Upcoming DLC: Journey to Alaska

[held]

DLC: Journey to Alaska
-> over 1.5 million square kilometers (~600,000 square miles) of captivating scenery
-> new aircraft(s)
-> additional missions
-> Screenshots: 01 (https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/64020_310009985727656_100257846702872_819780_17899 81244_n.jpg), 02 (https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/426163_310009785727676_100257846702872_819779_1416 602089_n.jpg), 03 (https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/428095_310009662394355_100257846702872_819778_3896 34391_n.jpg), 04 (https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/426275_310009509061037_100257846702872_819775_4081 64022_n.jpg), 05 (https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/423985_310009309061057_100257846702872_819773_1488 813188_n.jpg)

[lgrochal]

Yeah, I guess we should indeed somehow mark the passing of a second month since this news was originally released (on march 5.) :>

[J van E]

Er...? I thought you had some news about Alaska, but this is really old news... ;)

EDIT
Igrochal replies faster. ;)

Yeah, I guess we should indeed somehow mark the passing of a second month since this news was originally released (on march 5.) :>

LOL

[RoboRay]

I was really expecting to be able to regularly add content to Flight. However, it appears that there will be nothing to buy from the initial launch in February until the end of June. Four months with no new content was not at all what I expected. :rolleyes:

[EastCoastGuy]

Nice scenery. Hopefully some additional useful aircraft will be included?

[ScruffyDuck]

I was really expecting to be able to regularly add content to Flight. However, it appears that there will be nothing to buy from the initial launch in February until the end of June. Four months with no new content was not at all what I expected. :rolleyes:

This is certainly the price (at least in terms of credibility) that MS are paying for keeping content development in house and away from 3PDs. They are right in the firing line with nowhere to hide. I am confident they know that too :eek:

Jon
ScruffyDuck Software
Microsoft MVP

[Sagelber]

I was really expecting to be able to regularly add content to Flight. However, it appears that there will be nothing to buy from the initial launch in February until the end of June. Four months with no new content was not at all what I expected. :rolleyes:

I quote you.

This kind of Flight start up is a non sense indeed.

[Gibbage]

The only current compatition to Flight is AeroflyFS, and its been out much longer then Flight and has had 0 add-on's so far. It took about a year for MS to make there first (and last) add-on for FSX (Acceleration pack). So considering all that, they arnt doing too badly solo. Then again it dont take much man hours to make a cockpitless aircraft vs a Delux one. I do know that if they did have 3rd party help, you would see a LOT more activity and veriety in Flight. I hope that policy changes in the future, if its not too late.

[Prune]

Well as I only recently joined the forum it`s the first time I have seen these screenshots. I think they look superb and I can`t wait until the expansion pack becomes available. I wonder how much that is going to set us back? Looks worth getting though, just to get away from Hawaii.

[Torg Smith]

I’m just being patient in a holding pattern hoping for the best.

[lgrochal]

I wonder how much that is going to set us back?

Well, the value of such scenery pack could be anywhere between $20 and $50, depending on quality, number of airports and such. So for a scenery with the quality of Hawaii, I'd expect something around $35-$40, with an airplane included as a bonus :) If less, I'd buy it on the spot. More would probably make me reconsider whether I really want to put more money into this particular simulator.

[STRacer]

I think a lot of people will opt out if it is more than 20. I almost feel like they should have started with Alaska first and charged a little more for it.

[lgrochal]

I think a lot of people will opt out if it is more than 20.

That's why I'm dying to see how it plays out for the authors and us, the customers ;)

Alaska (and with 600k square miles we're talking about pretty much the whole Alaska) means over 200 airports and airfields, dozens of navaids and a lot of new weather, icing, carburetor icing, etc. It's a major undertaking, and I'm really curious how much of the above we'll actually see delivered - especially as the $20 barrier you've mentioned feels quite valid. What's pretty much certain is that the quality of this particular DLC (and the enhancements brought by it to the core game) will definitely show us where Flight is headed, and that alone is worth both waiting and the money :)

[Duesselwings]

20€/$ yes, and even a bit more - IF - Flight starts to put in basic things like functional brakes as axis, ATC, real weather and support for hardware like Trimwheel, instrumentpanels and so on. If not, I will buy Alaska and stop after that, to see how it goes on.

After nearly 300hours flying with Flight now, I really can say, I like! ;) But: there´s a lot to do and to change.

I really don´t hesitate to spend much money in my hobby and I have already bought tons of Addons for my FSX... (And there are a lot of Addons, which are smaller than Alaska and cost more than 20/30€) I just remember VFR Germany - 4 parts for 50€ each! And these parts are definitely poorer than Hawaii actually is!)
The same could happen to Flight - But - it must be worth to invest in the whole thing! It doesn´t depend so much on the single price for each DLC, but it depends on the whole philosophy and future trend of Flight and the personally feeling to invest in a "good thing".

The end of june for a next DLC (Alaska) would be rather late in my eyes! I thought, we get this last warbird soon and then it´ll be something about End of may for Alaska, because the release was end of February. 3 month = end of may! Ok, wheres the information from about end of june?

I´ve done nearly everything, which can be done in Hawaii and turned to turn off every helps, dest.-marker and HUD, to have some more fun, but without another windindicator (like ATIS or a possibility to turn just the HUD off, but still have the windindication) it makes not so much sense.... And if there´s no light at the horizon? We will see...:confused:

So, theres a lot to do - and I´m willing to give Flight a bit more time. It makes fun to use flight, but the time is an important factor...

