I'll play with Flight now and then

[tatest]

I wasn't expecting an FS11, when ACES was shut down and it was announced that the franchise was going to Windows Live. We got something like what I expected, an offline simulator UI for something online, more or less what we had on a lower tech scale with the front end to Air Warrior.

My real disappointment with Flight at this stage is that over at Windows Live Games, there is no world. I was hoping for a whole world, managed for us online: the WLG computers managing traffic, keeping track of all players, feeding scenery to the front end, feeding in AI if there are not enough players to make it interesting. So far, that is not there, not even an equivalent to Air Warrior's arena, simple as that was. I'm suspecting that a world to fly in is not going to happen anytime soon, as it seems Microsoft has not dedicated the resources to managing that world. Maybe they'll let 10 players share some airspace if we've all downloaded the same scenery, but if I have to buy the world in pieces to store on my computer, what is the point of pushing Flight as an online gaming experience? So far it is just an online store.

On the other hand, when I'm not flying classics and propliners around the world, I enjoy low and slow close to the scenery. That includes oldies and ultralights. The Icon A5 fills that bill well and so will a Stearman. I like the Icon so much that I went looking for an A5 to install into my FSX and FS9 worlds.

[jomni]

That's my routine now. If I have time to fly for 1 or two hours, I will go fly FSX.
When I only have time to fly 10 to 30 minutes, I go for Flight.

[Paxx]

...
My real disappointment with Flight at this stage is that over at Windows Live Games, there is no world. I was hoping for a whole world, managed for us online: the WLG computers managing traffic, keeping track of all players, feeding scenery to the front end, feeding in AI if there are not enough players to make it interesting. So far, that is not there, not even an equivalent to Air Warrior's arena, simple as that was. I'm suspecting that a world to fly in is not going to happen anytime soon, as it seems Microsoft has not dedicated the resources to managing that world. Maybe they'll let 10 players share some airspace if we've all downloaded the same scenery, but if I have to buy the world in pieces to store on my computer, what is the point of pushing Flight as an online gaming experience? So far it is just an online store. ...

Flight multiplayer certainly has a "tacked on" feel to it, demonstrating a lack of innovation and online social/community experience by Flight Team leadership. The basic tools for a vibrant online community are MIA as you have observed. It is disappointing, but not really unexpected. Microsoft has a history of not understanding "online" in any sense of the word. I find it quite intriguing that when it comes to innovation, they copy (or buy) others ideas, but when it comes to "online" they feel they need to re-invent the whole shabang with 10 year old philosophies.

Microsoft can do better. One wonders why they don't. Corporate ladder climbers being "yes men" at the conference table probably have something to do with it.

[jpc55]

I totally agree, I think this sums it up really well!

[Wizard-Bob]

That's my routine now. If I have time to fly for 1 or two hours, I will go fly FSX.
When I only have time to fly 10 to 30 minutes, I go for Flight.

This is exactly what I do as well. Flight is sorta fun for a quick 20 minute mission or flight, but if I have an hour or more, it is certainly FSX for me. As an aside, I never installed Flight on my main FSX rig. Instead, I play Flight on my notebook - just a quick and easy diversion.

[jandjfrench]

Hi tatest,

There is an Icon for FSX available. Even has folding wings like the real thing.

Jim F.

[angels355]

Quick and easy perhaps I can adopt that philosophy. But there are just certain planes I like. Cessna 340, King Airs, Learjets, Gulfstreams, and heavy metal. Perhaps if there were an acceptible aircraft I could do quick and easy flights. Meanwhile soon I hope to do a critical RTW flight to the 50 US and 30 Intl busiest airports in the world. Flight is made by GS, by its' nature it is limited and a cookie cutter production, and tightly controlled. There are things that people enjoy about it now, and many are excited about the Alaskan package which I think will have more planes and should be a popular product. There was a famous AK bush pilot who flew a Cessna 340 or 310 twin, he disappeared in the AK mountains. Perhaps they might consider a 340 for AK, then I could fly that in HI also. Any way I'll have to wait and see. With all of Flight's instruction, if they produce a complex aircraft perhaps I'll learn something. But they are charging money for this, so as a consumer I have to judge the merits of buying this or that versus addons for FSX and FS9.

[jomni]

Quick and easy perhaps I can adopt that philosophy. But there are just certain planes I like. Cessna 340, King Airs, Learjets, Gulfstreams, and heavy metal. Perhaps if there were an acceptible aircraft I could do quick and easy flights.

The Maul is a fairly good aircraft that matches the Cessna's instrumentation and complexity (minus the Auto Pilot). I really think Microsoft made a mistake to not put this plane as as part of the free package.

[angels355]

The Maul is a fairly good aircraft that matches the Cessna's instrumentation and complexity (minus the Auto Pilot). I really think Microsoft made a mistake to not put this plane as as part of the free package.

I agree. They probably want to emphasize the most rudimentary planes first. Simmers have a reputation for starting out with 737's, so maybe they are trying to make beginners start with beginner aircraft.