24 replies to this topic

[ChaoticBeauty]

Microsoft Flight has existed for 4.5 months. What was your opinion then, and what do you think of it now?

[ollyau]

If anything, it's gotten more boring.  I still maintain that it's good for what it is (a simulator/game of a few planes and Hawaii), but it's just too limited.  You can't do anything else.

Edited by ollyau, 14 June 2012 - 10:56 AM.

[ChaoticBeauty]

Well, I've softened a bit to Flight and I think it's pretty good for what it is supposed to be, but I'm very upset we still don't have a proper sequel to FSX. I'm very unsure about Flight's future which is why I haven't bought anything yet.

[jcovelli]

considering mine is still uninstalled and i haven't seen anything that would make it worth re-installing.......   currently i still think it's a pile of garbage.

however i will say something optimistic.. even though i'm 95% certain it's wrong....  Alaska was supposed to be a spring release... so i'm hoping they decided to add a bunch of core improvements and features.. and that's the reason it's not out yet.  

though my gut says there will be no updates, it will cost somewhere in the $40 range.. and not include all of alaska.. only a portion


and their business model / marketing is still the worst i've ever seen

Edited by jcovelli, 14 June 2012 - 03:00 PM.

[Heimi77]

There a few things that Flight can do better than FSX.
But it`s just too limited and not finished.

A developer said theat they were originally working on ESP II and FSXI, but then the managment shut down the project.
Then they revived the leftovers and made Flight out of it.

And that is exactly what we see now.

But for just a quick flying after work I prefer Flight now over FSX.
Better performance, nicer gfx. No need for expensive Add-On`s and cfg tweaking.
Just fire it up and fly, limited but you can fly.

We`ll see what further DLC will change in Flight.

Anyway i hope they are working on FSXI or FSXNG in the underground.

[_NW_]

Flight?  Who needs flight?

We have Prepar3d.  That's where the action is.

[ChaoticBeauty]

Exactly, Flight started as FSXI with the help of add-on developers, but then all this was shut down and recreated as Flight. And I'm sure it's Microsoft who did that, because that's an easier way to make money (F2P and DLC, no add-ons etc.).

Flight is good when I just want to fire it up, do a quick flight and enjoy the scenery while talking to friends through Steam. But most of my flying time I spend on FSX, when I want to plan long flights along with ATC and AI.

I'm still sad with what it could have been, had it been developed as FSXI. I really hope this is just an opportunity to bring more people into virtual flight, and then Microsoft will unleash the true simulator. But I highly doubt it.

[THBatMan8]

There's a reason why FSX is still on my machine......... Enough said.

[jcovelli]

wow.. they are adding additional core improvements with the alaska pack. mainly trackIR support.

http://www.facebook.com/msflight

[touchdown]

Flight is better than what is was before, but I don't like the cockpit-less planes, and paying $15 for a maule is ridiculous. They should be aiming in the $3-5 region. Also, I'm waiting for some more familiar planes like the Mooney Bravo, C172, Baron58, and Cessna Caravan.

[jcovelli]

from facebook

Prepare for takeoff! While exploring over 6,000 square miles of new scenery, 565 airports and 137 seaplane bases in the Land of the Midnight Sun, you’ll encounter new Gold Rushes, Challenge Courses and Landing Challenges. You’ll also receive a basic version of the Carbon Cub. Get ready to tackle the Alaskan wilderness, coming soon on Games for Windows��"LIVE and Steam.

they just updated it......   now it says 600,000 square miles.....so it is all of Alaska

Edited by jcovelli, 22 June 2012 - 07:14 PM.

[ChaoticBeauty]

https://news.microso...-in-alaska.aspx

Full news.

Edited by ChaoticBeauty, 23 June 2012 - 04:22 AM.

[Mumbles]

meh

[hadee2000]

FSX is way better. You can add on planes. It has EVERY AIRPORT IN THE WORLD. And you can fly to others. You get a lot of Default planes and you can add on from other websites. I had flight and i hated it so i uninstalled it.

[_NW_]

hadee2000, on 15 October 2012 - 10:12 PM, said:

It has EVERY AIRPORT IN THE WORLD.

No it doesn't.  It doesn't even have half of them.

[FSX_Gamer]

_NW_, on 16 October 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

No it doesn't.  It doesn't even have half of them.

So it means there are more than 50000 airports in the real world now? And even so, your local airport has a 95% chance to appear in FSX, at least in low quality.

[niteye]

That's a year old topic you bumped up, but yeah I've yet to find an airport that isn't in FSX, I wouldn't be surprised if every airport with an official ICAO code or whatever is in FSX with realworld runways heading/lengths/elevation and taxiways. The navigation beacons are a few years outdated though and are only up to date in for example the FMS of some addon planes.

[SwitchFX]

Microsoft can shove the product up their butthole and to the right and out of their mouths for all I care.

[AmericanAirFan]

X-Plane 10 is where it's at. Microsoft's flight sim days are done. We have had a great run here in the fs2004.com forum community even long after the game became old. All the people in the flight sim community have made these microsoft flight simulators great. I recently downloaded the X-Plane 10 demo, and I am sold. It is the wave of the future of flight simulation.

[FSX_Gamer]

But the main problems with XP 10 is the 60GB HDD requirements, expensive price ($70 or three times as expensive as FSX), and much fewer addons than FSX. That's why I buy FSX.