Stephan

[RoboRay]

The "end of June" theory is based on MS's trend of releasing DLC every 30 days or so. There's one more warbird (expect yet another redundant cockpitless tail-dragger fighter) coming, so that will be the "end of May" DLC slot. Next DLC would be around the end of June, if they stick to the schedule they've been following. They certainly could surprise us, but I'm not holding my breath. They wouldn't have struck the word "Spring" from their teaser information if they were expecting to release it in May.

If Alaska is detailed to the degree of Hawaii and we see a new plane or two, of RV-6/Maule caliber (preferably a light twin and/or a pax/cargo-capable plane that's not a tail-dragger), I'll pay $20-25. A little more, even, if a desirable cockpit-equipped plane is included.

If MS begins to actually implement some of the needed-improvements to Flight outlined in the Suggestions sticky, $30+ depending on exactly what they implement. TrackIR? $40 for sure.

[J van E]

If Alaska offers the same quality and detail as Hawaii, I'll gladly pay 50 dollars for it. Alaska will offer us a lot more then Hawaii: seasons, different kind of weather and a incredible larger area to fly around in!

I think that with Alaska we will finally see what Flight is capable of. I think that we will see that Hawaii actually only is a small demo: add Alaska to the game and Hawaii is just about 5% of the sim when you take into account the size of Alaska and the variation is will offer.

The best is yet to come and we ain't seen nothin' yet. ;)

Alaska will be a milestone and perhaps one of the most important releases in flightsim history. Alaska will show us the future of Flight. If Alaska is as good as I hope it will be, Flight is here to stay for a long, long time. If Alaska fails... Flight fails. And that would mark the end of the MSFS franchise.

Alaska will be a very, very important release...

[Heimi77]

But they need to release not only scenery, but also functionality and new systems. Otherwise it will just delay the fail. It`s not only the scenery that made FSX what it is today, it`s the many different add-on`s for functionality that gave fun and long term activity. I hope Alaska will not only bring scenery and aircraft but more functionality. It`s not only the scenery we want to explore we want to explore the complexity. And the complexity we have now in Flight was explored a few weeks ago completely. Thats why the people are waiting for Alaska DLC.

I agree, it will definately be a milestone for the future of Flight.
Rise or Fail?

[Duesselwings]

Alaska will be a very, very important release...

Yes, you are absolutely right!

[EastCoastGuy]

I could take an Alaska with at least one new faster aircraft (WITH cockpit, of course), more missions, different types/varieties of missions, etc. In short, a larger incarnation of Hawaii with boatloads of airfields and at least the new evolution of "cool stuff" to go with it.

ATIS (even text based) would be my next choice, as well as more aircraft (WITH cockpits).

And yes, I think the upcoming Alaska Pack will be the "make or break" point for Flight.

[Torg Smith]

I disagree with the Alaska DLC as a make or break for Flight. Think of it as a Version 1.1. They needed to do some major rewriting to the original FS series to optimize it for multi-core processors. This is what I believe made them start over with a whole new code base. They will need time to get this done.

I believe this is why they are targeting new players as they are not used to all the features of flight. I played some of the earliest flight simulators in my youth. I’m talking wireframe graphics. I believe they will get this going. They will just need time to get the features in. The thing you have to realize about code is there is only one speed. That speed is slow.

[moodforaday]

So... given these impressive screenshots, the DLC will need aircraft capable of flying over that terrain, at those altitudes, in that kind of weather. Would someone care to speculate? Obviously, I don't mean a 747. What light, GA, single or twin, prop or turbo-prop commuter, corporate or cargo planes would be a good match? I think we could plausibly narrow down the selection.

(In other words, Alaska can't come soon enough for me. I am hooked.)

[RoboRay]

I think something like a Beech Baron would be ideal. Maybe a Duke or King Air, if they want something a little larger. But I expect the first twin will be a small one.

Honestly, any twin with tricycle gear would make me happy.

[LHookins]

According to the Wikipedia article on Alaska:

"The smallest towns and villages must rely on scheduled or chartered bush flying services using general aviation aircraft such as the Cessna Caravan, the most popular aircraft in use in the state."

The Cessna 208B Caravan was in FSX as well. Wiki reports a range of 1080 nautical miles. Single engine, 9 passenger, 14 with waiver.

Alaska has an area of 663,000 square miles. That's larger than Germany, France and Spain put together. The Aleutian islands: "More than 300 small, volcanic islands make up this chain, which stretches over 1,200 miles". It looks like we'll have a lot to explore.

Hook

[EastCoastGuy]

According to the Wikipedia article on Alaska:

"The smallest towns and villages must rely on scheduled or chartered bush flying services using general aviation aircraft such as the Cessna Caravan, the most popular aircraft in use in the state."

The Cessna 208B Caravan was in FSX as well. Wiki reports a range of 1080 nautical miles. Single engine, 9 passenger, 14 with waiver.


One with wheels, one with floats -- that'd be a perfect setup. :)

[bdo7]

So that'd be this bird right here?

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/564105.html

Now you've got me excited. If it's the "most popular aircraft in use in the state," surely MS has taken note of that when they first planned an Alaska expansion. I think this seems likely.

What a purty plane.

[Duesselwings]

So that'd be this bird right here?[...] What a purty plane.

YES! And I could imagine, it´ll be also a Beaver, C185 Float or a PiperCub...

Have a look at these wonderful pics: http://www.alaskastock.com/Alaska_Bush_Plane_Photos.asp



I would like all of these...!! But a Turboprob (Turbine Duke t.ex.) or any other twinprop would be nice also....

