What Microsoft recently said

[mgh]

Has anyone actually realised what Microsoft actually wrote in its recent fact sheet?


The game immerses players in the flying experience with realistic graphics and accurate physics, and will continually evolve with new terrain, aircraft and challenges that can be downloaded via expansion packs.

Set the pace by choosing to turn on flight aids or use the cockpit controls to perform authentic piloting procedures

Players looking to deepen their experience can download additional packs that add new aircraft, regions and customization options.

Should we not hold fire on criticising what is still only the beta, until we see what Flight will actually offer when it's released?

[Paxx]

Has anyone actually realised what Microsoft actually wrote in its recent fact sheet? ...

Yes, this is why people are disappointed.


... Should we not hold fire on criticising what is still only the beta, until we see what Flight will actually offer when it's released?


The starter pack is free to play and includes the Icon A5 and the Big Island of Hawaii.

Release the hounds!

[Nels_Anderson]

Has anyone actually realised what Microsoft actually wrote in its recent fact sheet?

Should we not hold fire on criticising what is still only the beta, until we see what Flight will actually offer when it's released?

We should, but clearly we won't :-)

It's been this way with every new sim that comes out and Flight has more to criticize than most.

[jomni]

1) People are upset that these so called additional content may not even materialize since Microsoft does not want 3rd party developers to make stuff independently.
2) Also the additional cost of building your world will be pretty steep compared to a complete world in FS2004 and FSX.

[royalone]

We should, but clearly we won't :-)

It's been this way with every new sim that comes out and Flight has more to criticize than most.
Unfortunately, this is far to true. I do believe that not giving the whole sim and selling it in pieces have some simmers in an uproar. I do know of a beta tester who sent
back the key and told Microsoft, no thanks. He told me he could not get the graphics he wanted, it was too demanding. He runs FSX well with addons. Wait an see attitude works for me.

[Jayskits]

2) Also the additional cost of building your world will be pretty steep compared to a complete world in FS2004 and FSX.

And after I pay the steep cost to build my world with expansion packs over the next few years as MS releases them, what will be my result? I will have a sim that essentially looks and feels a lot like the current FSX. Why would I want to do that?

[tigisfat]

And after I pay the steep cost to build my world with expansion packs over the next few years as MS releases them, what will be my result? I will have a sim that essentially looks and feels a lot like the current FSX. Why would I want to do that?Well, you're dead on. The funny thing is, there's enough information out for us to know that Flight is a repackaged FSX. They add a few planes, make some pretty autogen for the big island, so on and so forth. If you want to build flight and get all the scenery, you'll be paying for extremely expensive FSX upgrades essentially. I don't know how much adding the whole world will cost, but I'm sure it'll be hundreds at a minimum.

We'll have to wait and see if FSX is pulled off the shelf so as to not distract from flight!


Everyone in this thread has very good points to make. This is the first rational flight thread we've had.


Here's something else for you: Why couldn't they have made the island in photoreal with overlaid vegetation and buildings? That's clearly the way of the future. They had a small enough area. Why are we stuck with autogen?

[Jayskits]

Why couldn't they have made the island in photoreal with overlaid vegetation and buildings? That's clearly the way of the future. They had a small enough area. Why are we stuck with autogen?

Excellent point. The only thing I can think of is that the photoreal will possibly be one of the extra-cost things you can buy from MS.

[n4gix]

1) People are upset that these so called additional content may not even materialize since Microsoft does not want 3rd party developers to make stuff independently.


About that so far we've only read one side of the story, and I've no reason to give one side the benefit of the doubt without also being willing to give the other side that same benefit of the doubt.

Until Microsoft themselves make their intentions clear and announce what -if any- terms there will be for third-party involvement with their online store, there's really nothing on which to make any rational judgments yet.

I know both the principle parties who've thus far spoken out, so I at least have some reason for my unwillingness to simply "take their word for it" as though it were unbiased and strictly factual...

[Paul Golding]

Here's something else for you: Why couldn't they have made the island in photoreal with overlaid vegetation and buildings? That's clearly the way of the future. They had a small enough area. Why are we stuck with autogen?
Because there's no way they could do the whole world like that (or even the bits they're going to be selling). The Big Island has to be representative of the quality of the other areas that will become available. Also, how many photoreal sceneries are there available for FSX that include 5 seasonal textures?

[torkermax]

And after I pay the steep cost to build my world with expansion packs over the next few years as MS releases them, what will be my result? I will have a sim that essentially looks and feels a lot like the current FSX. Why would I want to do that?

