|
|
Post by pathfinder1 on Mar 14, 2012 14:22:36 GMT -5
I have to admit I like MS Flight very very much, lots of fun to doodle around the airways of Hawaii, but I would like to see Alaska come on line sooner than later. I will keep my FSX for the simple reason I can fly whatever I chose to fly at the moment...Constellation, Lancaster, Martin Mars, Avro Arrow, etc. I prefer the big old girls of yester year so FSX is my fix for that. I do not think MS Flight will ever offer everything for everybody...at least not yet. Do I think it's expensive...not at all considering what it takes to bring FSX up to snuff. I would prefer more some traffic around the airports, sky, water, and on the streets, but all in good time I hope. I would love to see who is riding next to me or at least get clearance from ground control and the tower. But overall I think it will be a great addition in my game play. Now I have a choice between a couple of quick fun flights or a nice long haul in my old Vickers Flying boat. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Constantine on Mar 14, 2012 19:30:02 GMT -5
Paul, I understand where you are coming from. As a developer building great aircraft, you are excluded (for now) from Flight. Theoretically, if Flight is a big success, more developers will be invited to make content and I hope you will be one of them. If Flight works the way it is planned, there will be thousands of NEW users who have never owned a copy of any version of MSFS. And they will want more & more DLC.
Of course, it is possible that Flight will not meet its goals and just disappear. That will be the end. Period. FSX will continue and as the aging user base moves on to harp lessons it will become a footnote in computer history.
Luckily, installing Flight on my computer did not cause FSX to go up in smoke despite all the chicken little noise I have heard. It didn't effect my FS9 install either. Nor did it bother my FS2002 install. What it did was give me another option to sit at my computer and pretend to fly. And, did I mention? It's FUN! It's not FS11, never was going to be FS11. It is just another entertainment option.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Constantine on Mar 14, 2012 19:46:59 GMT -5
Grizzly- You are certainly entitled to your opinion about Flight. It will never be to everyone's taste for sure. I won't berate you or any other dissenter for their opinion. Just a couple things though... you said "I am disappointed in the folks in our sim world who seem to have welcomed FLIGHT wholeheartedly and are gushing about the very thing which likely will kill off our hobby." My first reaction was to take that personally since I do welcome Flight wholeheartedly, but instead I will just disagree with your premise. I think Flight will save our hobby which is dying slowly as people pass away and are not replaced in the hobby. I started out with FS4 which was essentially a closed system until 1992. It was a simple sim, none of the complexity that characterizes FSX. That all came gradually From age 47 to age 69 I have gradually learned how to use MSFS. Newcomers take one look an give up. We have had two users under 30 on this forum that have made more than a half dozen visits and one is now a real pilot. Very rare for a new member to be a new simmer. Mourning the death of a long time simmer friend is becoming more common. Simple math, so I welcome Flight because it will attract lots of people to the hobby and get them hooked like FS4 hooked me in 1989.
The other thing... you said "Anyone who thinks MS will deliver a version XI of MSFS are deluding themselves." You are 100% correct, BUT Microsoft NEVER said they were making v XI. That was a figment of FSX users' imaginations." What you see in Flight is exactly what Microsoft have been talking about for 3 years. I hope it succeeds and I am NOT giving up my FSX either.
|
|
|
|
Post by grizzly (Alex) on Mar 15, 2012 1:01:12 GMT -5
Tom, you don't want to pay any heed to my gripes, I'm a Grizzly for a reason. I see it as a betrayal by MS, whom I view as abandoning their user base. I have been a fan since FS5.0 and every one since. I look at my desktop and mentally am racking up how much I must have spent in the last year on FSX, never mind its ancestors. I have 3 x LCD monitors staring back at me, ATi Eyefinity in the box, an I7 1200K CPU and new MB I stuck in there this last week just for FSX. There is a $400 Logitech G940 flight thing which incidentally I hate after my Saitek. 3 x Saitek panels. Don't get me started on the s/w I have laid out on. FLIGHT annoys me further by this MS insistence of them being the sole expansion possibilities. Aside from the basic sim engine in the past, who can say that any stock aircraft or scenery is up to the standard independents can produce. I don't intend to upset simmers but I peruse several forums and to hear people singing this things praises annoys, Oh the rocks look so good, oh have you seen the water, it's so much better than FSX. Sheesh, FSX is almost 6 years old I would hope they could improve upon it.
|
|
|
|
Post by leylandspurr on Mar 15, 2012 3:44:23 GMT -5
Grizzly, I remember feeling exactly the same (about rocks and water) when I first looked at FSX (being an FS2004/GW3 user at that time), in fact the jump from FS2002 to FS2004 was also a similar experience. However, although I agree with most of the plus points made about Flight, my view of the basic 'rural' scenery (away from towns and harbours) is that it is a smaller 'leap' from my (much added-to) FSX. That's the kind of scenery I choose to fly over, so currently it doesn't offer me much of a advantage.