[darrenecm]

The problem I have with Flight is that development appears to be largely focusing on providing more eye-candy at the expense of gameplay. They need to put equal, if not more, effort into creating interesting things to do. Flying around just ogling at the visuals is not my idea of a game worth spending money on.

The massive problem with what little gameplay experiences there are in Flight at the moment stem from the fact that after doing 2 or 3 MIssions, Challenges, Aerocaches and Jobs, you have pretty much exhausted the variety your going to see. You're then in for an extremely repetitious ride as the mission system procedurally generates more random tasks of banality. I bought the Maule and the Hawaian Adventure Pack and I enjoyed Flight for a measley 2 hours before it became criminally repetitious.

It will be interesting to see what gameplay elements are brought in with Alaska and so-called new missions. I for one suspect it will be more of the same, shallow, random-number generated tasks we've all already experienced, only there'll be lots of snow around this time :)

I don't care how pretty the visuals are in a game, I expect a lot more variety and longevity in the gameplay experience department for the £35 or so that I spend on a game. The devs need to stop putting all their effort solely into eye-candy and begin making improvements to gameplay variety and quality. Surely the days of people being easily pleased and amazed at fancy graphics in a game and not noticing how banal and repetitious the procedurally-generated, random task gameplay is are gone? At least I'm hoping so. I for one am unimpressed and I'm going to shelve Flight until 5 or more DLC packs have emerged before I rethink whether this platform is worth supporting with my wallet.

Personally I think the only way for Flight to truly take off (pun shamelessly intended) is to open up DLC development to third-parties in order to bring in variety and raise the bar on greater levels of gameplay quality and interaction. The current monopolistic attitude at the moment means we'll all have to likely put up with pedestrian DLC release frequencies and the creative vision and drive of just one development team, which is a far too limited environment in my opinion.

[darrenecm]

This is certainly the price (at least in terms of credibility) that MS are paying for keeping content development in house and away from 3PDs. They are right in the firing line with nowhere to hide. I am confident they know that too :eek:

Jon
ScruffyDuck Software
Microsoft MVP

Agreed :)

[darrenecm]

According to the Wikipedia article on Alaska:

"The smallest towns and villages must rely on scheduled or chartered bush flying services using general aviation aircraft such as the Cessna Caravan, the most popular aircraft in use in the state."

The Cessna 208B Caravan was in FSX as well. Wiki reports a range of 1080 nautical miles. Single engine, 9 passenger, 14 with waiver.

Alaska has an area of 663,000 square miles. That's larger than Germany, France and Spain put together. The Aleutian islands: "More than 300 small, volcanic islands make up this chain, which stretches over 1,200 miles". It looks like we'll have a lot to explore.

Hook

It does all sound promising and exploration gameplay in games is one of my favourite aspects. The glaring problem with Flight is that everything is extremely static and lifeless, right down to even simple, easily implemented things such as water animation and coastal waves, road traffic, other aircraft in the air and on the ground at airports and a host of other environment enchancing things that should be in the game by default. It's like flying around in a world where the Zombie Apocalypse has broken out, except there aren't even any zombies, or even wildlife. Imagine playing Skyrim, except there's only you in the world. It's as glaringly silly as that in my opinion ;)

This is a huge, negative impact on the exploration gameplay element in this game :/

[Sagelber]

If Alaska is detailed to the degree of Hawaii and we see a new plane or two, of RV-6/Maule caliber (preferably a light twin and/or a pax/cargo-capable plane that's not a tail-dragger), I'll pay $20-25. A little more, even, if a desirable cockpit-equipped plane is included.

If MS begins to actually implement some of the needed-improvements to Flight outlined in the Suggestions sticky, $30+ depending on exactly what they implement. TrackIR? $40 for sure.

Again I have to agree with you.

I am anyway under the impression that Alaska will bring the usual plane with no cockpit or optionally a Beaver but this kind of plane does not differ from the Maule except she lands on water like the Icon.

The second part of your speech is correct but I am keen to believe that there will be no ATC, no Track IR support and no new stuff will be released at all.

We have to expect another plane with no cockpit instead and Alaska rumors say that will have only 2-3 major airports and a lot of dirty runways here and there in the wilderness.

[J van E]

The problem I have with Flight is that development appears to be largely focusing on providing more eye-candy at the expense of gameplay. They need to put equal, if not more, effort into creating interesting things to do. Flying around just ogling at the visuals is not my idea of a game worth spending money on.

The massive problem with what little gameplay experiences there are in Flight at the moment stem from the fact that after doing 2 or 3 MIssions, Challenges, Aerocaches and Jobs, you have pretty much exhausted the variety your going to see. You're then in for an extremely repetitious ride as the mission system procedurally generates more random tasks of banality. I bought the Maule and the Hawaian Adventure Pack and I enjoyed Flight for a measley 2 hours before it became criminally repetitious.

It will be interesting to see what gameplay elements are brought in with Alaska and so-called new missions. I for one suspect it will be more of the same, shallow, random-number generated tasks we've all already experienced, only there'll be lots of snow around this time :)

I don't care how pretty the visuals are in a game, I expect a lot more variety and longevity in the gameplay experience department for the £35 or so that I spend on a game. The devs need to stop putting all their effort solely into eye-candy and begin making improvements to gameplay variety and quality. Surely the days of people being easily pleased and amazed at fancy graphics in a game and not noticing how banal and repetitious the procedurally-generated, random task gameplay is are gone? At least I'm hoping so. I for one am unimpressed and I'm going to shelve Flight until 5 or more DLC packs have emerged before I rethink whether this platform is worth supporting with my wallet.

