Ok Hal, since you are the expert on this, should I be excited? If I have FSX, should I move to the new software?
Ok Hal, since you are the expert on this, should I be excited? If I have FSX, should I move to the new software?
I await Hal’s response with baited breath.
But while I’m waiting, here’s my take.
I’m not uninstalling FSX. I’ll most likely download and install Flight. Why not? It’s free! Will I be shelling out my hard earned clams for expansions? Don’t know yet. Thus far I haven’t seen anything compelling enough to beat the value proposition that FSX had. For $65, FSX gave me the better part of the world and most every active runway known to man. I got a wide variety of aircraft and the ability to expand the number with free add-ons. The selection of locations and aircraft available from MS Flight, and the cost of what is available, doesn’t seem to meet that same per dollar benefit.
But that evaluation doesn’t take the quality aspect into consideration. If I want to take FSX up to what MS Flight appears to have as far as terrain resolution, I’ll have to spend several hundred dollars for add-ons. Plus there is the fact that while I can fly in Tibet in FSX, I never actually have, so do I really need it?
Over all I think there will be a lot of give and take with MS Flight. I think most of the hardcore FSX fans will stay with FSX, but will MS Flight be able to generate a large casual base to make up for the lost sales? I think that is what MS is betting on.
As a flight SIMULATION fan, this makes me sad. But MS Flight Simulator hasn’t been the flagship of Microsoft’s games portfolio for a very long time, and they were never an overly sentimental organization. Was it the right BUISNESS decision? My inner “I told you so” desperately wants the answer to be no, but MS has a lot of bean counters counting a great deal of beans, and they very well could be right.
But I doubt it.
Roy, just because "Simulator" was taken out of the title, does not mean that Flight is no longer a simulator...
Ryan Winslow
EAA 525529
Stinson 108-1 "Big Red", RV-7 under construction
Roy's assessment (and for those who don't know, he and I worked together for quite some time on the Flight Sim team back at Microsoft) is pretty much spot on as far as I'm concerned.
I think anyone expecting Flight to be a replacement for FSX (or X-Plane, etc.) will be...if not disappointed, then at least fairly confused. I have really mixed reactions to all the anti-Flight comments on the forums, Facebook, YouTube, etc., from people who are claiming that this is the end of the Flight Simulator franchise. That franchise ended on January 23, 2009, and most of us thought we were done mourning it and had moved on, enjoying FSX and, especially, the staggering variety of add-ons, getting intrigued by what Lockheed's doing with Prepar3d, etc., so it's been strange to watch the Internet go through that all over again.
Ryan, your question is a very fair one, but Microsoft made a very specific decision to remove the word "simulator" from the title. Flight is still, most definitely, a simulation in that it creates the illusion of real-world locations and vehicles and activities, but the goal isn't simulation for simulation's sake as it was with the previous franchise. The simulation exists, at least primarily, to support the gameplay.
In my opinion, Flight has exceptionally noble aspirations - to appeal to causal gamers (on a platform that everyone keeps claiming is dying) who have some visceral desire to fly, while still offering something to those who want the most realistic experience possible. It's not quite a case of trying to be all things to all people, but it leans that direction, and everyone knows what a challenge that can be.
The smartest thing Microsoft has done, in my opinion, is to make the base product a free download. Other than those few without broadband, everyone will be able to bring it down and try it for themselves. I'm not naïve enough to think that will bring peace to the sim world, but at least there's a much greater-than-usual chance for everyone to make an informed decision.
Regardless of whether it ever expands via downloadable content to a broader, fuller sim experience, my number one hope is that it delivers a plausible experience that gets more people, especially young people, excited about flying. If they can do that, then they can call it whatever they want and they'll have done a great thing.
Hal Bryan
EAA Lifetime 638979
Vintage 714005 | Warbirds 553527
Managing Editor
EAA—The Spirit of Aviation
If you guys haven't played it yet then I'm sure you'll be pleasantly surprised as to how realistic it really is.
Ryan Winslow
EAA 525529
Stinson 108-1 "Big Red", RV-7 under construction
Microsoft's Beta programs are covered by a non-disclosure agreement...I'm sure a lot of us will have more to say on the 29th.
Hal Bryan
EAA Lifetime 638979
Vintage 714005 | Warbirds 553527
Managing Editor
EAA—The Spirit of Aviation
I disclose nothing...NOTHING!Originally Posted by Hal Bryan
Microsoft's Beta programs are covered by a non-disclosure agreement...
I'm not a fan of Microsoft. Being an open source guy I really like Flight Gear.
http://www.flightgear.org/
If you are talking about the flight model/simulation engine, I have no doubt that it’s everything I have come to know and love from the Aero-engineer that does the simulations engine at MS. (How’s that for politic, Hal?) I said I was a fan of flight simulation, while that includes MS Flight Simulator it was by no means exclusive to it. MS Flight simulator was good for the simulation community. It allowed others to play in its sand box and expand on what was possible. If what I have read on the internets is correct, a great deal of what made FSX good to simulation as a whole has been removed. What remains is just what they offer. Even if the “simulation” is just as good as FSX, is there enough of it “in the box”?
I tend to fly FSX around the Northwest and Alaska, because that is where I live and where I was born. I have no idea when I’ll be able to do that with Flight. I’m reasonably sure that most of the pilots that also use FSX are in the same situation.
Hawaii is nice for a distraction, but how much will I have to pay to fly where I want to fly in the aircraft I want to fly in?
From an interview with MS Flight Executive Producer Joshua Howard (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...t_boss_on.html):
Q: It seems like the tradeoff you made - building richer, smaller locales to explore in the game - is the loss of the full, open world that could be explored in "Flight Simulator"?
A: The bet we've made is that to the non-hardcore simmer, flying the whole world isn't as interesting when there's nothing really interesting to see or do. I do get that for some segment of the audience that was one of the values - I can fly anywhere, into any airport, 25,000-odd airports was crazy.
But I think as you try to broaden and you want to bring in not the next million or two but the next 20 million or 30 million people, you say I will err on the side of more interesting area that's dense than the same amount of content spread all over the globe. There's a lot to do in Hawaii, and Hawaii is gorgeous.
I get what he is saying, I would trade flying from my home airport for one that had a lot more detail. It is neat to go around the globe, but the content is pretty standard; a random tree here, and a random building there. I still remember the versions where you always took off from Meigs, and it was a lot of fun; even in 4 color RGA. It would always set you up on 36, and every flight started with trying to split the uprights on the Sears tower!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote