I disagree with the above. There is a reason behind stating the plans of a project; to build hype. That is why gaming magazines report on upcoming titles, sometimes more than a year in advance. It let's you know, "Hey, we are working on this. If you are interested, save some cash for it." It also builds demand.

 

Just because some naysayers may not like what you are making, it is not a reason to close the doors and not allow any information out. I do not think that Flight has been met with "irrational hostility", perhaps in the beginning, however since then I think most people have been rather patient the last four months, despite the complete lack of substantive DLC.

 

Not using marketing as a means of marketing, is not marketing at all. If people are confident in the stability and direction of your product they are more likely to invest in it. Right now it is like buying a car and not being certain parts will be available down the road when you need them.

 

yes, the Flight team did post hype a year in advance, but when it became clear that this was not going to be FS11 is when the game changed. I have been patient, you and a sizeable portion of other folks have been patient too, that doesn't mean that there's not a groundswell of irrational anger to everything that MS says on the subject. This is a tightly moderated forum, so it doesn't happen here (anymore) Lets just say there is a portion of the Flight Sim community that wants Flight to die a horrible death because it's existence is an affront to them. they feel that they ARE the flightsim community and they are defending what they see as an attempt to destroy their hobby. Check out the responses to nearly every post on the MS Flight Facebook page for a good example. Right now I would just keep the head down and develop product to the point that the naysayers go away.

The Maule will be a good plane in Alaska... :Thinking:

This is the make or break DLC for flight. If they do not release an aircraft with a working VC with this then flight will be doomed to fail.

The mystery is why the developers are not more open. If only we had more information there would be a lot less speculation and angst.

 

Or is that all part of the marketing plan?

 

First rule of marketing: Don't blow your wad on day 1 to the cleaner. Keep the customer guessing...There's a company that makes shiny white iThings that has it down to a tee (and the disappointment afterwards bit, too..Post coital triste, I believe...)

 

I do have some information about content in Alaska

And the simple fact that you have that info, Ray, makes me happy. I don't even want to know what it is, just that it's there! (somewhere...)

 

The Maule will be a good plane in Alaska

It's pretty much widely associated with it, isn't it? SAR etc?

 

Lets just say there is a portion of the Flight Sim community that wants Flight to die a horrible death because it's existence is an affront to them. they feel that they ARE the flightsim community and they are defending what they see as an attempt to destroy their hobby.

They are going through classic pseudo-bereavement stages..first denial, then anger, then sadness, then they'll get bored, realise it's never gonna happen the way "they" want it to, and go back to their normal programming..It's been said before but if it stirs you up that much you need to go outside for a bit :Thinking:

 

It has happened in other sections of the gaming community too..it's amazing the passion and anger changing someones favourite game can generate..People start behaving like kids..I saw a very good quote from someone on this thread saying the Cub "scandal" had got everyone going all Lord of the Flies again - how apt

I can say one thing for certain... I do have some information about content in Alaska that requires use of a cockpit-equipped aircraft decked out with more than just a simple panel. Just that knowledge alone is helping me keep some confidence in what's to come, so I'll share that as the only bit of encouragement I can offer. But in good faith, that's really all I can say about it.

 

Could as well be the Maule or RV-6A of course... But I also hope and at least like to believe there will be a new, nice plane with VC for Alaska.

It could be for the M7 or RV-6.

 

I don't know.

 

But it would be rather silly to have such a vast expanse of territory without something bigger and faster to fly across it.

 

Or maybe they are trying to set a new record for a sustained series of poor marketing decisions.

I hope MS is reading some of these threads here and on other FS websites...

 

 

 

It could be for the M7 or RV-6.

 

I don't know.

 

But it would be rather silly to have such a vast expanse of territory without something bigger and faster to fly across it.

 

You would think so, but I'm beginning to suspect that MS expects us to not fly over long distances, but to launch out from each airport indivually and to explore only the surrounding area. Then selecting another airport, and so on...

 

 

I hope MS is reading some of these threads here and on other FS websites...