Personally I think the only way for Flight to truly take off (pun shamelessly intended) is to open up DLC development to third-parties in order to bring in variety and raise the bar on greater levels of gameplay quality and interaction. The current monopolistic attitude at the moment means we'll all have to likely put up with pedestrian DLC release frequencies and the creative vision and drive of just one development team, which is a far too limited environment in my opinion.

Well, er... it IS a flying game/sim... Is this your first flightsim or did you also own FSX or X-Plane? I spend 6 years in FSX simply flying from A to B... I never played a mission or whatever in FSX. In Flight I do (mainly jobs) but in the end the game is about flying... and that's it. I can imagine someone finding that utterly boring, but some people like it. ;)

Flight already offers a LOT more when it comes to game elements then FSX and other versions. Maybe you are expecting too much from it?

[RoboRay]

The massive problem with what little gameplay experiences there are in Flight at the moment stem from the fact that after doing 2 or 3 MIssions, Challenges, Aerocaches and Jobs, you have pretty much exhausted the variety your going to see. You're then in for an extremely repetitious ride as the mission system procedurally generates more random tasks of banality. I bought the Maule and the Hawaian Adventure Pack and I enjoyed Flight for a measley 2 hours before it became criminally repetitious.

Perhaps you are unaware of what real-world civil aviation involves? Flying a plane every day isn't substantially different than driving a truck for a living.

You keep harping on how Flight needs "more varied gameplay" but you never offer any examples. If you could make it more clear to us what you're actually looking for, we may be able to offer suggestions.

[moodforaday]

It does all sound promising and exploration gameplay in games is one of my favourite aspects. The glaring problem with Flight is that everything is extremely static and lifeless, right down to even simple, easily implemented things such as water animation and coastal waves, road traffic, other aircraft in the air and on the ground at airports and a host of other environment enhancing things that should be in the game by default.

Agreed in principle on the Zombie Apocalypse, but there are trade-offs to be made. Terrain model is so much richer in Flight than in FSX, and yet your fps is typically much higher in Flight. Smooth motion is number one priority for the player; and what counts most for MS is how many people can run Flight comfortably (which is the same thing, really).

Adding any kind of world animation would drive up system requirements quite steeply, which translates to fewer packages sold... and bad reviews as people complain about stuttering and slideshow animation.

Just to properly animate water would take enormous CPU or GPU resources I imagine, seeing as there is often nothing *but* water beneath you. A small lake is one thing, but in Hawaii it would almost be like a constantly animated, fluid wallpaper, stretching across the whole screen. Plus, IRL, once you are in the air I don't think you can see much movement of the water surface. Most of the "movement" you're likely to see comes from reflections of light, which is what Flight does model fairly well.

If any motion is to be added, I hope it would be air traffic. Approaching airports would be so much more challenging and fun if you had to watch out for other aircraft, or be required to follow a traffic pattern instead of coming straight in. Taxiing aircraft would likewise be welcome.

Other than that, I can live without people or cars, as they have no effect on the quality of flight simulation itself. Ships would be nice, as they would add some variety to otherwise very uneventful long hauls over water. But for now, I am really happy to get the awesome terrain quality and smoothness of Flight, compared to the mostly flat and bland but still jerky world in FSX. That's a big feat for MS, and IMO it should not be traded off for "filler" stuff that doesn't directly affect your flying.

[moodforaday]

I bought the Maule and the Hawaian Adventure Pack and I enjoyed Flight for a measley 2 hours before it became criminally repetitious.

I just have to take issue with this :-) I'm sure we all want more variety, but two hours? Just one of the Hawaii photoshoot missions takes longer than that if you don't skip to waypoints. The other photoshoot is shorter, but includes landing on a hellishly hard to see dirt strip that may take you hours of practice to get right, unless you are already a very proficient flier.

(I would say though that MS dropped the ball on the comet. Trudge all the way up to 15k feet... for this milky smudge? Next time, have me chase a UFO or something!)

Then there are all the challenges. Again, their difficulty will depend on your existing proficiency, but they are fun, and will surely take way more than 2 hours even if you complete each at gold level the first time. And if you're not all that skilled already, some of them are going to be hard.

Beyond that, I would say that Flight is as varied as you care to make it. You have the controls, so each time you fly you can make it different. Fly in bad weather at night to the Honolii airstrip... have fun.

I've clocked in over 150 hours in the air (or just in the game, not sure which stat Flight is counting) and I can't say that I'm anywhere near bored yet. My touch-downs are rarely "uneventful" :-)

I don't care how pretty the visuals are in a game, I expect a lot more variety and longevity in the gameplay experience department for the £35 or so that I spend on a game.

Which is a valid point, but I suppose it's a matter of taste or preferences. For me the exact opposite is true.

I'd heard that FSX gave you the whole world to fly in, so I bought the Deluxe edition about a week after I bought Flight. Now, it has a lot of advantages over Flight in aircraft variety and navigation, and the training lessons are of great value to me. But what good is the whole world if it's all the same, bland, flat terrain? To me, *that* is criminally boring. Pick what would IRL be a breathtaking area, somewhere in South or Central America, or over South-East Asia... and there's literally nothing to look at except even-colored flatlands and hills, and airports that all look the same. Compare the Hawaii in FSX to the Hawaii in Flight.

I go back to FSX for the structured training there, but then I run from its boredom. I admit that, now that I've probably seen all there is to see in Hawaii, I can't wait for Alaska. But Flight still wins hands down every time I choose whether to run it or FSX.

[Freelance]

I thought the whole point of these games was to simply fly/drive/ride around, admiring the scenery the whole time? It's like that in the train sims too (Railworks and Trainz) except you can also make your own railroads in those. You basically just go from A to B and simply enjoy the view.

At least that's what I've been doing in Flight for a long while (I stopped doing cargo runs) and I still can't wait for Alaska to fly around aimlessly there. Flight just has nicer views than other games of its ilk which makes it my favourite game to go joy-riding in.

[moodforaday]

I thought the whole point of these games was to simply fly/drive/ride around, admiring the scenery the whole time?

Well, there's the skill factor and flying technique as well, but indeed, this is a short version of what I was trying to say :-) "Admiring the scenery" is exactly what makes Flight so much more attractive for me than FSX.

[Sagelber]

Agreed in principle on the Zombie Apocalypse, but there are trade-offs to be made. Terrain model is so much richer in Flight than in FSX, and yet your fps is typically much higher in Flight. Smooth motion is number one priority for the player; and what counts most for MS is how many people can run Flight comfortably (which is the same thing, really).


There are 6 years in between......it is like to compare a modern GPU with a one of 6 years ago.

None the less FSX + a bunch of addons still rocks in terms of graphic. Example ? REX , ORBX, AEROSOFT, PMDG etc etc..

[darrenecm]

Well, er... it IS a flying game/sim... Is this your first flightsim or did you also own FSX or X-Plane? I spend 6 years in FSX simply flying from A to B... I never played a mission or whatever in FSX. In Flight I do (mainly jobs) but in the end the game is about flying... and that's it. I can imagine someone finding that utterly boring, but some people like it. ;)

Flight already offers a LOT more when it comes to game elements then FSX and other versions. Maybe you are expecting too much from it?

You forget that in FSX, which I do own, you have the option to dive into all the interaction and complexity of real piloting such as learning cool and interesting things about VOR, NDB and GPS navigation, traffic control, ATC, flying on instruments in dynamic weather and a host of other gameplay enhancing features that the simulation side of things provides. So you have plenty of other engrossing gameplay elements to appreciate in addition to being able to do exactly what Flight offers by just flying from A to B enjoying the scenery.

Flight is a game and has none of the complexity and detail that is on offer inside the cockpit of a simulator so surely it has to offer more in other areas? Fair enough, Flight's not meant to be a sim so I was assuming more time would be spent making the mission-based elements a richer experience. The problem is the developers copped out by designing a random system that forms the majority of gameplay, churning out highly repetative things to do that are basically derived from 2 or 3 'templates'. How many times can someone enjoy taking someone for a $100 burger before they realise this is somewhat dull?

The parts of Flight I enjoyed most were the Missions, which appeared to have some creative effort put into them courtesy of a human designer apparently scripting them to include such immersive content as voiceover actors providing a level of interactivity and logical context behind the reason for the mission. But as far as I can see there are only 12 Missions avialable and they form about 2 hours of gameplay, probably less. Am I right about 12 missions, or do more missions appear as you gain levels? I'll be more than happy to be told I'm wrong on this count.

It's these very types of missions that should form the majority of gameplay in Flight and certainly for more than 2 hours. The computer-generated, repetative Aerocache hunts, Jobs and Challenges that barely require any human design should for the secondary gameplay activities and be a minority of the gameplay. I can't think of any game that wouldn't be shot down if it only offered a few hours of genuinely interesting main missions crafted by a human designer. Flight should be no different with it's level of content quality.

[RoboRay]

LOL! You are really telling the wrong person that you need FSX rather than Flight to get into "real piloting" like radio navigation, flying on instruments and so forth!

Read through this thread...http://forum.avsim.net/topic/372241-the-big-vor-topic/

Flight does offer more than "just flying from A to B enjoying the scenery."

You are limited by your choices, as well as shortcomings of the product. Some of the limitations you seem to be encountering do not lie in the product. Others, of course, certainly do.

[darrenecm]

There are 6 years in between......it is like to compare a modern GPU with a one of 6 years ago.

None the less FSX + a bunch of addons still rocks in terms of graphic. Example ? REX , ORBX, AEROSOFT, PMDG etc etc..

Exactly. People are certainly right that out-of-the-box FSX graphics visuals and performance are inferior to those of Flight, but that's not a fair comparison because FSX was released manny years ago and before multi-core CPUs. It also suffered from having to maintain backwards compatability with previous versions so the developers couldn't rewrite the entire thing from scratch to gain better performance.

If you consider how much more powerful CPUs and graphics cards have become since time of FSx release (6 years ago I believe), surely everyone should be somewhat underhwelmed with what Flight provides on modern hardware? It should at the very least offer FAR more animation even at it's current detail levels considering the advances in CPU and GPU processing power.

And as you point out, FSX, plus REX weather, ORBX and other 10 or 5m terrain and photographic texture scenery addons provide superior visuals to Flight, even on an engine several years old and offering only rudimentary dual core CPU support via a service pack update.

[lgrochal]

And as you point out, FSX, plus REX weather, ORBX and other 10 or 5m terrain and photographic texture scenery addons provide superior visuals to Flight, even on an engine several years old and offering only rudimentary dual core CPU support via a service pack update.

And they'll give me a blazing three and a half frames per second on my laptop. While with Flight, I can actually enjoy what I do.

