Microsoft Flight

[Biggles]

One can now apply for access to the Microsoft Flight Beta starting in January!

http://www.microsoft.com/games/flight/#news-beta_program_accepting_applications

Thought people might be interested...

[Herr-Berbunch]

Can't talk :shifty:

[Oberon]

Judging from what I've seen and heard so far, I'll pass for now.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Judging from what I've seen and heard so far, I'll pass for now.

This is the whole SH3/4/5 thing in a different guise. Only you will know if you will like it by trying it yourself. It's free, aside from a little space on your drive and some time, what have you got to lose? :hmmm:

[Arclight]

... what have you got to lose? :hmmm:

A good deal of faith in humanity.

[Raptor1]

A good deal of faith in humanity.

I wasn't aware that existed in any significant quantity on Earth.

I'll probably give it a try when I have nothing do at some point, but I'm not expecting too much of it.

[longam]

There banking on Live monthly subscriptions and pay for ad-on this go around.:shifty:

[CCIP]

So far I haven't heard much of anything especially great about it, including from some people I know in the beta. It's good if you just want to fool around in the sky or hunt for some achievements and cool scenic spots around the islands - but honestly achievement-based gameplay has 0 appeal to me whatsoever, while the limitations imposed by hopping around Hawaii even in free flight will eventually grow old. The fact that the code is closed is already kind of a killer, because you really need that in order to get the most out of FS. I cannot even imagine playing stock FSX for any length of time - even with the global coverage and steady supply of new aircraft, there's really no interest in it on my part if I can't fly complex aircraft on realistic, ordinary operations (rather than doing cool one-off stuff and adventures, which are only fun once). Restricted to Hawaii - I don't know, even less likely to stick.

On the other hand, no need to be cynical, it might turn out neat. But even at its best, it's likely to be a better comparison to the old Flight Unlimited series (which were my introduction to civil flight sims) rather than MSFS proper. It will be good for getting more casual gamers interested, for sure. But I think for FS fans, X-plane and Prepar3D are much more likely to be the way forward.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Finally it's released into the wild. :o

Don't all rush at once. Especially if you have FSX, or FS9, or 2002, 2000, or FlightGear, or X-plane, maybe even YSFlight.

At least it's free, for the basic Big Island and the Icon A5.

Save your bandwidth and get Rise of Flight Demo instead.

I played the beta, and whilst I had little or no issues running it nicely (aside from excessive loading times - for one small island!!!) it was just soooooo sterile - even when they wanted the MP servers maxed out it was just empty!

:-?

[Skybird]

The day PMDG goes X-plane and releases the 737ngx for X-plane, is the day I most likely switch from FS to X-plane. After learning the 737ngx, one does not want any other anymore, and x-plane 10 has real multi-core-support. .

[GSpector]

I had high hopes for M$ Flight from the videos. I was looking forward to it.

Then it came out. I should have known it was going to be more "game" than "Sim". After all, I remember when M$ started the whole "Games For Windows" push. One of the requirements for any game to use that on their boxes (so as to get better placing on store shelves), they had to agree to make their software compatible with XBox controllers.

I did not know until very recently that M$ Flight would require a "Games For Windows Live" account, so, that being said, when I read that, and read that it can auto detect a Gamepad when connected, there was no way M$ Flight could be anything like FSX. :down:

I'll stick with all my other sims to include FSX. :up: I've read the reviews and the comments posted by those that have tried it and I will be leaving it alone. Shame, it had such great potential.:nope:

All I've seen from M$ is software to encourage people to migrate from the PC to the XBox. sorry, I have no plans to ever get any XBox or any type of console platform.

[Skybird]

A first review (they call it "comment") of Flight is up at simHQ.

http://www.simhq.com/_air14/air_525a.html

They did not leave many feathers on this chicken. Somebody's in for a belly landing, I think.

As I said earlier here or somewhere else: this is just an attempt to condition the audience to become more receptive for future DLC policies and cloud computing things.

Hope they drill their noses very deep into the mud with this one. When reading the first feedbacks about the consumer preview for Windows 8, I hope the same for that, too. Microsoft tries to chnage some things fundamentally. And not for the better of customers, but for the good of Microsoft and probably at the cost of consumers.

