Flying Magazine Reviews Microsoft’s Flight

[Jacoba]

Simulation Review: Microsoft’s Flight a Disappointment

http://www.flyingmag.com/flying-games/simulation-review-microsoft’s-flight-disappointment?cmpid=030112&spPodID=030&spMailingID=5219669&spUserID=NTI5OTc3Mzg0NAS2&spJobID=195288941&spReportId=MTk1Mjg4OTQxS0

[petermcleland]

Well here is one pilot who completely disagrees with that crappy review. I really like FLIGHT and reckon that it the very best "Out of the Box" simulator that has ever been produced...I've spent thousands of pounds adding to FS9 to improve the scenery etc and it is nowhere near the standard of this Terrain, Sea, Scenery and Flight Dynamics, but then my career as a real pilot only lasted for a third of a Century so I guess my opinion is worth nothing compared to that of this reviewer.

[JSkorna]

Read pretty honest to me.

I guess one has to agree with the review or else it is "crappy".

[azzaro]

Peter is absolutely right. This review is one of the most superficial and meaningless I have read so far.
This review as applied to cars would read: "All my friends say Ford cars are bad. I drove a Ford around the block while texting and having lunch. I didn't like it. Therefore all Ford cars are useless."

And Jim, 'crappy' defiines the depth and quality of the review, not it's position on the product.
I think you may be taking your job as moderator a little too seriously in this case.
Peter expressed his opinion without personal attack. While your comment seemed snide and condescending.
And, yes that is only my opinion. — Bob

[JSkorna]

Ah, OK, you disagree with the review and my reaction, so the review is superficial and meaningless, and I am snide and condescending.

Did you read the positive notes of the review?

Did you notice the details of the review?

Did you notice that the reviewer made no comparisons to any other version of FS?

Did you notice it was posted on March 1st and people are just now reading it? It must not have been too shocking then.

[azzaro]

Ah, OK, you disagree with the review and my reaction, so the review is superficial and meaningless, and I am snide and condescending.
Did you read the positive notes of the review?
Did you notice the details of the review?
Did you notice that the reviewer made no comparisons to any other version of FS?
Did you notice it was posted on March 1st and people are just now reading it? It must not have been too shocking then.

Actually, if you re-read my comments, you will find no mention of agreement or disagreement with the review.
My point was that the review itself was poorly researched and written, and offered no meaningful information other than a few glib opinions. In other words, crappy. And, yes, I find your responses generally snide and condescending, which if you were not a moderator would be forgivable. As you have been tasked with the role of peacekeeper and arbitrator, your obviously emotional reactions undermine any respect your position may otherwise engender. I have expressed my opinions in this regard to Nels as well. If you wish, am quite prepared to discuss this personally. — Bob

You may now flex your moderator muscle and lock this thread.

[mick99]

Well, Microsoft refers to the "gaming" experience. It seems that Flight was designed as a game, not as a flight simulator. Those who prefer games will probably like it. Those who prefer sims probably won't.

[alaskancrab]

Seems to read to me "I couldn't wait to be the first to publish a negative review". Then again I am reading in between the lines...then again I've gotten so good at it, I can tell when the author of an article changes midstream. This guy seems to be switching between I'm a journalist, and I'm an ms hater... My guess probably a high school education or some small college.

Anything else you can derive from the article let me know.. :)

[Paxx]

Belittling others with an opinion contrary to your own only demonstrates your lack of confidence in your own argument.
Well done Crabs!
:)

[Paxx]

Actually, if you re-read my comments, you will find no mention of agreement or disagreement with the review.
Re-reading ...

Peter is absolutely right. This review is one of the most superficial and meaningless I have read so far ....
And, yes that is only my opinion. — Bob

Hmmm... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_Y50hE5ri8)

:)

[alaskancrab]

paxx: you are right... that power should be limited for financial statements only.

[Paxx]

... that power should be limited for financial statements only.

Don't even go there. It is entirely possible to be wealthy without the immature trappings of measuring a mans success by the size of his wallet (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/mv-8zERb/father_son/).
Irritating isn't it. :)

[vonBobo]

It's important to recognize a reviewer's potential audience when judging the review. While the reviewer could have added something about Flight being a nice diversion to pass the time or something, I wonder if the majority of his readers even play games or simulators in the first place? From the way he talks about his PC's performance, I doubt he is even a simmer or a gamer himself. If these things are true, it's not surprising he didnt love it, I'm not sure what game even would catch his fancy.

[azzaro]

Re-reading ... Hmmm... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_Y50hE5ri8) :)

And what does that tell you about my feelings re: Flight? Am I for or against it?
Or is it a review of the review? Sometimes meaning is imposed by the reader. — Bob

[Paxx]

And what does that tell you about my feelings re: Flight? Am I for or against it?
Or is it a review of the review? Sometimes meaning is imposed by the reader. — Bob
MSFlight you like.
The review, you plainly don't agree with it. Lets spell it out a little more plainly so you can comprehend.

