It comes down to immersion versus reality.

For me, a flightsim has to be realistic to be immersive. And Flight is realistic . . . in some ways it is more realistic than FSX . . . in some ways it is less realistic (at this point).

It comes down to immersion versus reality. Like someone else already said, if immersion is the goal, MS should have made a bird simulator. Then the immersionists could flap around in the weather and close to all the pretty Hawaiian scenery. MS could even supply desk fans that sit in front of the simmer's face to create the feeling of flying through the wind.

:( :( :(

Reality, on the other hand, is about COMPLEXITY--something Flight has little of because the target audience doesn't demand it.

+1, and complexity is what thrills me, learning to fly, um, complex aircraft.But at some point I guess I might don a bird suit and try Flight!

For me, a flightsim has to be realistic to be immersive. And Flight is realistic . . . in some ways it is more realistic than FSX . . . in some ways it is less realistic (at this point).

In a simming context realism should mean above all that if you don't know how to fly in the RW you should have a hard tim flying in the sim.You only will get a sense of accomplishment and a thrill from flying if your adrenalin kicks in and that's just not going to happen from flying with a mouse, a keyboard or a Kinnect console taped to your forehead that makes it easy. Fact is there's no thrill in anything if it's dumb easy. The whole point is mastering a skill.For realism in flight you need a stick and rudder at a minimum.Cheers,- jahman.

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by jahman

That kind of says it all. If you get tired of it (and you are an accomplished flight simmer), what will someone who has never played a flight sim think?

Part of the reason that I grew tired of the free version of flight in a week (which did, to be fair, include a LOT of flight hours) was that I am an experienced flightsimmer.What does someone who has never played a fightsim think of FSX?I'm also an experienced gamer, and very connected with the gaming community. My feelings are that non-flightsim gamers are going to LOVE Flight . . . for like a week or two, then they will move on to something else. I hope I am wrong, because MS is counting on the gamers to buy DLC (which is one of the reasons why I feel that the DLC pricing is a bit too high).

At least I myself as gamer cant imagine mainstream getting interested in Flight enough to buy DLC´s, peaceful flying is just boring for most people. Also pricing of DLCs is way too high, I mean for one arcade open world based kind of GTA style game Mafia 2 you can buy DLC´s that include whole campaign of missions and many high quality cars with about 8 euros, and then MS asks you to pay you twice that amount for one plane or island to fly over.

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by FScamp

Wow what a brilliant idea. I'd be into that. Wooee I hope there are leading game developers browsing around these forums (not Microsoft thank you). Even I could go to town with some ideas on that :)

[snip]If MS wanted to concentrate on the sensation of flight, rather than the mechanics of it, why not ditch the aircraft altogether and simulate bird flight. Now that would be a game I'd be interested in. There'd be a real incentive to buy a new downloadable species with totally different flight capabilities and survival regimes.

In a simming context realism should mean above all that if you don't know how to fly in the RW you should have a hard tim flying in the sim.You only will get a sense of accomplishment and a thrill from flying if your adrenalin kicks in and that's just not going to happen from flying with a mouse, a keyboard or a Kinnect console taped to your forehead that makes it easy. Fact is there's no thrill in anything if it's dumb easy. The whole point is mastering a skill.For realism in flight you need a stick and rudder at a minimum.Cheers,- jahman.

+1. Bravo!My thoughts exactly. My guess is that most of the people zipping around above Hawaii in Flight's RV-6A couldn't even start the engine on the plane in real life, let alone fly the thing safely.

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by Lawyer+Pilot

For everyone's reference, I've taken the time to create an expanded pre-flight checklist for Flight's RV-6A. Enjoy!1. Computer..........On (PF)2. Windows Live..........Log in (PF)3. Flight...........Load (PF)4. RV-6A..........Load (PF)5. Mouse...........Free and clear (PF)Checklist CompleteThe flow is forthcoming, but this ought to get everyone started.Disclaimer: This checklist is not suitable for RW flying. I have a feeling someone might try once they get their confidence up in Flight.

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by Lawyer+Pilot

Flight doesn't have a 737, and I don't own the PMDG NGX, so I cannot begin to make a comparison. Besides, I have no interest at all in flying huge aircraft. I much prefer flying the smaller aircraft and helicopters. I like to fly low enough to enjoy the scenery (that I've paid so much for), and I like to be in the weather, instead of above it for most of the flight, and I have a LOT more airport options to take off from and land at. Just my preference. If you prefer flying heavies, then Flight is not for you (at least not yet), so I'd suggest that you stick with FSX or X-Plane.FYI: Most of the challenges do NOT include any "flying through hoops." And NONE of the missions or jobs include any "hoop flying." The flying-through-hoop part of Flight is a very TINY part of this sim . . . just like they are a very tiny part of FSX.I've had access to all eight islands since Jan 11th, and I haven't tired of Flight yet. As more scenery is released, the longevity will increase for those who are willing to pay for it. FSX and X-Plane 9 both got old for me pretty fast. I preferred FSX, so I brought addons to improve the scenery and to add additional aircraft. Flight is no different in this regard. Longevity in any flightsim pretty much involves investing more money in it (unless you are just happy with freeware, which I'm not).

