Because they don't like that MS wants 30% of everything it earns. They have been too used to making a fortune on their own up to now.I think MS are right in making things more strict. Afterall the whole MS flight sim franchise was developed by them after they aquired it

I beg your pardon? Did I understand well? So with this logic, devs that producing software running under the Windows platform, owe something like 30% to MS? The comparison is exactly the same because FS is a platform too

They couldn't if the terms of the NDA forbade that.

That's funny considering the NDA doesn't stop all the ###### beta testers from talking. :( I'm sure many more payware developers would have something to say if they had something to say. Deep down there's nothing great to say about Flight in a serious context where simmers and this community is concerned.

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.

:( :(

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by Dillon

I shall try Ms Flight without prejudice.If the flight models are ok, if you can, beside 'playing' it with low realism settings with your mouse or keyboard, also fly it with high realism settings with my Saitek yoke, pedals and quadrant and the flight dynamics are at least as realistic as FSX then it can be nice because the graphics look good and maybe then it can gradually grow to MS 'Flight' (simulator) 11.But even in that case it will be limited because there will be no room for third party addons so it seems.So in the worst scenario there's besides an expanded FSX, only XP 10 as a real simulator left and maybe AeroflyFS from Ikarus which has great potential but is very restricted at this stage: only (very nice !) Switzerland, instruments: only the 'basic six' for VFR flying (no fuel or weight control, no radio's, no NAV, so no IFR and no ATC) but good flight models.I've tried the DEMO version of Xplane 10.04 Beta 2 (does it ever come out of beta versions?) but the flight models in wind and turbulence are NOT realistic, a roller coaster is fun but not realistic flying.In the meantime i love and fly my trusted FSX enhanced with GEX,UTX and FEX.Let's wait and see :(

Flight is the Edsel of simming. Read about the Failure of the Edsel here and see how many parallels you can find.Cheers,- jahman.

Not the first time we hear from a non beta tester claiming they know all there is to Flight.

HelloI was a Beta tester and what he said was spot on, flight (at this point) is a cut down, dumbed down offspring of FSXThere is no other way to dress it up.

Without immersion, there is no sense of realism. Immersion is what makes a flightsim more than just a game.

Hello ArwenBut where is the immersion without Ai all around you at the airport and interaction with ATC, or real world constantly changing weather conditions.Flight! lacks in so many ways that we almost take for granted with FS9 and FSX.Try the same RV-6A flight in FSX or FS9 with the Realair SF-260 to see how shallow the Flight! immersion really is.

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by mad dog

Not the first time we hear from a non beta tester claiming they know all there is to Flight.

I didn't claim to know all there is to Flight. I'm basing my opinion on the information Microsoft have released so far. When you preview a game you will want to tell people what its key features are, its USP. I'm assuming that's what Microsoft have done. If not then they are not marketing the game properly.

But you cannot experience the immersion of flying the RV-6A in Flight, or experience how well the aircraft's flight model is done.

Is it as immersive as and does it fly better than the PMDG NGX? How much longevity is there in such immersion in a small gaming area? No doubt we will be able to download new missions for Flight, but that appeals to a very different market to previous flight sims. I'm not interested in flying through virtual hoops.

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by kevinh

Hello ArwenBut where is the immersion without Ai all around you at the airport and interaction with ATC, or real world constantly changing weather conditions.Flight! lacks in so many ways that we almost take for granted with FS9 and FSX.Try the same RV-6A flight in FSX or FS9 with the Realair SF-260 to see how shallow the Flight! immersion really is.

You guys are still not getting this, no matter how many times I repeat it:Flight is NOT finished yet. I was hoping that it would be a bit more complete before some MS suit decreed that it MUST be released on the 29th, but that didn't happen.Eventually I'm hoping that Flight will also have AI and ATC and all the other bells and whistles. Read my first post in this thread.I own FSX, with Ground Environment X - NA and Ultimate Terrain X both installed. I also have A2A's Piper Cub and Carenado's Stationair.I tried a little test yesterday. First I ran X-Plane 10's demo (using it's default Cessna), then FSX (with the Stationair), then Flight (with the RV).I started with each aircraft on the runway in good weather, took off, climbed to 4000 feet, circled back to make my approach and landed.X-Plane 10 came in last as far as immersion: not even close to realistic flight (but to be fair, I was using a default aircraft). Its ATC is more annoying than realistic, and the AI is outright dumb (I nearly got run over before taking off). BTW, X-Plane 10 is not finished yet either (not with generic scenery, and bridges to nowhere)..FSX was ok, and the Stationair gave what felt like realistic flight (I'm not a real pilot), but there was still something missing.Flight came out on top in giving me the best immersion. It just felt right . . . even without any AI or ATC. Maybe it is because I'm use to Flight now (But I have probably flown in FSX for thousands of hours, and X-Plane 9 for hundreds of hours). Flight had the best scenery (yes, it is currently very limited), X-Plane 10 had the best clouds, and FSX had the best AI and ATC (by far), but Flight still gave me the best flying experience. If I was going to show off any one of my flightsims to anyone, I would definitely pick Flight (for one thing, it loads much faster than the others).

Arwen,Would one experience this immersion with just the Icon A5 and the base (free) package?For info, this is actually a real question and not flamebait as I am not planning to purchase any DLC and/or sign up to MS Live until I know where the future of DLC is heading. Therefore it could be at least a year where I only have the Icon A5 on the big island of Hawaii.Thanks, Martin

Is it as immersive as and does it fly better than the PMDG NGX? How much longevity is there in such immersion in a small gaming area? No doubt we will be able to download new missions for Flight, but that appeals to a very different market to previous flight sims. I'm not interested in flying through virtual hoops.

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).

Because they don't like that MS wants 30% of everything it earns. They have been too used to making a fortune on their own up to now.I think MS are right in making things more strict. Afterall the whole MS flight sim franchise was developed by them after they aquired it.

It's deeper than that...

I'm not out to bash 3pd, but wouldnt they benefit from the copy-protection of an built-in-store solution to the point that they would make more money? I'm thinking about hifi sims, they recently had to perform extensive anti-piracy-actions.-

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.

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by Lawyer+Pilot

Arwen, Would one experience this immersion with just the Icon A5 and the base (free) package? For info, this is actually a real question and not flamebait as I am not planning to purchase any DLC and/or sign up to MS Live until I know where the future of DLC is heading. Therefore it could be at least a year where I only have the Icon A5 on the big island of Hawaii. Thanks, Martin

Hey Martin,The Icon is the aircraft that I often pick if I mostly want to explore the scenery. It can fly pretty slow (45 to 100+ mph), has great visibility, has a basic GPS/Moving Map, is fun and easy to fly, and is the only Amphibious aircraft so far. But you are severely limited in what missions, challenges, and jobs you will be able to do if you only have the Icon. The default Big Island is large, but I got tired of it (and just having the Icon and the Stearman) after about a week of flying. But I flew a LOT of hours that first week.My suggestion, try the free version of Flight and see how you like it. Then sign up for Live if you like Flight, so that you can try the Stearman. Then decide if you're willing to invest in the Hawaiian Pack, which includes the RV-6A (which is bit more aircraft, and gives you ILS). You really need the other islands to experience longer flights, and add more variety, and $20 is a pretty low price for any new game. I have paid $50 to $60 for games that I played for like a week, and either finished the game or became tired of it. I paid like $60 for X-Plane 9 (which never ran very well on my PC), and I probably now have more hours flying with Flight.

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by Arwen

The default Big Island is large, but I got tired of it (and just having the Icon and the Stearman) after about a week of flying.

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?