First, from the article the Reviewer said ...

I probably won’t play it very much. After all, it’s just a game, and not a very good one at that.
Hopefully we can agree the reviewer thinks MSFlight is just a game and not a very good one at that.

Then petermcleland said ...

Well here is one pilot who completely disagrees with that crappy review. I really like FLIGHT and reckon that it the very best "Out of the Box" simulator that has ever been produced...
Note the word "disagrees"in the first sentence. Note the word "like" in the second sentence.

Then you, in response, said ...

Peter is absolutely right. ...
I interpret this statement to mean that you agree with him.

Then, further down, you say ...

Actually, if you re-read my comments, you will find no mention of agreement or disagreement with the review.
Where as actually you stated "Peter is absolutely right.", which could be interpreted by most as agreeing with him, both about the review and MSFlight. I am going to assume your "agreement" statement was not referring to peter...'s last sentence "... so I guess my opinion is worth nothing compared to that of this reviewer". I may be wrong assuming this, but I don't think so.

From peter...'s prior sentences in his post we can clearly see he doesn't like the review but that he does like MSFlight because of the other statements he made in his post. And you clearly agree with him (see above). You're other comments about the "crappy"-ness of the article are owned by you solely.

Conclusion ...
You don't like the review. (Re:by agreement with peter)
You do like MSFlight. (Re:by agreement with peter)
You think the the article is constructed crappily. (Re: by statements attributed to you, specifically "In other words, crappy" - Azzaro)

Does that clear it up or do you wish to play these games some more since this is more fun than MSFlight? To win this argument you have only one possible answer to that question. :)

[Jacoba]

Once people understand the difference between Flight and FSX, a game vs a simulation. Chasing down trinkets for points vs diving into a PMDG level 737 or Flight1 Mustang, then it hard to not like Flight...

If that's you thing, flying around Hawaii in a cockpit-less plane gobbling up PACMAN esq power points

[Trev]

Actually I disagree with the review completely. I think he only tried it for 5 mins in one aircraft. When I first got it I wasn't overly impressed but the more I flew it the more I liked it. I have bought the Hawian pack and all the aircraft and completely enjoy it. I run the scenery on max.

I started up FSX last night and flew around Hawaii and all I can say is the scenery looked rather bland and washed out.
:)

[azzaro]

Well, of course it's more fun than Flight! (fight or Flight response) The semantics game never ends! However, I'll conceed this round. :)
Yes, I do like Flight (with reservations) Although, in the interest of full disclosure, I haven't played it much lately as I feel I've squeezed about as much fun as I can from it. Alaska may perk me up for awhile. The review, like I said was superficial and meaningless. Can't really get upset about something meaningless. What got under my skin was the offhand dismissal of Peter's statements. Fair play and all.

I'm always available for a rematch. Great fun, whot? — Bob

[JSkorna]

So Bob, if the reviewer had loved everything about Flight and wrote the same type of review, would it also be superficial and meaningless? How about "crappy"?

[Paxx]

Well, of course it's more fun than Flight! (fight or Flight response) The semantics game never ends! However, I'll conceed this round. :)
Yes, I do like Flight (with reservations) Although, in the interest of full disclosure, I haven't played it much lately as I feel I've squeezed about as much fun as I can from it. Alaska may perk me up for awhile. The review, like I said was superficial and meaningless. Can't really get upset about something meaningless. What got under my skin was the offhand dismissal of Peter's statements. Fair play and all.

I'm always available for a rematch. Great fun, whot? — Bob

Aye. Just an FYI the winning answer would have been "I am having to much fun with MSFlight to take the time to argue about a forum post about a crappy MSFlight review", or something thereabouts. You're honest though and I like that regardless of any disagreements.

Note - I edited my above post after you had made your comment on it inadvertently. I'm a crappy writer so I need to "see" a post posted before I can edit it for clarity and nuance. My bad and I try not to do such things that in any way could be construed as "not fair", hence this note.

[azzaro]

so bob, if the reviewer had loved everything about flight and wrote the same type of review, would it also be superficial and meaningless? How about "crappy"? Yes! Have you not been reading my comments?

[Drive571]

Sounds like Microsoft misjudged this one. Flight seems to offer neither the in-your-face entertainment value that casual gamers are interested in, nor the cautious realism that have kept MSFS diehards loyal to the franchise for nearly 30 years. FSX it is, then...