[AngusJS]

I hadn't really followed Flight - I always thought that it would just be a rebranding of FS. So I opened this thread, expecting to see the new features and planes that would be available.

Then I read the SimHQ commentary.

:o

So much for flying over the Aluetians in a Stearman. So much for flying from London to Sydney in a Gypsy Moth. So much for flying across Tibet in a Grumman Goose. So much for flying rings around Everest in an F-18.

So much for setting my own weather. So much for perusing the countless add-on planes and sceneries. So much for using FS as a way to see the world.

Microsoft has apparently decided that the whole time I was using FS2000, 2002/2004 and FSX, I was enjoying flight simulation incorrectly. They have determined that the proper way to enjoy flight simulation is to restrict yourself to one small island and one plane, and then pay them for the sceneries and planes that they decide you should want.

All the freeware plane designers can go to hell, as can the scenery designers and the mission designers. The payware developers can do the same.

Likewise, the untold thousands of virtual pilots from around the world can go to hell if they want to fly in their own locales, or anywhere else that isn't one #&$^@ island in Hawaii.

@#$% YOU, MICROSOFT.

:nope:

[joea]

So long MSFS 1998-2000-2002 (my versions) hello Xplane.

I wonder if it's worth it to get FSX or 2004 now? :hmmm:

[steve_the_slim]

FSX is still a decent sim, assuming your machine can run it. 2004 is really showing its age by now, but it's not bad either. Lots of freeware is still being made for both of them, and there's plenty of payware still being made for FSX. FS2004 payware is no longer being produced for the most part, but you can still buy lots of older FS2004 addons.

[Skybird]

So long MSFS 1998-2000-2002 (my versions) hello Xplane.

I wonder if it's worth it to get FSX or 2004 now? :hmmm:

Yes - for only the PMDG 737NGX alone (FSX). Beside that I still maintain a fully modded FS9 installation as well, since I have so plenty of scenery for it.

But the PMDG737, if you are into complex things. It is incredible, awesome, unbelievable, what they acchieved with that one.


I read some comment some days ago that PMDG indeed works on something for X-Plane. But it did not say which title, they have several ones. But that also means: it could be the 737NGX.

It'S a shame that FS9 and FSX, especially the latter, were planned by a blokehead not seeing what was coming in those years already regarding multi-CPU-cores, and that they always made the same mistake - to rely heavily on the CPU and ignoring the graphics board. Just now the hardware for FSX, to run it on full settings, has come out, but the sim cannot fully use it (gfx boards, multi-cores). Also, memory limitations for FS9 are a handicap.

But so be it: PMDG 737NGX. That is the one title after which you will not touch any other airliner again. I do not claim that I have mastered it, but I love it. It is brilliant and the most realistic and most complex, indepth system-simulation I ever have used.

[Skybird]

SimHQ's final review is up. Not really friendly.

http://www.simhq.com/_air14/air_518a.html


Conclusion:

So Flight is here. The good news is the base module is free, so there is no excuse not to try it out. The pay content is OK, but not stellar. In fact, I’ve decided that I probably won’t buy the announced Alaska DLC if it is more of the same type of content. After spending a significant amount of time with Flight I just don’t feel that compelled to pursue any more achievements or challenges — they just don’t feel like achievements or challenges. The game is too simple, too dull, and too lifeless. I try to be optimistic and think of Flight as a base module from which great things may spring. The environments are beautiful, the framerate performance fantastic, and the feeling of flight is quite good. They can go in either of two ways (or both) in my opinion. They can make it a better game by making the missions harder, more diverse, and more populated with interesting things. Or, they can make it a better simulation by making the missions harder, more diverse, and more populated with interesting things. (See what I did there?) As it stands, Flight will not attract and keep non-flight sim fans. They will try it, get bored, and lump every other simulator in with Flight as dull as watching paint dry. That does damage to our genre at the expense of a one-shot expenditure on Flight. Meanwhile, flight sim enthusiasts will shy away because for $35 I feel like I didn’t get enough value out of my money, and I’d be gun shy about purchasing more DLC that will leave me disappointed. Flight knew that it was taking a different path with this release. In their attempt to appeal to the masses, they actually are appealing to no one.

[hawk2495]

All I can say is, ouch, burn....

[GSpector]

I hope Micro$oft does not plan to sell each State as a DLC.

The problem when you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one.

Is anyone surprised that this came from the company that has been trying to force the PC group over to the X-Box.

[GSpector]

I still plan to keep flying FSX.

[Herr-Berbunch]

I hope Micro$oft does not plan to sell each State as a DLC.

Nope, that would require M$ to either put in some more work or let third-party applications play with Flight - can't see it happening.

I still plan to keep flying FSX.

I hear you brother, I hear you :yep:

[longam]

Loaded it up just to see.

Mission based , points rewarding.
Can almost fly in 3rd party view if you want.
Doesn't take long until you run into the LIVE wall and have to subscribe (pay) to continue.
Boring as hell.

Uninstalling....

[Herr-Berbunch]

Uninstalling....

:yep: I took the beta off the other day, forgot it was there. At least you didn't have to pay for the pleasure of being bored!

[oscar19681]

For the competition microsoft has created the perfect software .because microsoft flight will drive all fsx,s and fs9 fans right into there competitions arms. Way to go microsoft !! you just ruined you own flightsim community and genre for an arcadish kiddie game which does not even deserve the name flight . But hey i guess the profits will be just as exiting as microsoft flight!

[Skybird]

No surprise, this is the end of this ugly story:

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?p=31948901

MS sends Flight flying through the window.

No loss there, I'd say. The future speaks X-Plane and Prepar3d, with FSX still doing very good. MS has alienated so many members of the flight sim community by this want-a-bigger-piece-of-the-flightsim-money-pie-stunt that I would be surprised to hear of them again soon. This was needless, idiotic and doomed to fail from all beginning on.

First they ruined the FS franchise, now they stall with Flight. RIP.

[Herr-Berbunch]

I don't know what to say! Part of me thinks 'yay, we've been proven right, it was an unworkable model', the other have thinks that 'with a little bit more than half'arsedness and lame they'd have done a bit better'. :-?

They should turn back to FSX and optimize that for modern systems, how to please millions in one go. It'll never happen, even though LM are proving it can be done.

[flatsixes]

I never played the new MS Flight Simulator, so I can't speak to it's worth. But I've been flying sims for a while now, and hate to see such high-profile failures in the genre. I mean, someday I am going to look for something beyond my trusty (but well worn) Il-2, RoF, and FS-X, and I'd like to have something to put a twinkle in my eye. (I've heard a lot about X-Plane, but my rig is still too weak to support it. Anybody want to buy a teenager or two?)

[Oberon]

Well, that's the end of the MS Flight sim for another decade. A bit of a shame, but inevitable really. That's what happens when you try to make a Flight sim after shutting down the studio that made the last successful one IIRC.
A shame, but FSX is still quite a capable engine and with the likes of PMDG and Accusim it's still got life in it. Then there's X-Plane which I suspect will expand to fill the next-gen global Flight simulator gap, so it's not all doom and gloom. Hopefully MS will learn their lessons from this debacle so that when they return to the Flight sim market they'll do it right...and yes, hopefully they'll also put in a prototypical flying pig with a proper flight model... :O:

[GSpector]

Well, I'm not surprised but I do feel bad for all those that downloaded it and spent money to expand it with the hopes of getting their area or landmarks they wanted. I just see it now as a complete waste of money.

I'll admit it, I downloaded it but I never installed it. I was never impressed with it but I too was waiting to see what the expansions had. I heard aboule the full Hawaii bundle as well as Alaska (never new if the latter was released). I live in Colorado and wondered just how long it would take. I guess I can stop waiting now.

[Skybird]

Flight based on a completely flawed assessement from all beginning on. FSX offers much more in the default package already, and sees users investing heavily into additional planes, scenery, airports. MS wanted to get a bite of that pie, by overpriced minibits of pieces that lacked the quality of dedicated FS9- and FSX- developers. Even regarding content, the default FSX offers more than Flight would have within the forseeable number of years - just that Flight would have turned out to be hilariously expensive by following that model through. And they really expected that any serious FS hobby pilot would abandon his hundreds of dollars-heavy modded FS-installation for - for this...?

