MS Flight Hawaii screen shots vs FSX add-on ones

[Christopher Low 5,324]

It's a forum requirement. If you don't repeat yourself at least twice a week, you are automatically banned

[Rimshot 1,131]

Next subject please...

[mgh 89]

No I disagree, because that is not the current situation most hardcore simmers are in right now. They have addon sceneries aircraft, utilities etc... I'm not going to upgrade to Flight because it's better then FSX Default, I have that now. What I want to see is an improvement on the current technology used in FSX. So I think this comparison is fair, as well as those from GEX/UTX shots.

First, Microsoft isn't developing Flight for hardcore simmers. It developing it to sell at a price that's attractive to a much wider market. Second, you paid extra to have those features. If you spend money to improve, say, your car, you don't expect the manufacturer to include all those features in its next model?

[alainneedle1 97]

@ HughesMDflyer4 I'm still waiting for an answer.....

[xXArch_AngelXx 0]

@ HughesMDflyer4 I'm still waiting for an answer.....

Maybe because with all the discussion that's been going on, he might be like me and pretty much give up, because we usually get a lashing for simply giving out ideas, proof which backs that up, reasonable educated guesses on what will be part of the final game, or concepts. I only really post when I'm agreeing with someone now, because I know that I will enjoy Flight when it is released, I don't give two potato's worth of care for those that think its simply "FSX 2.0, SP3, or whatever..." Comparing FSX with add-ons to Flight without (I presume, but why the heck would they show us add-ons? That's just asking for trouble), MS knows this from that 'magic' screenie, not to release anything that shows things that we cant get in the game on day one. Funny that it was actually just an artist's impression. But when I first saw it, I didnt realise that, and I probably wouldn't have bought FSX if I had known that is not what I would get in-game. You ever wonder why MS aren't releasing much info? Me too. I think it has something to do with the uproar we create when we get like whiny little 5 year old girls not getting what we want... Or maybe because hes in a different timezone, and asleep right now? Probably since it is 9am over there, and we are teenagers you know. Jamie ♥

[tf51d 284]

First, Microsoft isn't developing Flight for hardcore simmers. It developing it to sell at a price that's attractive to a much wider market. Second, you paid extra to have those features. If you spend money to improve, say, your car, you don't expect the manufacturer to include all those features in its next model?

Actually when I buy a car I usually do buy it because it has better features. Better Engine, radio, etc.. Unless I needed a practical replacement because of cost or other reason like when I bought my SUV from a Camaro Z28, when I couldn't take driving in the snow anymore with it in the Northeast.In the case of FLIGHT I'm not going to replace what I have just because it's the new kid on the block. I want it to have, or at least the potential to have better features then I currently enjoy in FSX. It's the same issue when FSX was released. I saw potential with FSX even with it's initial performance woes. Which were mainly mistakes Aces made in the way it was setup at release. Others did not and stayed with FS2004, some even to this day. If FLIGHT is made more to cater to the gamers market, and does not have at least the potential that it could be brought up to meet and exceed the level of simulation we have now in FS2004/FSX, then I'll sit this one out. Why would I want to go backwards. Right now there's not enough information coming from MS and too much speculation to know just how much game vs how much sim FLIGHT will be.

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

@ HughesMDflyer4 I'm still waiting for an answer.....

Good. Have fun waiting. I'm done replying to silly comments.

Maybe because with all the discussion that's been going on, he might be like me and pretty much give up, because we usually get a lashing for simply giving out ideas, proof which backs that up, reasonable educated guesses on what will be part of the final game, or concepts.... ...Or maybe because hes in a different timezone, and asleep right now? Probably since it is 9am over there, and we are teenagers you know.

Both reasons are true.

[Attila 2]

If FLIGHT is made more to cater to the gamers market, and does not have at least the potential that it could be brought up to meet and exceed the level of simulation we have now in FS2004/FSX, then I'll sit this one out. Why would I want to go backwards. Right now there's not enough information coming from MS and too much speculation to know just how much game vs how much sim FLIGHT will be.