[petermcleland]

I also think that this "Game" simulates real flight better than any previous MS "Flight Simulator". I find its "out of the box" "Simulation" extremely pleasing and realistic :)

[n4gix]

Once people understand the difference between Flight and FSX, a game vs a simulation. Chasing down trinkets for points vs diving into a PMDG level 737 or Flight1 Mustang, then it hard to not like Flight...

If that's you thing, flying around Hawaii in a cockpit-less plane gobbling up PACMAN esq power points


If that's all that one could do in Flight, I'd wholeheartedly agree with the above.

However, having experienced a revivial of the sheer joy of (hand) flying again, and having refreshed my basic instrument flying skills using "primitive" VOR navigation, and IFR approaches using ILS, I'll have to respectfully disagree...

[stanp]

Trev,
Have you ever seen the sceney rendition from a real, $100,000,000 simulator? It's not necessarily "eye candy". It's accurate and designed for training and "realism". I'd bet that FSX scenery looks more like the real deal. FSX when loaded with REX, UT. GEX. and ASE for weather blows everything away from the standpoint of realism.
Stan

[angels355]

I have a stupid question, the author said that the Flight Simulator franchise was sold to Lockheed Martin. Wasn't he mistaken? It was only the ESP professional edition flight simulator that was. And it was ONLY licensed to Lockheed, not sold. Isn't that correct? AND that the Flight Simulator series is still owned by MS, although MS is not making money with their 30 year old solid performing money earning FS series because they choose not to at this time, in favor of a smaller audience and what appears to be sales numbering in the two digits. I think I'm correct here, that MS still owns the real FS series, they're just not producing/making money with it.

I liked the author's comment that he went to get a Pepsi, came back and the Icon was doing fine flying and climbing w/o autopilot on its' own. The challenges here sound daunting.

I won't comment on what I think of Flight, and for those who do like it please continue, don't let me stop you. But when I purchased three units of W7 directly from MS I told them that I am purchasing these W7's solely for the purpose of running FS9 and FSX, and told them how many bonafide units of FS I have. The sales person asked me for advice on how to set up FS. I finally set up my own long term FSX Gold install w/ PMDG 744X. Now I can finally get some payware.

Any way w/o FSNext, it's like my childhood friend's mom who would get impatient with us when we ran out of things to do, so she would point outside and say something like, "Get outside and do some productive playing!" (Instead of for example watching reruns of STOS.) We'd drag our feet go outside, and reluctantly try to have a fun time outside without James Tiberius Kirk, the green blooded pointy eared Vulcan, and McCoy who's a country Dr not a miracle worker!! Somehow we had some fun, doing back sommies and layouts off the swing set.....good safe fun!

So now trying to have fun w/o FSnext, completed the build of my first FSX Gold system, repaired my Cadillac, talked to more pretty ladies than I remember, tried buying a Corvette today, have looked over aircraft to see if I have the remotest chance of buying one, have been studying for the PPL, IFR, ME, later Commercial, and ATPL. Found a house I want to buy, everything is good to go, except no job due to the unprecedented bad economy for the past 12 years, in which UE actually went up by a large percentage instead of decreasing despite the verbage. Trying to buy a laptop w/o choking on the price. Was at the Boeing Store trying to buy a good 747 hat, wasn't able to, their hats are no good. Back to the Ferrari dealership. Porsche hats are no good, should I commission my seamstress neighbor to make a raised letter ("embossed"?) Porsche 917 hat? Or should I be disloyal and get a Lamborghini hat?? OMG!

I've been doing everything but flying FSnext and Flight. Flight, although I haven't flown Flight for quite some time, it is still installed just as it was on my C drive, but that C drive is in a drawer now, awaiting complete erasure.

[angels355]

PS: Flying Magazine?? That is one of the most respected and oldest magazines for real pilots! If they are saying what most of the mainstream flight simmers are saying what does that mean? And after all this time has elapsed since Flight's release, this also illustrates how MS has not listened to their customers at all. Sounds to me like a big embarrassment for MS. And we tried to watch out for MS, unfortunately they were not listening.

The author mentions X-Plane, but as a flight student, it is missing important features needed. I might get it any way, but FS9/FSX will have to be my main simulators. I can't wait to see how XP11 turns out.

There can be many arguments either way, however the truth is important also.

My $39.95 worth.

[n4gix]

PS: Flying Magazine?? That is one of the most respected and oldest magazines for real pilots! If they are saying what most of the mainstream flight simmers are saying what does that mean? And after all this time has elapsed since Flight's release, this also illustrates how MS has not listened to their customers at all. Sounds to me like a big embarrassment for MS. And we tried to watch out for MS, unfortunately they were not listening.

Keep in mind that "review" is old (Mar 01, 2012). The review done by AOPA was much more fair and balanced, and on the whole I trust AOPA more than any other source...