Spending $1000+ for hardware that would run such a hog, $40 for REX, $40 per continent for ORBX, $50 per each scenery the size of a postal stamp is hardly what I would call a bargain. And all that to get flight model (hello, that's what it's all about, remember?) that is way inferior to what Flight offers out of the box. Your measures may, certainly, vary.

[moodforaday]

Exactly. People are certainly right that out-of-the-box FSX graphics visuals and performance are inferior to those of Flight, but that's not a fair comparison because FSX was released manny years ago and before multi-core CPUs. It also suffered from having to maintain backwards compatability with previous versions so the developers couldn't rewrite the entire thing from scratch to gain better performance.

Oh, that's all true, but I'd say it's more the legacy, single-core code and programmers who chose to ignore all the developments in graphics engines and GPUs.

Six years ago isn't prehistory. BioShock was already in development back then. More relevant, Far Cry with its large expanses of detailed, lush, natural-looking terrain came out in 2004 (and you could even fly a glider in it). So I don't quite agree it couldn't be done with the software and hardware available at that time. Graphics-intensive games were already awesome six years ago, thank you.

FSX code couldn't do it, that much is true. It was so lagging behind then-current GPU technology, it's probably a good idea MS ditched that and started from scratch.

[Gibbage]

Never compair Far Cry or any FPS game to a sim engine. First, those games only need to render small area's. Even Far Cry's "expanses" are smaller then the smallest island in Hawaii and cant do more. When your working in such a small area, you can afford a lot more detail and eye candy. Also those worlds are flat, were Flight and FSX is built on a globe. Even Just Cause 2 cant deal with something the size of Alaska, let alone the rest of the world.

Second, FPS games dont need to calculate flight modeling or all the systems within an aircraft like the gauges. There is a lot more going on under the surface then people really think about.

[bdo7]

You have a point, but in Just Cause 2, you can see as far as the human eye can really see, at least in a humid part of the world. I've always been aggravated with "sims" for not trying harder in the graphics department. I know there's a lot of CPU-heavy stuff going on, but we have off-board graphics processors now, so that's no excuse. Let the GPU do the visuals, and there's no reason they shouldn't be top-notch.

Flight is still not as pretty as some recent action games, but it's a lot closer than any previous flight sim. It's a step in the right direction. (I agree with those who argue that flying is primarily a visual experience.)

[J van E]

And as you point out, FSX, plus REX weather, ORBX and other 10 or 5m terrain and photographic texture scenery addons provide superior visuals to Flight, even on an engine several years old and offering only rudimentary dual core CPU support via a service pack update.
Superior visuals to Flight? The shadows (and the light) alone beat FSX out of the water. Incomparable. Compare flying through the light haze in Flight during dawn with FSX. Flight beats FSX on all fronts. Look left and right and see how the sunlight plays on the trees. You won't see that in FSX. Okay, ORBX airport addons have sharper ground textures and REX has sharper clouds (way too sharp ihmo but that's another story) but the overall experience in Flight is way more immersive then it is in FSX.

Regarding FSX on a several years old etc. etc.: everybody knows FSX needs the newest hardware and you still have troubles running it well. You can't even enable groundshadows (that look awful and are, as I said, incomparable with Flight) and waterreflections or you end up with bad fps. You need to tweak FSX to death in order to get a performance that's a bit okay for all the money you have spend on getting it running... Flight runs great out of the (virtual) box, even on old hardware.

About the fact that you can only fly from A to B in Flight... As RoboRay already said, you must be missing something. Flight offers a lot more then you seem to know. Apart from the PMDG 737NGX I have simmed a lot more in Flight already then I ever did in FSX. I am not saying Flight is more of a sim (it still lacks a lot, I know that), but it IS a sim if you treat it as one.

Perhaps you only gave the free version a try? That would explain a lot. You need the Maule or RV-6A to do some simming and the islands from the Adventure packs are a lot nicer then the free big island.

[Duesselwings]

keep it below £10.00 ($16) and I'll pay up...any more than that and my money stays in my wallet


..then you´ll will never see Flight´s Alaska...

[aceofspades55]

FSX is not better graphically than Flight with add-ons. You'll find screenshots I made in a post on this forum comparing FSX with UT,x-graphics,orbix,after market airports and other graphical enhancements, compared to flight with sliders at 75 percent and flight still wins hands down.
That said, comparing the two is like comparing an gala and a mccintosh apple. Yes they are both apples but they both tempt you with a different "taste". FSX like its predesessors was made as a "base" program made for single player action (multiplayer in FSX was an after thought even though it had it)that a person would then add on to with after market programs from other companies. Its approach is more technical and uses that aspect to immerse you in the game.
Flight is clearly made for the multiplayer exp.. That said certain limitations are placed on flight in order attain that. Like the absence of AI anything. It uses its graphics and MP world to immerse you in the game rather than technical aspects. In FSX the fun is supposed to come from the interaction between you and the plane. In flight its you and other people.
So in the future, we are not likely to see anything AI,nor the ability to do 1000 mile flights in a 737 and then speed up time because we like to "sim", but not really "sim". In all truth the best name for flight would have been "Flying With Friends".

Now personally since flying these games(they are not sims pls lets not fool ourselves) Since Sublogics "One" in 1983 I will take my interaction with others in Flight over vatsim/fsx anyday. But that doesn't mean I will remove the 1/4 terrabite of fsx I have either. Afterall occasionally I still desire to take 45 minutes to get a flight started and flip a butt load of switches.