I am pretty sure there are many of us who feel this way exactly. No matter how good Flight will look or how good its performance will be, it will not matter if we (the not the target market) do not get something that matters to us - over and above what we already have. With today's hardware and Win 7 64-bit, FSX has legs. Add some new high quality aircraft and scenery and it will be hard to convince us to give this up for Flight's supposedly new way of doing things.

[mgh 89]

Actually when I buy a car I usually do buy it because it has better features. Better Engine, radio, etc.. Unless I needed a practical replacement because of cost or other reason like when I bought my SUV from a Camaro Z28, when I couldn't take driving in the snow anymore with it in the Northeast.In the case of FLIGHT I'm not going to replace what I have just because it's the new kid on the block. I want it to have, or at least the potential to have better features then I currently enjoy in FSX. It's the same issue when FSX was released. I saw potential with FSX even with it's initial performance woes. Which were mainly mistakes Aces made in the way it was setup at release. Others did not and stayed with FS2004, some even to this day. If FLIGHT is made more to cater to the gamers market, and does not have at least the potential that it could be brought up to meet and exceed the level of simulation we have now in FS2004/FSX, then I'll sit this one out. Why would I want to go backwards. Right now there's not enough information coming from MS and too much speculation to know just how much game vs how much sim FLIGHT will be.

The decision to buy or not obviously is yours. B But if you spent, typically, $50 on FSX and another, say, $200 on add-ons you can't expect Flight to provide $250 of value for about $50.

[alainneedle1 97]

Maybe because with all the discussion that's been going on, he might be like me and pretty much give up, because we usually get a lashing for simply giving out ideas, proof which backs that up, reasonable educated guesses on what will be part of the final game, or concepts. I only really post when I'm agreeing with someone now, because I know that I will enjoy Flight when it is released, I don't give two potato's worth of care for those that think its simply "FSX 2.0, SP3, or whatever..." Comparing FSX with add-ons to Flight without (I presume, but why the heck would they show us add-ons? That's just asking for trouble), MS knows this from that 'magic' screenie, not to release anything that shows things that we cant get in the game on day one. Funny that it was actually just an artist's impression. But when I first saw it, I didnt realise that, and I probably wouldn't have bought FSX if I had known that is not what I would get in-game. You ever wonder why MS aren't releasing much info? Me too. I think it has something to do with the uproar we create when we get like whiny little 5 year old girls not getting what we want... Or maybe because hes in a different timezone, and asleep right now? Probably since it is 9am over there, and we are teenagers you know. Jamie ♥

I'm just like you, I'm not lashing at peoples here for having an opinion, trust me if one was called name for having an opinion it's me, you can go back as far as you can and read old post I made on the subject on this and other forums, I think peoples are now changing their perception of what Flight will be compare to the opinion they had one year ago, mine did not change. If I am following you and if I understand your post correctly MS will be foolish to show us an enhanced Hawaii (from a dev. or not) because of the "magic" screenie right, so they won't make the same mistake again right....fair enough, so am I right to conclude from your post that Hawaii is default? Let me tell you something, if Hawaii as we see it from Flight including the main airport is default I expect the rest of the Flight's world to look as good as Hawaii does, I mean default is default right, and if this is the case who in hell will need add-ons to cover it, not me, so why a marketstore?

[frankla 44]

I am pretty sure there are many of us who feel this way exactly. No matter how good Flight will look or how good its performance will be, it will not matter if we (the not the target market) do not get something that matters to us - over and above what we already have. With today's hardware and Win 7 64-bit, FSX has legs. Add some new high quality aircraft and scenery and it will be hard to convince us to give this up for Flight's supposedly new way of doing things.

If you are so sure that you will not upgrade to Flight, what impels you to post in this particular forum? But as to your comment; for me how good it looks and how well it performs is a huge deal. So please don't count me in as part of "many of us". In fact, I wonder how you get your "many" from for this is the first time I am hearing that neither looks nor the performance matters to someone.

[tf51d 284]

The decision to buy or not obviously is yours. B But if you spent, typically, $50 on FSX and another, say, $200 on add-ons you can't expect Flight to provide $250 of value for about $50.

No of course not, but I do want to know it has the capability to support such addons, we have always had that in every version of FS to date. This is the first one, that I have doubts about! I hope I'm wrong, but without information from MS, the jury is still out!

[Attila 2]

If you are so sure that you will not upgrade to Flight, what impels you to post in this particular forum? But as to your comment; for me how good it looks and how well it performs is a huge deal. So please don't count me in as part of "many of us". In fact, I wonder how you get your "many" from for this is the first time I am hearing that neither looks nor the performance matters to someone.

I get "many" by reading the various forums. It is pretty clear to me that no none here is interested in a "game" at the cost of giving up aspects of the "simulation" we already have, no matter how good the game looks and no matter the fps. If the simulation aspect of Flight is of no interest to you, then I don't see why you are reading and posting in this forum.

[frankla 44]

I get "many" by reading the various forums. It is pretty clear to me that no none here is interested in a "game" at the cost of giving up aspects of the "simulation" we already have, no matter how good the game looks and no matter the fps. If the simulation aspect of Flight is of no interest to you, then I don't see why you are reading and posting in this forum.

Oh give me a break. You are now mincing words. Who, here, other than yourself has claimed Flight will have "simulation aspects" removed? Microsoft has gone out of its way to say it will keep it a simulation. Show me one ounce of evidence to the contrary! I am all ears! Assume Flight was not a "game" and the "simulation aspects" were not removed, would you buy it for better graphics and performance? If you would buy it, then stop posting non sense. If you still wouldn't buy it, why are you visiting this forum?

[Attila 2]

Oh give me a break. You are now mincing words. Who, here, other than yourself has claimed Flight will have "simulation aspects" removed? Microsoft has gone out of its way to say it will keep it a simulation. Show me one ounce of evidence to the contrary! I am all ears! Assume Flight was not a "game" and the "simulation aspects" were not removed, would you buy it for better graphics and performance? If you would buy it, then stop posting non sense. If you still wouldn't buy it, why are you visiting this forum?

What, you haven't read any other posts here where people have doubts about what Flight will actually be, regardless of what MS is saying in a FAQ designed to keep you from buying a competing product? I view the facts - ACES being unceremoniously disbanded, dropping Simulator from the name and wanting to cater to a wider audience - a pretty good indication that something is definitely going to change. Given that catering to a wider audience clearly does not mean improving the game's simulation aspects, one of two things can happen. One, we keep all functions as they are now and we get a number of new features that will appeal to the "wider audience". This would be nice, but this was already tried with FSX and apparently having the best selling FS was not good enough for MS and they felt the need to muck with the recipe that got them this far. Two, the new features will creep into the simulation aspects, watering them down or worse, some simulation features will be removed, because they do not fit the new vision for the game. Now, you appear to have a problem reading this forum and my posts. The person I answered in my first post had stated the same thing and I agreed with him.

If FLIGHT is made more to cater to the gamers market, and does not have at least the potential that it could be brought up to meet and exceed the level of simulation we have now in FS2004/FSX, then I'll sit this one out. Why would I want to go backwards. Right now there's not enough information coming from MS and too much speculation to know just how much game vs how much sim FLIGHT will be.

To which I replied:

No matter how good Flight will look or how good its performance will be, it will not matter if we (the not the target market) do not get something that matters to us - over and above what we already have.

Clearly, there are now two people in this forum who care more about the simulation aspects than the eye-candy and I KNOW there are more. I then further said to you:

It is pretty clear to me that no one here is interested in a "game" at the cost of giving up aspects of the "simulation" we already have, no matter how good the game looks and no matter the fps.

Nowhere do I assert that Flight will be this way or that. I am however telling you that IF the simulation aspects are not there, then the "game" is of no interest to me.

Right now there's not enough information coming from MS and too much speculation to know just how much game vs how much sim FLIGHT will be.

I agree with this, however we know that Flight will be more game than it has been before, what we don't know is will it still be a simulator. So, it should be pretty clear now that I am not "mincing words" nor am I claiming that the "simulation aspects" will be removed and you had no reason to believe that I did either. To be absolutely clear, I am concerned that with the information we now have, I am less and less convinced that I will be interested in Flight, regardless of how good it looks and how fast it runs if Flight is not the simulator "platform" it used to be.