Note that the author of that screed never mentioned -and obviously never tried- either the Vans RV-6 or the Maule M7, so was completely unaware of the IFR capabilites of Flight.

This "review" was not complete by any stretch of the imagination, and most certainly it was not "fair" or "balanced." :rolleyes:

[angels355]

Keep in mind that "review" is old (Mar 01, 2012). The review done by AOPA was much more fair and balanced, and on the whole I trust AOPA more than any other source...

Note that the author of that screed never mentioned -and obviously never tried- either the Vans RV-6 or the Maule M7, so was completely unaware of the IFR capabilites of Flight.

This "review" was not complete by any stretch of the imagination, and most certainly it was not "fair" or "balanced." :rolleyes:

Can you tell me in my original question, I am correct aren't I that MS still owns the FS series, with 27,000 airports, and it's just a matter of them being in the right frame of mind to produce FSnext? I believe the author was mistaken when he said that FS was sold to Lockheed. Only ESP was licensed to Lockheed, and MS still owns FS and the series?

Regarding Flight, I don't want to spoil anyone's fun, I think that people that like it should play it to their hearts content. I've seen video games that involve green frogs that jump over each other, and warlords that seem to glow especially from the eyes with big swords or something, I just see those things briefly then move along as quickly as I can on my tasks. Same with Flight, it doesn't have what I need so I ignore it. I was flying a PMDG 744X from PMDG doing takeoffs and landings at PHTO, and I noticed those exotic trees on the slopes of Hawaii and the palm trees, that was good enough for me. The only thing that bothers me is that MS management with a purpose shut down the Aces and the nearly completed FS11/FS series in order to focus all the FS franchise resources into Flight the game, just as entertaining as the frog game maybe not as much as GTA. That's the only thing that bothers me. Wouldn't bother me a bit if MS produced a whole series of froggie games, but why does it have to come at the expense of the FS series? Flight if needed or wanted should be a subset of FS like the adventures in FSX. Anyone with half a Ferengi brain can see that the FS series was a monumental masterpiece not easily produced, and it was making money, steadily over 30 years, I believe it is older than the Flight manager himself. Modernization of the software? Flight is 32 bit DX9, and the stated purpose is to get rid of those annoying 27,000 airports and everything else with it. I just don't see the logic in their thinking, and it's been out for a while, and judging from the Flight forums it hasn't done well at all. It seems that they took a gamble and lost on all accounts.

[n4gix]

Your understanding is quite correct. Microsoft still owns the source code for the venerable Flight Simulator series. In fact, they spent the money to keep six employees engaged in making full, secure archives of everything, before the lights were turned off.

Two separate licensing agreements were also made during that time.

The first was made with Flight1 and is strictly a license to bundle and sell custom versions of ESPv1.0 to commercial customers as part of an integrated training package.

The second license agreement with Lockheed-Martin is more expansive, and included the actual source code and SDK materials. The sole restriction is that L-M cannot create or license any entertainment package. Originally, L-M released two versions of Prepar3D, one at $499 per seat for commercial use, and a developers license for two seats at $9.95/month subscription.

As of a few months ago, L-M has lowered the cost of the Commercial one seat license to $199, and has arranged refund or credit to existing licensees for the difference. L-M has also released an Academic one seat license to any student from kindergarten to post-graduate level for $49, and continue to offer the two seat developer's edition for $9.95/mo (discounted slightly for six-month or 12-month subscriptions).

As far as Microsoft Game Studio and Flight, either one understands their rationale and accepts that it is not intended to be a continuation of their legacy Flight Simulator franchise, but instead is a totally new product with a wholly unique paradigm...

...or one does not. Flight is intended to be a continuously evolving platform; able to be constantly updated and changed according to determined needs. All of the resources and capabilites of FSX are still available, needing only activation should it be deemed desirable, necessary and/or practical.

[angels355]

Thanks Bill, you're a man of reason.

[StringBean]

Anyone with half a Ferengi brain can see that the FS series was a monumental masterpiece not easily produced, and it was making money, steadily over 30 years,

Prove it.

[angels355]

Prove it.

Phil Taylor himself said it repeatedly on these forums, search and find it yourself.

I'm actually discussing the FSNext issue and this article in this post, not interested in froggie games or discussing them, carry on yourself.

WWOD? Opa was a courteous gentleman.

[JSkorna]

Prove it.

How about that FSX was the best seller of all the flight sims?

[StringBean]

How about that FSX was the best seller of all the flight sims?

Doesn't mean it was profitable.

[weejam]

How about that FSX was the best seller of all the flight sims?

and probably will be for some time to come, at least with simulation enthusiasts.

[JSkorna]

OK SB, I'll send you the financial data from MS and you can decide. And seeing this has drifted way off course it is done.