alot of them "called out" in the future! :) good one to prove their words.

[fxsttcb]

Maybe it's the name. "Microsoft Flight" is too reminiscent of "Microsoft Flight Simulator" and invokes the idea that it is a complex, in depth, simulator(time will tell).
That's something us hardcore flightsimmers thought. Why not the unwashed?

A name like Microsoft GFW Aero-Challenge would entice folks that have already decided, "Oh, Boy! MSFS is too complex" to at least take a look.
Nobody would have a pre-conceived notion. Nobody would be disappointed. Everybody would give it the benefit of a trial...Don

[n4gix]

Here's my experience with Flight Simulator since FS1...

My first introduction to FS was on a DX-64 Compaq "portable" computer. Color 5" CRT. After a few weeks, I lost interest in it.

A few years later, I bought FS4, installed it, found I couldn't handle it using only a keyboard, and abandoned it...

Some years later, I had the same experience with FS5, even after buying SubLogic's "Washington DC" addon scenery. After a few unsatisfying weeks it went to "Bit Heaven."

Ditto the experience with FS95, I just couldn't get interested enough in it to keep it installed.

Enter FS98, and I finally purchased a flight yoke at the same time as the boxed sim. Wow! Talk about a different experience! I was finally able to master flying aircraft plausably. Now I was pretty much "hooked" on simming.

Beginning with FS2000, I started getting into modding aircraft, but the sim itself was really pretty crappy. I found myself reverting to FS98 for fun.

FS2002's release marked a watershed moment in my simming adventure, as this version was everything FS2000 wasn't! I got seriously involved in aircraft, gauge and scenery development, as well as continuing to hone my flying skills. About this same time I became throughly addicted, and thus began my never-ending quest for the next bit of hardware and software to keep my "Jones" fed... :D

What I can say with a high degree of confidence is that, had my first introduction to simming been something like "Flight", it wouldn't have taken me so many decades to become "hooked," since I'd have been "flying successfully" from day one... :o