Now what do you think...
Now FLIGHT is official, what do we think? I've banged on a bit throughout January about 'stop speculating', but now it's official, what do you think? Most people had a say on a thread called 'It's Finally Arrived and It's Official - Release Date Feb. 29th' before it was closed
Here's what I think:We really should have expected this. From the moment ACES closed, hopes should never have been raised. I'm not going to say anything aboiut 3-year-olds, I'm just saying it isn't MS's fault your expectations weren't met. At least this might attract a new crowd, FSX/9/8 etc aren't going to stop working, rather than being so angry we can just ignore this slip-up and continue as pre-2010
I will give it a try, but admittedly we all accept it isn't a flight simulator
I will come out to wave of disapproval and tell you the truth of what this is to me: I think this looks fun. The word, was FUN. That is different to REALISTIC or A SIMULATOR. I think the anger is over the name and MS's opinion that it was 'built on the legacy of MSFS'. I think this made us all think they didn't know what the legacy was, OK it looks like they didn't but think about it: if it was called MS Fun2Fly! of Fly4Fun!, would we be angry? I don't think so. Nowadays, things sound cool by being known with a single word, it's catchy: FLIGHT. Other examples, OK you won't have heard of this if you don't live in the UK but it's the best one I can think of right now: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b018ttws Classical examples are singers, MADONNA or BEYONCE. Perhaps a better name would have been FLY!, but this sounds similar to the French FS of 2000s so that would attract more disapproval. I say better because it sounds less like MSFS.
But back to the FUN, I used this analogy before in a different argument but MARIOKART is fun: it isn't realistic. No-one pretends it is, so there is no controversy or criticism.
OK, so you might say I am the target audience for FLIGHT, I'm not worthy of FSX and I should go back to mariokart and aerocaches. If your opinion of me won't be moved, then fine see this as the opnion of the target arena but I'll tell you what I use FSX for. My favourite addons are RealAir: awesome modelling/visuals, incredible flight dynamics, REALISTIC but SIMPLE (realistically). I am 14, I hope one day to move to complex addons like PMDG and the SimCheck A300 which I already own but don't exploit fully. I think my main gripe is PC performance. But if FLIGHTs performance is OK and so are the flight dynamics (the visuals definitely look great already,) it might become viable in my opinion for circuits and the like. And I'll admit, I would end up going on an aerocache hunt every now and then. But think about the FSX missions and tutorials, flying through coloured hoops? No-one says that makes FSX a terrible sim/game.
I heard on one thread 'collecting aerocaches and shit like that...', if that's the opinion of you 'fellow' simmers then, all cynical and high and mighty, too grand to mix with the crowd, perhaps this is a wake-up call. On aonther thread: 'If I can't fly my 747 from JFK to Narita...'; tell someone in the street you spend 12 hours a day watching a cockpit that doesn't exist and they'll probably think you're deranged. Even I find it hard to justify spending two hours a day to my friends, or £20 a month to my parents. Really, no offence but when one reads these forums, you can wonder what drives you people: of course, I understand it but it does seem like you're out of touch with reality.
When FLIGHT's 'doom' was announced at the beginning of January, I was angry (mainly because I prctically worshipped the forums then, an astounded onlooker marvelling at the wit and wisdom exchanged), not (I hope) as angry as the youTube crowd (but there's no change there, I mean when are youtubers not angry?) and I criticised MS like most still are. But now I like to think I've sobered up, definition 2 (after exiting drunkeness) is in the dictionary 'to become more realistic'. At the beginning, I was angry that MS had seemingly abandoned generations of 'simmers' who MS should be catering for the every needs of because flying a PMDG makes you so very very dedicated (to MS). I even criticised someone ('torkermax', I believe it was) for suggesting that the angry simmers/youtubers were a 'voicetrous minority' who MS had no obligation to cater to: but now that is what I believe.
And now for something completely different: I think the choices of aircraft for FLIGHT are interesting. The first plane shown, I think in that first preview clip we all remember so well, was the Boeing Stearmann which I think pretty much sums up the Golden Age of Flight, so is a prime choice. The Vans RV and Maule are little known but are very (physically) light aircraft so fitting the theme of FLIGHT, it's adventures, vastness, the sheer joy and wonder at a metal bathtub with a glass top half light than a car flying, mankind's greatest dream. I think that is the spirit of MS FLIGHT.
I want to be clear: I might have seemed like I did, but I don't think FLIGHT is the 'best way forward for the franchise'. The franchise died in 2009 with ACES. It is over. FLIGHT is, and was from the moment of conception, something ELSE. The anger being vented now should directed at the closure of ACES, not this bad turn for the 'franchise' which doesn't exist anymore.
Lastly, in relation mainly to paragraph 5 (ignoring the single line sentances), read the comments at the bottom of this page (I'm sorry, I know I've posted this link so many times but I don't know if anyone ever follows it): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7902468.stm
Intel Core 2 Duo CPU E4400@2.00 GHz
4.00 GB RAM (3GB useable: DDR2)
Nvidia GEFORCE 9500 512MB Graphics Card
Windows 7 32-bit
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by jomni
)
Bookmarks