The science of the simulator will inevitably move on, we just need to be patient during the process of finding ways to fine-tune it - and those of us who may not last the distance can still enjoy what we already have, like Tom I also run a selection of flight sims (FS2004, GW3, FSX, Flight, Rise of Flight) and enjoy each in it's own way. Since most of us can't make our own simulator, the best we can do is accept what's available and then try to turn it into something close to what we want. I have to admit that my FSX is a lot closer today, to what my 'ideal' would be, than I would have thought possible when I first checked it out.
Per Ardua ad Astra, or some such (with apologies).
Leyland
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2012 8:05:25 GMT -5
Thanks Leyland, you've more or less summed up how I feel too. Congrats to all you guys who love this new one but I guess we're all different and it doesn't do it for me. Hawaii and Alaska I think have a certain but limited appeal outside the US which is how I feel anyway. Both are very 'samey' after a while. I've flown the Icon around quite a bit - but now what? 'Missions' and 'Jobs' don't appeal to me and didn't either in FSX - I like to drop into the sim when I've got time without making any long term commitment just to relax and have fun and flying the same aircraft in the same environment all the time just doesn't grab me, especially when I have a huge choice of environments and aircraft to choose from in the sims I already have. So why would I need another one? 'Just because it's there' isn't enough for me - it would have to offer me more than I currently have and I don't think this one does, not at my level of commitment anyway. I also don't like the concept - I'm in hock to MS enough on my PC and I hate their policy of trying to take over my machine and everything to do with it, so I don't much like this as a next step along the sim path. So yep, like you guys say, it's fun if you like that sort of thing. I don't, but it doesn't make me a close-minded, kill joy does it? But I tell you what it has done, for which I'm very grateful. It sent me back to Hawaii in FSX. IMO the default scenery happens to have been done very well actually, and I got flying at dawn in low cloud/misty conditions in Milton's old clunker Beech MSA Amphibian, a much more satisfying experience for me than the Icon.  But then again I'm lucky to get my low and slow flying experience in real life, so that's not surprising I guess really. So I'll carry on doing what I was doing with Flight - watching from a distance and seeing how it pans out. But I suspect that by the time it gets to where it might have something to interest me, fun though it may be, I'll be taking harp lessons like Tom said. All the millions of new fs addicts that it attracts in (which I doubt actually) will by then be having a ball, but they are not really my concern. |
|
|
|
Post by luisfeliztirado on Mar 15, 2012 9:27:42 GMT -5
I don't think that anybody will berate you, and you are certainly correct that at present we neither have Pitcairns (one of my favorite aircraft of all time) or any possibility of having one made for us. But, this is not the final word on the matter. First of all, the designers and developers of Flight do share this with us - they like those old fabric and dope biplanes, they are passionate about the kind of flying that we like (fly the airplane, not operate it), and Flight reflects that attitude. Also, we see Flight Simulator as a way to have fun, to enjoy flying, and that is the very purpose of Flight. It is not about shooting down airplanes, it is not some arcade game. The only activities in it, the game elements, are all about normal pilot activities. And the only game part is that we receive a score for completing these activities successfully. And finally, MGS has not said that they will definitely shut out third-party products, whether commercial or free. On the contrary, it is clear that they were negotiating with many TPDs in order to let them create and offer add-ons through the Games for Windows Live Marketplace. So, MGS did evidently want that, but it seems to have fallen through for the moment, for what reason we don't know at all. Although it seems that some TDPs decided to refuse their participation and perhaps MGS thought it best to place this on hold at first while Flight establishes itself. And who can blame Microsoft for wanting a piece of the profits in add-on sales? They did all the hard work creating and coding the core engine, the flight model, the basic world scenery, and then other people make money by replacing content, which does require talent and knowledge and dedication, but does not compare to the enormous task that the ACES developers had before them. There is no reason to despair or to lament the loss of Flight Simulator. It has not gone anywhere and anybody who wants to create a Pitcairn can still do it and still find a few people (like me!) who want one. But, Flight is something new, a new beginning with a different direction and different goals. It is best to hope in life, to be positive and optimistic. The contrary is not productive, and can only prevents us from enjoying our hobby. Best regards. Luis Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by beana51 on Mar 15, 2012 10:27:42 GMT -5