[houston144]

wikipeda is fine, but try netflix instead when it comes to Alaska!

look for "flying Wild: Alaska"

it is about one man, one Familey who has developed the largest air cargo delivery/Passenger airline in Alaska called "Era Alaska"

you may want to see what airframes they are using and how and omg where.

the owner still uses his original plane he had when he started the company and he is 100% hands on and active flying. At the end of season 1 (on netflix) he had some problems taking off in some deep snow because his "baby" was underpowered and lacked snow skies.

in one episode while taking off in the bush, you hear a rather loud ca-lunk, it was the left rudder pedal and toe brake connection pipe braking, which left him with no left rudder control...delima now what?...you got to watch it to understand he tried and tried, where he just changed seats to see if and it worked from the copilot seat and nursed it home with out knowing what or where it was broking.

I put a call into netflix for season 2, but you can see highlights of the show on Discovery.com

Now if Flight makes Alaska and the job board anything like that show...we will be busy and I will be happy.

[Dilbflo]

..then you´ll will never see Flight´s Alaska...

Indeed. It's a bit funny noticing that some people still have not understood which are the real characteristics of the new business model, based on DLC.
MS can maintain very low the prices for simplified planes, with only the exterior model. But not surely for a big region as Alaska, considering the cost for the much smaller Hawaii islands.
I am curious to see the reactions when the price of the new DLC will be published, I suspect some people will change their views :-)

D.

[houston144]

forgot to mention my price point guess for Alaska's DLC, $25.00 to $40.00(US)

[held]

I would like to see bigger airplanes in the Alaska DLC. Definitely this one. (http://www.alaskatravelgram.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/n889ea-full-right12.jpg)

I guess we can use the airplanes from Alaska DLC also in Hawaii, right?

[lgrochal]

I would like to see bigger airplanes in the Alaska DLC. Definitely this one. (http://www.alaskatravelgram.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/n889ea-full-right12.jpg)

How about something a bit smaller? Like this one? (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Era-Aviation/De-Havilland-Canada/0270120/L/&sid=1ca216caa82d787e643cad50e37dc4dd) Wouldn't limit you to the major airports.

I guess we can use the airplanes from Alaska DLC also in Hawaii, right?

I'd expect so. I mean - there is no logical reason for it to be otherwise. And the RV already has a heated pitot - not something you install unless you actually expect to fly in bad and cold weather.

[held]

Other suggestions:
1. Ski plane (http://blog.bluheronphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/DSC_5524.jpg)
2. Water taxi (http://media.lonelyplanet.com/lpi/22279/22279-1/681x454.jpg)
3. Tundra tires (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3221/4555420862_169a201fe5.jpg)
4. Cessna 421C (http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/9/5/2/1912259.jpg)

[EastCoastGuy]

Other suggestions:
1. Ski plane (http://blog.bluheronphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/DSC_5524.jpg)
2. Water taxi (http://media.lonelyplanet.com/lpi/22279/22279-1/681x454.jpg)
3. Tundra tires (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3221/4555420862_169a201fe5.jpg)
4. Cessna 421C (http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/9/5/2/1912259.jpg)

I agree to all of these. In fact, the Maule has water/ski/tundra versions -- adding those to the existing version would be nice.

And definitely a tricycle twin.

[Duesselwings]

Indeed.[...] not surely for a big region as Alaska, considering the cost for the much smaller Hawaii islands.
I am curious to see the reactions when the price of the new DLC will be published, I suspect some people will change their views :-)

D.

Indeed... I just think about Australia from ORBX... Nobody was asthonished, when it came out with a price of 90,-€. It was sold very good - as all products of ORBX. And there is no additional Plane included. And to pimp Australia further on with all the additional (very nice) Airports costs "a bit" more than that.

The same to PNW (ORBX)... I have t.ex. all the Airports, you can purchase for PNW... Its a lot, but because the concept is OK, I never doubt to invest that money.

Hope, with Flight it goes in the same direction one day.

[Duesselwings]

In fact, the Maule has water/ski/tundra versions -- adding those to the existing version would be nice.

Yes, would be really nice! :)

[RoboRay]

How about something a bit smaller? Like this one? (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Era-Aviation/De-Havilland-Canada/0270120/L/&sid=1ca216caa82d787e643cad50e37dc4dd) Wouldn't limit you to the major airports.



I'd expect so. I mean - there is no logical reason for it to be otherwise. And the RV already has a heated pitot - not something you install unless you actually expect to fly in bad and cold weather.

Keep in mind that you can expect to fly in cold weather every time you go up high enough. There's plenty of potentially icing conditions to encounter above Hawaii, and at altitudes we can reach on Jobs and Missions.

[RoboRay]

I agree to all of these. In fact, the Maule has water/ski/tundra versions -- adding those to the existing version would be nice.

I'm hoping that the reason we currently see only two liveries for the Maule is that Alaska will introduce float, ski, and tundra-tire variants as additional liveries we can earn.

[lgrochal]

Keep in mind that you can expect to fly in cold weather every time you go up high enough. There's plenty of potentially icing conditions to encounter above Hawaii, and at altitudes we can reach on Jobs and Missions.

Yes, that's true. But then, you have a 'may' vs. 'will' issue i.e. you may encounter high humidity while high enough over Hawaii. If you want and look for it long enough. But most of the time, that won't be an issue in an experimental like Van's. And above all it won't compromise your - let's call it so - mission capability. Not even in a Maule, really, even though it may prove a nuisance there. In Alaska, though, you wouldn't dare to take off without a heated pitot most of the time.