FYI I don't just fly heavies, but you missed my point which was that immersion and accurate flight dynamics already exists in FSX. Sure, if you stick to the default aircraft FSX is a poor representation of flight but that is something addressed in free downloads as well as payware. I don't want a game about flying, I've never bothered to use the game aspects of FSX for example. Most of all the restriction of flying in Hawaii is the show stopper for me. It might be attractive to Americans I suppose, whose holiday playground it is. I fly FSX all over the world, but most of all I like to fly in the UK and Europe, areas I'm really familiar with. Hawaii has no special interest for me, so a game which requires me to purchase additional scenery to go somewhere else means I'm stuck there.I don't buy much scenery and mostly use default FSX, however there's a lot of mileage in seeking out and flying to new locations, especially where local terrain makes life difficult. You don't need to keep buying addons to maintain longevity with FSX.

What does someone who has never played a fightsim think of FSX?

That's a good point-- and is maybe telling of where Flight will end up. What I mean is for example, I don't play golf. I don't dislike it, but it seems like an interesting sport. I don't like it enough to go out and buy lessons and clubs however. Microsoft is going to have to figure out how to make Flight so compelling that people are going to keep paying for DLC-- and I don't know if they can. What was one of the first things you did when you played your first flight simulator? Mine was to try to fly over where I live. That freedom that FSX is what compelled me to grow with it.. With Flight, Microsoft is telling me how I should enjoy flight and I don't like that.

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by dighost

In a simming context realism should mean above all that if you don't know how to fly in the RW you should have a hard tim flying in the sim.

Well that will limit sales. There are only 600,000 qualified pilots in the USA.

If I was going to show off any one of my flightsims to anyone, I would definitely pick Flight

Hello ArwenIf I were to show off my Sim it would be FSX using the NGX with my Goflight MCP and radio modules.Here is my flight earlier today from EIKY (Kerry Eire) to EGGW (London luton) a flight that I make in the real world many times a year.I am using Track IR and Radar Contact. There is a lot of traffic around courtesy of MyTrafficXOver my network I am using AS2012 and FSCommander running on my laptop.Non of this is possible with Flight! and I very much doubt it ever will be so for that reason I am out.That is the city of Cork below exactly as in the realworld, it will never be included in Flight!

Maybe to put all the Flight Hysteria a little into perspective, check out my article on Aerosoft?

FYI I don't just fly heavies, but you missed my point which was that immersion and accurate flight dynamics already exists in FSX. Sure, if you stick to the default aircraft FSX is a poor representation of flight but that is something addressed in free downloads as well as payware. I don't want a game about flying, I've never bothered to use the game aspects of FSX for example. Most of all the restriction of flying in Hawaii is the show stopper for me. It might be attractive to Americans I suppose, whose holiday playground it is. I fly FSX all over the world, but most of all I like to fly in the UK and Europe, areas I'm really familiar with. Hawaii has no special interest for me, so a game which requires me to purchase additional scenery to go somewhere else means I'm stuck there.I don't buy much scenery and mostly use default FSX, however there's a lot of mileage in seeking out and flying to new locations, especially where local terrain makes life difficult. You don't need to keep buying addons to maintain longevity with FSX.

I didn't miss your point. But apparently you must have missed one of my earlier posts today in this thread, where I compared FSX (with addons), the X-Plane 10 demo, and my beta version of Flight.I'm not sure what you're expecting from a FREE simulator . . . expecting to be able to have your preferred scenery areas available immediately is obviously not going to happen. If you are not interested in Flight, why are you even posting in the Flight forum?

For me, a flightsim has to be realistic to be immersive. And Flight is realistic . . . in some ways it is more realistic than FSX . . . in some ways it is less realistic (at this point).

So, how is it realistic to fly in the same weather pattern all the time, regardless of which type you select? How is it realistic to not know what the weather is at your destination airport or en route? How is it realistic to be the only plane in the world? How is that immersion?I can see people taking a real RV6 or sailplane and fly around for 30-60 minutes around the airport, do a little aerobatics and such. IRL this is great fun. On a PC, not so much, especially on a single monitor with no TrackIR support.

Well that will limit sales. There are only 600,000 qualified pilots in the USA.

At $30/year subscription, that's $30 million/year, way more than Flight! is going to make. Note that instead of a subscription MS could release new FS versions on even years and an SP on odd years, all for $30, and effectively turn the franchise (and yes, it is a franchise) into a subscription.As someone else said a few weeks ago, it's insane trying to make a Chess simulator more popular by making chess easier. Either you are interested in chess or you're not. Same with flight simming.The proper strategy for flight simming is perhaps not so much trying to access an inexistent pool of new interest, but rather keep an existing pool of interested people from becoming disinterested due to all the big time-wasters in FSX, notably:

1. Difficult to debug CTDs,
2. Fragile scenery engine that will CTD due to faulty 3PD scenery
3. Scores of Add-ons that disingenously replace stock FSX files without even asking
4. Excessive number of different add-on anti-piracy schemes that bog-down the computer
5. Lack of an automated FSX rebuild soultion.

To name the main culprits. Many folks leave FSX because they become frustrated with these big time wasters.

I'm not sure what you're expecting from a FREE simulator

Nothing at all: I don't even want a free simulator!Cheers,- jahman.