Yes of Course All great comments,All Interesting,All Valid!..yes I love my Pitcarin...Really !...and now hanging on the Wonderful looking Ryan coming along....one Game or Sim does not Negate the other...Who here will Ever "DELETE" Bill Lyons??...I still fly him Regularly...!As I do All the great works Offered to us!! Lke I got a bunch of kids...Love em all...Just because when a new one came along ,I did not Throw out or lose interest with what I had..Altho There are Time I Should Have raised GOLD FISH instead of Kids!! ;D.so it is with life... .Again Simply Put,New things are Fun...Like a New car,boat ,Plane.....So now my TOY BOX has a new one..Kinda like Christmas Morn.........Now for me,FLIGHT ,once I achieved certain levels...is just a Flying Sim..that Simple...Play it like a game,or UNGAME it......Play it in a Multi Player mode or not,do the challenges,or skip them, It can be used to fit your pleasure!Me I Fly SOLO. VFR, and unencumbered!!.thats my pleasure!.. Today its beautiful Hawaii..Then I jump to FSX,and I'm in Rome Flying a Boeing 777,,or I go to FS9,a Dust Off the Great Bill lyons Tri-Pacer....As I love war birds..All the Sims are Full of Em..!.There are among us those who still have every Sim offered Still in a Flying Mode!AMAZING!..Only in our WALTER MITTY WORLD!!..which begs The Question WHO WOULD DELETE ANYTHING?? We all remember the Pulling of hair,the Gnashing of teeth ,the rhetoric when FSX came along...I hear now the same comments now.....If FLIGHT is a threat for some,walk away,if Flight offers more DESK TOP FLYING??...Then HAVE FUN!!...this I do Know ..Pilots have HUGE, Egos,and a great curiosity.Desk top and real,..FLIGHT is a FLAME now,and be assured,like The Moths we are..All will at some point ..Will Fly Into It!..Matter of time! Its Beyond Our Control!..Its us !...HAVE FUN !...Vin!!  Like Da Vinci said..."FOR ONCE YOU HAVE TASTED "FLIGHT"....well Ya know the rest.... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by AirCoaster on Mar 15, 2012 10:34:03 GMT -5
Amazing, why does this thread sound so much like any other thread produced during the introduction of another Flight Simulator. The only thing I can tell you is to experience it, tweak it, make it your own with what is offered, and then give it a chance to make a little part of your flying experience different.
Microsoft is no different than any other manufacturer of a product, sure they are after the buck, they need to pay those who do great work like Flight. But, the thing is, its like seeing the new car models come out, you either like them or you don't. You need to take the test drive to really know the car. Sure its not like your old 1989 Impala, but things have changed in regards to environmental requirements and warranties, not to mention stability. The most apparent impact is the outward design of the vehicle. Yep, no big heavy chrome bumpers anymore, no big wide bench style front seats, no hand cranked windows, but you buy one that you like because you will need to as the old 1989 Impala is dying in many ways. Also, and this is my point, the new stylish designs are pointed towards the younger generation as Tom has gracefully pointed out. This stimulates a new buyer's market. Those who don't care for the new design of the Impala will probably defect to the Buick Lucern or LaCross as it fits their requirements.
The whole thing is, you either like it or your don't. Microsoft isn't holding a gun to your head and making you buy anything. It's truly a disappointment that Microsoft will no longer be producing anything involved with Filght Simulator, but we are just rehashing the distress of past history. Accept the current software, embrace it, see what it is all about, or just leave it be, its your choice. My choice is to embrace it, take my new sports car and put it through its paces. Oh sure, I still have my 1989 Impala in the garage, and can take it out whenever I want to, then there is the old 1992 Saab, and I can always use it when I like. One of the big problems is as things get some age to them the manufacturer no longer makes or supplies parts for the vehicle, it becomes obsolete. The only way to keep your beauty running is to look to the aftermarket or boneyards for parts. Sound familiar?
