Goodbye Flight Simulator X, Hello Microsoft Flight

[xgeraet]

No 3rd party addons, no freeware development. Meh graphics. No vc's in the addons you must purchase from big bill. Few addons, and as interest wains MS'll drop it. Power by the hour pay and play. It looks and feels like a P3 game. Pass. I'll stick with X, perhaps get a prepar3d academic license at the next hardware upgrade- only because it runs FSX stuff

[snowhater]

Flight looks pretty, but that's as far as it goes. Stayin' with FSX (and FS9). As another poster said, try the ORBX sceneries. They're tremendous, and really add to FSX.

[Mogget]

The ironic part about this thread is the title. The author of that article clearly states that he will be sticking with Flight Simulator X!

[uriahms]

Been flying for the last 3 days. I must admit the graphics is way better. However the whole gameplay is nowhere near FS. Flying on flight is like trying to reach the horizon. You never get there. How many times do you have to fly cargo from point A to B over and over again. I mean is there anything more to this?

I will join with everyone else and say that flight is pretty boring and seems like a good idea of the incomplete version of the next version of FS.

[dtmicro]

I like the Orbx scenery and some of it is free, but my one complaint is their mountains (at least in PNW), they are using some of the same horrible textures as the default FSX mountain textures. Yes, sometimes their mountains look better, but most of the time not much. I haven't tried their new airport which looks to have some improved mountains, but it's expensive.

Other than mountains, for sure FSX add-ons can beat MS Flight graphics, but it costs quite a lot of money to get everything you want. Of course FSX is a better experience for all the reasons already said, but if MS keeps adding to Flight to make it a real simulator, well who knows (anything is possible). Plus they may eventually open it up after they get their initial sales finished (first 1-3 years). I mean the game sales will go stagnate like every game does, and then MS will either be forced to open it up to third-party devs, or just not sell much.

[saharatj98]

I've always looked forward to Microsoft's new flight sim releases...FSX at the time was outdated, but it was the best one could get. All these years later one would hope the next would finally be up to snuff, but it's not.... With small developers putting out such incredible sceneries and aircraft, one would expect the heavy hitter with unlimited resources and talent would be able to best it....Microsoft failed miserably....One look at Flight and FSX with ORBX, REX, A2A and a multitude of other add ons is night and day better. I can't stand to fly the default aircraft as they are horribly tacky and not functional, but use the add ons exclusively. There is no reason why Microsoft could not have had real world scenery and accurate aircraft. It's been done, it is very possible, and they chose not to put the effort in...

[clutchcargo]

I popped down to the Flight forums after the release of Alaska to read the reviews. What I saw/read and what others who use the game was, well, as one simmer put it... "pretty underwhelming". I did see they offered several other features to download separately that I suspect to keep up FPS otherwise they end up with another FSX type game with perfomance issues.

What continues to surprise me is two things, one is how many keep asking what direction is Flight taking or they have faith/optimism on what is coming down the road (people, the writing is on the wall on that - it is what it is). And two, how they continue to ask for the same features, add-ons, etc. that FSX already has? From what I have seen MS has no intention to turn this into a FS11.

I do know of a few developers who do like it for "escapism". They can just load it up for some relaxing gameplay without having to think of tweaks or add-ons. Hope it just draws more people to move into this fun hobby of flight simulation.

[Adam24]

Just one thing: never compare FSX to FLIGHT. These are two different games, with different purposes. You can compare their features, but dont compare them as a game.

[ramjett]

Hi all,

I was pretty quick to write off Flight once I tried my first few flights in an empty sky and uninhabited landscape. The scenery looked pretty good and I found it enjoyable to fly the Stearman and Ikon over and through Hawaii but I did not buy the expansion packs. I spent time on some of the challenges and scored some points but I happily returned to FSX with Orbx and planes with working vc cockpits.

I heard that Alaska was released, checked into it and liked what I saw so I purchased it. The Alaska pack is huge ( almost 600,000 sq. miles ) and has a lot of great scenery. I also purchased the Maule with VC cockpit so I've been enjoying bush flying in the vast Artic wilderness although airports and strips look alot like default FSX to me. For me this is a far more spectacular package than Hawaii so I would agree that Flight is improving.

Flight works on my laptop, FSX does not. I greatly prefer FSX with the many excellent addons available with AI and people but as long as Flight works on my laptop I'll keep it available as an easy setup for scenic flying.

Some of MS' decisions regarding Flight don't make sense to me like releasing aircraft without cockpits but they didn't ask me. In the Alaska pack they included a new "Carbon Cub" which I know little about except it was released with no cockpit. I do hear that an upgrade will soon add the cockpit but c'mon MS, what's the point? I plan to spend ZERO time in a dummy plane no matter how pretty it looks outside.

OK that's enough for now. I am FSX all the way but fair is fair, Flight Alaska is good. I like the Maule but I can't set up my controls the way I'd like so it is less realistic to me. It will be interesting to see what comes next.

good flights, Cal

[torkermax]

Here ya are. Ridin your Cub in FLIGHT Alaska