Same holds true for Prepar3d

[azzaro]

It seems to me Microsoft is being crucified for doing the same thing for which Orbx is lauded? How much would a high resolution Orbx world cost at $40-$50 per scenery area and $30-$40 per airport. Many flight simmers seem unphased by these expenses. Not to mention those who spend thousands in hardware (panels etc.)
I can only assume there is a deep seeded hatred for MS. Flight has dispensed with the minimal blank canvas world offered in previous sims. To be fair, how many of us fly in the flat, generic, unpopulated areas default FS is covered with? I'm not a big MS supporter, but If we're going to have a meaningful discussion let's start with a level playing field. — Bob

[JSkorna]

And after I pay the steep cost to build my world with expansion packs over the next few years as MS releases them, what will be my result? I will have a sim that essentially looks and feels a lot like the current FSX. Why would I want to do that?

You would have exactly the same thing as if Flight was released all at the same time.

How do you even know what Flight looks and feels like?

Don't purchase anything for Flight and just stick with FSX if that is what you want.

[benEggleston16]

It seems to me Microsoft is being crucified for doing the same thing for which Orbx is lauded?
ORBX areas are much larger than one Hawaiian island although we're yet to see what a payware expansion entails. my guess is it will be the rest of the Hawaiian chain as it's hardly realistic to just be on one island and can't fly or even see the next one such as (for the Big island,) Maui a mere 30 miles away. I'm guessing most everything we've seen in the preview shots will be DLC as soon as the base pack is released

[tigisfat]

Because there's no way they could do the whole world like that (or even the bits they're going to be selling). The Big Island has to be representative of the quality of the other areas that will become available. Also, how many photoreal sceneries are there available for FSX that include 5 seasonal textures?

Okay then, how many seasons need to be represented on hawaii? Let's see, spring in hawaii, check. Summer...yeah, autumn, when all the leaves on the hawaii maples turn bright orange, winter, when all the trees in hawaii are bare.....hahahahahahahahahah!

There is no way that Microsoft can be expected to maintain the same level of detail they've built in Hawaii in the entire rest of the world.

[Dewey]

Well, yes, or course that may be true. But from a marketing point of view, doing Hawaii in photoreal would have been the smartest thing Microsoft could have done. After all, once you've flown photoreal, it's hard to go back to anything less. So the initial offering could have gotten people "hooked" on photoreal which would make selling expensive subsequent scenery areas to them easier....sort of, you know, "whet their appetite", so to speak. Microsoft has some shrewd marketing folks. I'm surprised they didn't jump all over that opportunity.

Dewey

[win98]

There is no way that Microsoft can be expected to maintain the same level of detail they've built in Hawaii in the entire rest of the world.

Much of Hawaii is still built using Landclass and vector data, only a small portion is handcrafted. They improved the landclass engine and how autogen is drawn. There is no reason to doubt that MS can do the same for other parts of the world, at least where landclass data is readily available.

[csefton]

Because there's no way they could do the whole world like that (or even the bits they're going to be selling). The Big Island has to be representative of the quality of the other areas that will become available. Also, how many photoreal sceneries are there available for FSX that include 5 seasonal textures?

Why would you want 5 seasons?......there are only 4 seasons in a year...and only two in the tropics..wet or dry...which still look the same from the sky..so thats one!

I dont know about real photo scenery everywhere but it wouldn't of done no harm to have employed more realistic textures along the photo scenery route...as for size dont forget XP10 is already 60gig (and for the most part still looks CR*P!).... yet that wont stop users buying it!......

If Flight was similar to some dedicated VFR Scenery packages for FSX but overlaid with autogen, roads, 3d objects, road traffic, etc etc ...then it may have attracted FAR more interest than it has amongst the FSX/fs9 users.............BUT all this is academic...FLIGHT is NOT even aimed at the PC market! that much is obvious!.....its aimed at the console kiddies and any extra packages that will have to be downloaded .........so THATS the reason Microsoft will not make these packages too big!...not because they cant...there are huge areas of the world now in fine VFR photo images...goggle earth proves that?.....i have the UK horizon vfr scenery..its large but thankfully on dvd's.....so there is nothing stopping Microsoft introducing photo scenery as part of their incentive to attract interest....but the market they are looking at doesn't justify it....so thats why we wont be getting it.

[win98]

Flight is aimed at PC market because it will be for PC only. There will be no Xbox or other console version.

It is just impractical to hand place autogen objects on a large scale photoscenery. Also, for the rest of world where there is season, you would need 5 sets of textures: Winter, Spring, Fall, Summer AND Night!

[Paul Golding]

Csefton, you've got to be on a different planet to everyone else! Lol!

[nicky9499]

Also, for the rest of world where there is season, you would need 5 sets of textures: Winter, Spring, Fall, Summer AND Night!

Ah yes, just when I was scratching my head thinking "since when were there five seasons?"

[JSkorna]

Just so we are clear, Night is not one of the 5 seasons, though it is a texture set. The fifth season is hard winter, which IS different than winter in FS.