To those who won't embrace this new technology for flight simulation, we respect your opinions, we are allowed our opinions too, and all we ask is you respect our's.
|
|
|
|
Post by luisfeliztirado on Mar 15, 2012 18:13:25 GMT -5
The lead game designer for Flight, Paul, who we all know from FS X, is, by the way, a great fan of the kinds of airplanes that Golden Age Simulations promotes. He grew up with them in his home and his dad built his own Boeing P12. I don't know why anyone would doubt that the developers of Flight are on our side. There is no commercial jetliner in Flight yet, but there is a Stearman right from the start. Best regards. Luis Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by spad54 on Mar 15, 2012 18:31:05 GMT -5
The lead game designer for Flight, Paul, who we all know from FS X, is, by the way, a great fan of the kinds of airplanes that Golden Age Simulations promotes. He grew up with them in his home and his dad built his own Boeing P12. I don't know why anyone would doubt that the developers of Flight are on our side. There is no commercial jetliner in Flight yet, but there is a Stearman right from the start. Best regards. Luis Luis were you addressing this to me? Anyway I've just finished my first session in flight and once I can wipe the stupid grin off my face I'll share my thoughts when fully formed. First impression: beautiful out of the box scenery even low rez settings. The VC looks like I'm driving a 3D version of a 2D cockpit bitmap. Even though the lighting and shading changes, there is something there that is not quite right. Can't put my finger on it. It feels like a step backward. Fun with a capital F! Potential yup! Stearman two thumbs up! As a designer FS is like a job and most of my time spent testing models. Flight lets me get away from that. I'll keep it if for nothing else but the Icon. Cool d**m plane! |
|
|
|
Post by Tom Constantine on Mar 15, 2012 20:30:19 GMT -5
I think Luis was referring to Paul Lange who was in the Aces studio for FSX and in the MS Games Studio for Flight.
Hmmm, imagine that... one of the Aces working on Flight (Actually more than one.)
|
|
|
|
Post by luisfeliztirado on Mar 16, 2012 9:10:54 GMT -5
Luis were you addressing this to me?
Not unless your dad built a P12! ;D
Seriously, though, FS has always been principally a training sim and an airliner sim. Not much fun for us at all.
This is the very first time that it is dedicated to us, to our type of flying. I am overjoyed and thankful that we finally get a chance at it.
And MGS does seem to have wanted to let everybody create add-ons, only they would have been distributed through the GFWL Marketplace. Which is a good solution since that would eliminate most of the casual theft (that people call "piracy" because they think that is glamorous) and increase distribution by making them available to all users.
For the meantime, Paul (SPAD), you have not lost anything and can still continue to create old wooden hangars and wood and fabric barnstormers the way you always have, for FS X, FS 9, or even for FS 98 if anybody is still doing that. And there is every hope that we will eventually be able to do the same for Flight.
Best regards.
Luis
|
|
|
|
Post by teisco on Mar 16, 2012 13:21:06 GMT -5
I am the kind of simmer that spends more time working and painting planes than I do flying so if I can't get under the hood then I am not that interested. Guess it is because I spent more time working on my old Harley than riding it.
Flight is a game and a a civilian flight sim as a game will never work. Kids want guns and action, it is us old dudes that want to fly from place to place and just look at cool scenery. So I am not sure kids will embrace this new game. I fly all sorts of games and sims and FSX is the one I spend the most time in and working on. The kid in me has IL2 and Rise of Flight for the action.
Another thing to think about, can you remember any games from years past that still sell well today and have as big a user base as FS9 or FSX? An open sim could last for 10 or more years but a closed game is done much sooner because, as guys, we get bored and want something new, like a new plane or a new airport.
|
|
|
|
Post by bhk on Mar 16, 2012 16:07:10 GMT -5
....Kids want guns and action, it is us old dudes that want to fly from place to place and just look at cool scenery. So I am not sure kids will embrace this new game. That's an interesting observation. As far back as 1992 - 1998 I found this to be so when working in the computer games retail business. (Part-time. I was partner/director of a business here in Canberra.) It was the older generation who bought non-combat flight simulations (FS and Fly!, from memory). They also were the prnicipal buyers of combat flight-sims. The young guys were into FPS, RPG, platforms and the console gaming machines like Nintendos and Sony Mega-whatzits. ..... .....An open sim could last for 10 or more years but a closed game is done much sooner because, as guys, we get bored and want something new, like a new plane or a new airport. There's another truism, too. As long as there is the ability to create (mod) for a game then it will continue to attract and involve people. In the racing-sim genre we can go back as far as Microprose's Grand Prix (World Circuit), or Papyrus' Indycar Racing II, two early 1990s games that still gather players and creators today. Bruce |
|