 

You would think so, but I'm beginning to suspect that MS expects us to not fly over long distances, but to launch out from each airport indivually and to explore only the surrounding area. Then selecting another airport, and so on...

 

I half suspect that there's that bureaucratic blinders thing going on... having made a decision, one sticks by it regardless of overwhelming evidence that it's a major blunder. Just pretend the problem doesn't exist and everything's fine. (The US Federal government is expert at that one oops migrating into politics must stop now...)

I hope MS is reading some of these threads here and on other FS websites...

 

They are. Don't know how much they actually read (and I don't know about other forums), but I at least have prove they visited the AVSIM forum.

 

You would think so, but I'm beginning to suspect that MS expects us to not fly over long distances, but to launch out from each airport indivually and to explore only the surrounding area. Then selecting another airport, and so on...

 

No, that's not the case. First of all, if that would be the case they wouldn't offer jobs that have you flying over 200 nm (something I don't see a pure gamer do) and secondly, what RoboRay said ("I do have some information about content in Alaska that requires use of a cockpit-equipped aircraft decked out with more than just a simple panel") also implies MS likes to see us fly from one airport to another, even over longer distances. And not by simply following a marker.

("I do have some information about content in Alaska that requires use of a cockpit-equipped aircraft decked out with more than just a simple panel")

 

 

 

Why release alaska with a complete plane ??

 

do not make sense when they can release alaska with cockpit - unflyable plane and top up more sales with the release of a complete aircraft required to complete more demanding jobs/tasks !! After all you had the main core flight update free and the red tail free also - now is payback time !

 

("I do have some information about content in Alaska that requires use of a cockpit-equipped aircraft decked out with more than just a simple panel")

 

 

 

Why release alaska with a complete plane ??

 

do not make sense when they can release alaska with cockpitless - unflyable plane and top up more sales with the release of a complete aircraft required to complete more demanding jobs/tasks !! After all you had the main core flight update free and the red tail free also - now is payback time !

I hope MS is reading some of these threads here and on other FS websites...

 

They do read at least some of the threads here at AVSIM.

 

If you watch the user names at the bottom of the page when viewing, and know the names Flight Team members go by, you can see them from time to time. They don't normally post anything here, though.

They do read at least some of the threads here at AVSIM.

 

If you watch the user names at the bottom of the page when viewing, and know the names Flight Team members go by, you can see them from time to time. They don't normally post anything here, though.

 

I am sure these threads will be mentioned Monday morning when their office opens.

 

This is the make or break DLC for flight. If they do not release an aircraft with a working VC with this then flight will be doomed to fail.

 

Well I for one, will continue to fly it. Too much fun not to.

I found the whole "Warbirds over Hawaii" thing to be a bit of a stretch. It always felt to me like a decision with a belated justification tacked on. At least the Cub has a more plausible grounding for its existence in the Alaska DLC. Unfortunately, the previous Warbirds have pretty much worn out my ambivalent welcome for cockpitless planes.

 

Bleah.

You would think so, but I'm beginning to suspect that MS expects us to not fly over long distances, but to launch out from each airport indivually and to explore only the surrounding area. Then selecting another airport, and so on...

 

I think Flight is designed more for the light aircraft pilot. having flown heavy jets for a couple of years, and spending most of my time on autopilot, it did nothing for my flying and navigational skills and nothing much to look ate at 31,000 feet either. It is like watching paint dry. The fun of Flight for me, is flying VFR at low altitudes, sight seeing, and landing at small airports and dirt strips. I'm even happy the autopilot is gone. I never had one in my C-172 either, and had a ball with that plane.

 

What do they say abut the average airline flight today, the pilot PF flies it up to about 3K agl and it goes on autopilot until the approach and landing when the PF takes control, and if the weather is bad and the plane can do a Cat 3 landing, maybe not even then.

I am quite surprised that some of the "pilots" posting on this this thread can be reduced to fits of hysteria over a minor issue like this. Wonder how they would react in a real cockpit when confronted with some type of problem.....????? :Thinking:

 

I would look at the gauges, figure out was was wrong and solve the issue. Unable to do that in a cockpitless model.

 

Scott