Honestly, I think it was a greedy but incompetent fool who bred this idea, and he did not know anything about how the FS/Prepar3d market functions and about the FS community's interests and motivations. And X-plane probably was just a rumour he heared about, but did not believe that it would ever become reality. :)

Many developers for the first time ever have started to create content for X-Plane, btw. After these many years and many versions, it now seems to experience the real liftoff.

[Oberon]

Many developers for the first time ever have started to create content for X-Plane, btw. After these many years and many versions, it now seems to experience the real liftoff.

Good, and if the developers of X-plane have the sense that they surely have for not going down the MS route, then they will encourage these developers who now that Flight has officially gone down the drain and taken the likelihood of MS doing a decent successor to FSX within the next five to ten years with it, will be looking to take the next generation with X-plane.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Good, and if the developers of SHO have the sense that they surely have for not going down the MS route. . .

I hope I'm wrong. :doh:

Here is the Nordsee. Here is U-25 or U-26. Want a bit more, you can buy a IIA/B/C/D. If you don't want to buy them, complete all our acheivements (sink 1 squillion tons of merchant shipping, and 1 million tons of BB, shoot down 500 aircraft (with no flak guns!) and they'll be yours.

In a couple of months we'll release, for you - at a cost, the Eastern Atlantik.

Then we'll sell you the VII range of boots.

Then, by then, maybe we'll have got the Eastern Seaboard of the US modelled. And the Type IX boots.

[Oberon]

Honestly, and dragging this off-topic slightly, I expect SHO to go down the route that Star Trek Online has done. You start with a Type II, the whole map is open to you, but some areas are safer than others. You probably start in the Nordsee, where if you run into a ship/warship it will be capable of being defeated by a Type II, but if you take your Type II to, say, the Western Approaches then you run the risk of running into something a bit more deadly, a Black Swan perhaps, or aircraft which a Type VII might be able to take on just fine but a Type II can't.
In terms of advancing the years, perhaps they will do it in a three RL month per game year, or something like that, scaling it so as more people level up then more advanced U-boat variations are released, or more technological toys are released to upgrade your boats with (Snorkel, sonar, torpedoes, etc).

Paying for stuff might get you there quicker and avoid the grinding, and you might be able to get some unique boats with extra tips (perhaps a special 'Kretschmer' boat or 'U-96' boat) but it will still be accessible to those who don't pay. :yep:

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

I honestly think that Microsoft wasted their time making MS Flight. Honestly they should of spent all that time and effort revamping FSX but thats probably not going to happen:shifty:. Heck Microsoft still has CFS 3 which is still at least in my opinion one of the best combat flight sims out there, if they just updated the graphics to modern standards and didn't change anything else it would be better and more realistic the IL-2 right now but again its probably not going to happen.
Why do gaming companies go and stop working on a great game to go and make a new game that is sub-standard to what the customers would expect?

[GSpector]

I honestly think that Microsoft wasted their time making MS Flight. Honestly they should of spent all that time and effort revamping FSX but thats probably not going to happen:shifty:. Heck Microsoft still has CFS 3 which is still at least in my opinion one of the best combat flight sims out there, if they just updated the graphics to modern standards and didn't change anything else it would be better and more realistic the IL-2 right now but again its probably not going to happen.
Why do gaming companies go and stop working on a great game to go and make a new game that is sub-standard to what the customers would expect?

I would still like to see someone do the same thing to B-17: The Mighty Eighth.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

I would still like to see someone do the same thing to B-17: The Mighty Eighth.
That would be epic.

[CCIP]

I am very, very much in agreement with both of you. Though to be honest, I've been waiting for A2A simulations to do something with it, seeing as they've owned rights to it for a few years now (and released their fantastic Accusim B-17s in the meantime)... so I'm keeping some hope that they get around to it.

[GSpector]

I am very, very much in agreement with both of you. Though to be honest, I've been waiting for A2A simulations to do something with it, seeing as they've owned rights to it for a few years now (and released their fantastic Accusim B-17s in the meantime)... so I'm keeping some hope that they get around to it.

This is new news to me. I'll have to check it out. Maybe if a few posted the suggstion on their site, they might get to it a bit sooner than later if they know there's an interest. :hmmm:

Update:
A suggested, I just left my suggestion. I hope to hear back from them.

If interested, here is the link to contact them:
http://www.a2asimulations.com/store/index.php?main_page=contact_us