Gaming Microsoft Flight Megathread

[Hielor]

They luckily never will take advantage of what MSFS started to become by FSX already. Turning X-Plane into a easy-to-use casual gaming sim, would be awful. X-Plane does not need simple menu options and settings, a simple weather model, game-like graphics, useless missions etc.

You can add features like that without being an "easy to use casual game."

X-Plane seriously needs menu simplification if it's going to become the leading desktop sim. You can keep all of the options, just make it easier to find and adjust them.

 

[FADEC]

You can add features like that without being an "easy to use casual game."

X-Plane seriously needs menu simplification if it's going to become the leading desktop sim. You can keep all of the options, just make it easier to find and adjust them.

That's true of course. On the other hand, you can become accustomed to it if you just are seriously interested. My impression is that this particular criticism basically comes from users who just want to use the simulator casually, which is certainly not what X-Plane is made for. And that's the difference to MSFS.

But that's off-topic as you said. The problem with MS is that they are doing worse than what X-Plane does with its user interface. MS killed their brand. They use the title "Flight" to create the impression that the popular FS is going to continue, which is not very obviously. They created a flying game and misused the popularity of MSFS to fish costumers (and to merchandise Silverlight alongside). This is understandable under economic principles, but a kick in the b*** for the worldwide fanbase of MSFS and the depending industry. Of course it's the right of MS to do whatever they want to do with their products (they do so anyway as long as no court does intervene). But they are not making friends.

I doubt the game will attract many players. Casual gamers are not interested in flying aircraft. This is still considered to be something for "boring nerds" (same for space simulators like Orbiter). Those nerds, a big part of the fanbase of serious simulations, won't be happy with something like Flight. And there is not much left outside of the community.

I bet the development team behind Flight is smaller and cheaper than the ACES team. And they do it solely for money, not due to enthusiasm for flight simulation or the MSFS brand. They are game designers, and they are happy to work for MS and have jobs at all. Replacement jobs. Nothing more than that.

R.I.P MSFS

 

[Urwumpe]

What about Flightgear, BTW? I know, it is feeling like a huge construction yard - but compared to Flight?

The performance of Flightgear is IMHO abyssmal, but the simulation technology behind it much better than what MSFSX ever offered.

 

[Hielor]

That's true of course. On the other hand, you can become accustomed to it if you just are seriously interested. My impression is that this particular criticism basically comes from users who just want to use the simulator casually, which is certainly not what X-Plane is made for. And that's the difference to MSFS.

X-Plane is missing out on a fairly big sector of the market by not looking at this, IMO. By snubbing everyone who doesn't want to have to spend 2-3 hours setting a sim up every time they want to fly, they're losing sales and cutting themselves off.

If X-Plane had made a dedicated push after ACES had shut down, they could've easily had a version that they could point to and say, "Everything FSX does, we do better." Instead, all they can really say is "The stuff that FSX does well isn't important to us" while they focus on improving things that are already more than good enough.

It's a matter of priorities. Certainly X-Plane deserves some measure of respect for not sacrificing industrial-level "quality" for more user-friendliness and "sticking to their guns" so to speak, but if they would just spend a few months cleaning up their user friendliness story they could completely kick FSX out and maybe turn more addon developers over to them (which is another thing that they desperately need more of in order to "take over" the market).

But that's off-topic as you said. The problem with MS is that they are doing worse than what X-Plane does with its user interface. MS killed their brand. They use the title "Flight" to create the impression that the popular FS is going to continue, which is not very obviously. They created a flying game and misused the popularity of MSFS to fish costumers (and to merchandise Silverlight alongside). This is understandable under economic principles, but a kick in the b*** for the worldwide fanbase of MSFS and the depending industry. Of course it's the right of MS to do whatever they want to do with their products (they do so anyway as long as no court does intervene). But they are not making friends.

I doubt the game will attract many players. Casual gamers are not interested in flying aircraft. This is still considered to be something for "boring nerds" (same for space simulators like Orbiter). Those nerds, a big part of the fanbase of serious simulations, won't be happy with something like Flight. And there is not much left outside of the community.

The silverlight point is irrelevant--I imagine that Netflix's online viewer has gotten a couple orders of magnitude more Silverlight downloads than the MS Flight site.

As for Flight itself--well, it remains to be seen. If they successfully manage to add game-like elements on top of a quality aviation simulation, it might yet succeed. Some people (myself included) don't mind having things to work for in the simulator--missions, objectives, etc.

Certainly, the in-game missions/objectives in FSX get me to explore aspects of the simulator that I might not otherwise see. Hopefully it'll be the same for Flight--if you want to go hunting Aerocaches and delivering packages and explore the virtual world on their terms, great, but it'll get out of your way if you just want to "do your own thing." Just like FSX--nothing forces you to fly the missions if you don't want to.

Well, one can hope.

 

[Cras]

With Prepar3D getting more and more love from FSX developres, there is no change, absolutely no chance, of X-Plane picking up where FSX left off. The natural successor now is Prepar3D. The add-ons can be migrated, those that can are now being made to be so, and new ones are being developed with P3D specifically in mind. And I hate to say it, but a lot will depend on where PMDG will go. They have hinted that they are exploring X-plane, but if they decide P3D is where they will go and wont bother with X-plane, all their fan-boys will follow.

 

[Hielor]

With Prepar3D getting more and more love from FSX developres, there is no change, absolutely no chance, of X-Plane picking up where FSX left off. The natural successor now is Prepar3D. The add-ons can be migrated, those that can are now being made to be so, and new ones are being developed with P3D specifically in mind. And I hate to say it, but a lot will depend on where PMDG will go. They have hinted that they are exploring X-plane, but if they decide P3D is where they will go and wont bother with X-plane, all their fan-boys will follow.

Switching to Prepar3D exclusively would be a death sentence for any addon developer. With a $500/license cost (wtf, why? Isn't it basically FSX?) your potential user base will be tiny compared to FSX/X-Plane.

Prepar3d might be a contender in the desktop simulation market if they chop a zero off their price, but if not--yeah, not going to happen.

 

[Cras]

Switching to Prepar3D exclusively would be a death sentence for any addon developer. With a $500/license cost (wtf, why? Isn't it basically FSX?) your potential user base will be tiny compared to FSX/X-Plane.

Prepar3d might be a contender in the desktop simulation market if they chop a zero off their price, but if not--yeah, not going to happen.

P3d does not cost 500 bucks. Everyone I know that has it pays about 10 bucks a month. And the numbers of FSX'ers who are now flying P3D is getting quite significant. None will go exclusively, because at the moment there just is no need. It is too easy to make something that works under FSX and P3D at the same time. Some (FTX) will restrict the use by license alone, requiring users to pay a bit extra to get the thing to work under both.

For a lot of FSX'ers, paying 10 bucks a month to get their 80 dollar add-on plane, their hundreds of dollars worth of scenery and textures, to run smoother and stable on their machine that already rung them up for thousands and thousands of bucks is an easy step to make. Head over to Avsim and see for yourself how big the P3D thing is getting. The question I have is will its size and growth lead Lockheed-Martin to react and come up with a license that is a bit cheaper and realise that the flight sim community is moving in their direction. of course, assuming they are even allowed to. I don't know what restrictions they have on P3D's use when they bought ESP from Microsoft.

 

[FADEC]

That FSX addons are compatible with Prepar3d does not make it the successor. There is also a slightly increasing number of FS addons which are converted and available for X-Plane now. But X-Plane also won't be the successor of FSX. Prepar3d is too expensive for most potential users. And it's too expensive in any case, no matter if you pay 500 Dollars once, or a subscription (120 Dollars a year). Addons not included.

People will either buy X-Plane or continue using FSX. Some will look at, and play around with Prepar3d, but it's just one another thing beside X-Plane and FSX.

 

[Hielor]

Launch date and pricing for Flight has been announced.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/microsoft-flight-takes-to-the-skies-february-29-6349823

February 29th.

The free version (as expected) contains the big island of Hawaii, the Icon A5, and (possibly) that biplane.

For $20 you can get the "Hawaiian Adventure Pack" with "new challenges, 20 new missions, and the RV-6A aircraft."

For $15 you can get the Maule M-7-260C.
For $8 you can get the North American P-51 Mustang.

So, for $43 you can get five planes and Hawaii.

Or you could buy FSX Gold for $30 and get 27 planes and the entire world.

No further comment necessary, I suspect.

:facepalm:

 

[Grover]

notice how its gone from captian-ing a boeing or an airbus over high altitudes over the entire world, to piloting small craft, over a small area, with a few stunts shown in the ad, its aimed at the hot-headed gamer... who doesnt want to spend $15 per aircraft, which may turn out to only be a couple hours of fun

words dont describe...

 

[astrosammy]

Oh my god. Well, that saves me a lot of hard disk space...

 

[NovaSilisko]

 

[Fabri91]

And the Mustang apparently will only be flyable from the outside.

 

[Hmuda]

So much for that. Will stay with FSX, thank you very much.

 

[Evil_Onyx]

Launch date and pricing for Flight has been announced.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/microsoft-flight-takes-to-the-skies-february-29-6349823

February 29th.

The free version (as expected) contains the big island of Hawaii, the Icon A5, and (possibly) that biplane.

For $20 you can get the "Hawaiian Adventure Pack" with "new challenges, 20 new missions, and the RV-6A aircraft."

For $15 you can get the Maule M-7-260C.
For $8 you can get the North American P-51 Mustang.

So, for $43 you can get five planes and Hawaii.

Or you could buy FSX Gold for $30 and get 27 planes and the entire world.

No further comment necessary, I suspect.

:facepalm:

So much fail that I'm at a loss for words.

 

[FADEC]

So much for that. Will stay with FSX, thank you very much.

Yep. Same here. FS9 and FSX for the win. Luckily there is a huge addon market for FSX but also FS9 still, so it will be supported for many years.

What Microsoft has done to MSFS, to those who developed it, and to its community, is a hit in the face. And they will get what they deserve. This product won't become a top seller. People are not stupid, although it seems somebody thinks we are. How must former members of the ACES team feel... it's a shame.

 

[Hielor]

And the Mustang apparently will only be flyable from the outside.

Source?

That would be pretty hilarious if they wanted you to pay $8 for a plane that didn't even have a cockpit.

Hilarious in a depressing kind of way.

 

[Felipi1205]

First i'll test it, and just after really know what I think, I'll comment. Maybe this could be fun! In future versions (or updates) of the Flight, they'll create another places... I see it like the FSX demo, I spent several days flying with that and I liked! Now it's just another sunny scenario! They're releasing it now because of the time. They spent almost 3 years creating a bad world for the FSX, now they'll release a small place and develope another hi-res areas. Did you noticed the waterfalls and the caves? We will never see it in the FSX. So, it's just a question of time to have the whole world for fly! I hope!!!

 

[Arrowstar]

That seals the deal for me, I certainly won't be buying Flight. What's the point if all I can do is fly around Hawaii?

 

[NovaSilisko]

That seals the deal for me, I certainly won't be buying Flight. What's the point if all I can do is fly around Hawaii?

You can fly from Hawaii...to Hawaii! :facepalm:

I anticipate the rest of the world will be available as DLC. 100 square miles for $19.99.