Edit: forgot to make my point: you won't normally install a heated pitot in an experimental plane that's going to fly exclusively in Hawaii or Florida, will you? Anyways, that's apparently what most of the Velocity owners (don't) do (well, it's possible that Van's owners have more money to spend :)

[Torg Smith]

This is the one I would like to see.

De Havilland DHC-7 :D
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/7/6/4/0707467.jpg

[lgrochal]

This is the one I would like to see.

De Havilland DHC-7 :D
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/7/6/4/0707467.jpg

Oh, yes - STOL enough, and big enough. But consider the operating costs :)

[Dilbflo]

Indeed... I just think about Australia from ORBX... Nobody was asthonished, when it came out with a price of 90,-€. It was sold very good - as all products of ORBX. And there is no additional Plane included....

Hope, with Flight it goes in the same direction one day.

I suspect that your hope will not be satisfied.
The two business models, FSX and Flight are too different, as their targets.
When you talk, correctly, of ORBX that "sold well" expensive sceneries, you are still talking of relatively small numbers, compared with the millions desired by Howard.

Furthermore, the DLC model usually works with much smaller prices, because the marketing idea is that people can more easily spend many times for cheap items (as the famous hats of some FPS and many other examples here on Steam), than accept high prices for single contents (as seen also in this thread).

I guess that the Alaska DLC will cost no more than 40 €, and also at that price many users will consider it too expensive.

D.

[RoboRay]

you won't normally install a heated pitot in an experimental plane that's going to fly exclusively in Hawaii or Florida, will you?

Not in Florida, but we were discussing Hawaii. Hawaii has ground elevations slightly higher than you find in Florida. More snow, too.

And yes, I would use (and have needed) pitot heat in tropical locales such as Hawaii, Okinawa and Diego Garcia. I would certainly consider installing it in an aircraft I operated regularly around the Big Island or Maui.

[lgrochal]

Uh. I had no idea the necessity of pitot heat had to do with ground elevations - always thought it was just ambient temperatures, humidity and whether or not the plane was IFR certified. Thanks for info.

[LHookins]

Considering the temperature drops about 2 degrees C per thousand feet of altitude, and if the ground elevation is higher, you're likely going to be flying at higher altitudes at some point. That means lower ambient temperatures outside the plane.

Hook

[lgrochal]

Considering the temperature drops about 2 degrees C per thousand feet of altitude, and if the ground elevation is higher, you're likely going to be flying at higher altitudes at some point. That means lower ambient temperatures outside the plane.

Sure, but that's true for both Florida and Hawaii, isn't it?

What I didn't know was that - as RoboRay said - when you're flying over the mountain (which indeed seem to see sub-freezing temperatures and snow for a couple of days a year at elevations above 9000ft), it's somehow different to the situation when you're flying over very similar sub-tropical lowlands.

[RoboRay]

Uh. I had no idea the necessity of pitot heat had to do with ground elevations - always thought it was just ambient temperatures, humidity and whether or not the plane was IFR certified. Thanks for info.

The ground elevation matters if you are flying above it, as it forces you up to higher, colder altitudes.. It may be sunny and 75F in Hilo and in Kona, but potentially icing conditions if you fly a direct path from one to the other, over the intervening mountains.

Probably not very often, but it is a concern.

I've camped up on the Big Island volcanos, and it can get quite cold.

[held]

I would like to fly an airplane from Alaska Airlines (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdZz3hWEAa0) in the DLC :)

[Mickel617]

Make it an MD-8something, slap a Hawaiian livery on it and we'll be able to use it in Hawaii too!

[The Pandanator2]

I was really expecting to be able to regularly add content to Flight. However, it appears that there will be nothing to buy from the initial launch in February until the end of June. Four months with no new content was not at all what I expected. :rolleyes:

Yes, it is a disappointment:( We've had warbirds without cockpits for more then a month now. But we can be hopeful in the fact that Alaska will probably be released this month. Now if only we can get some planes with cockpits...

[renoplane]

I'm one of those people who don't like doing boring point A to point B cargo runs or missions. I like just exploring , and when I find a cool place I try to land. I'm sure there will be plenty exploring to do in Alaska, and that's why I stopped playing FSX. I would like an airliner or commercial twin, but I would love an amphibian like the grumman goose to fly in.

[Duesselwings]

I could wait a bit for a complete and "Good Thing" - BUT for me, the missing conversation is the worst thing at all...! It would be really easy to make us all satisfied and patient with some more information about the things, which are planned. Ok, there have been some stupid spammer on the homepage, but that MS Flight is so deeply insulted, that they stop every possibility to give a feedback and comments and that they don´t answer to questions - that is what I really don´t like.

Here is a part of an interview with PC-Games and J.Howard concerning the incoming scenery-DLCs:
http://www.pcgames.de/Microsoft-Flight-PC-235596/News/Microsoft-Flight-Die-coole-Konkurrenz-und-viel-Geld-fuer-kleine-Pakete-Exklusiv-Interview-zum-Free-2-Play-Simulator-870345/

[...]Und ganz wichtig für uns ist, dass du uns diesbezüglich Feedback gibst. Wir werden also besonders gut auf unsere Community hören, um zu verstehen, was diese will. .Wenn also die Mehrheit tatsächlich – und gegen meine Überzeugung – sagen sollte ‚Hey, wir wollen über den Südpol fliegen', dann werden wir uns natürlich darauf konzentrieren, das in einem DLC zu verwirklichen."[...]

Translation (I hope, its good enough... ;-)):
"[...]very important for us is, that you give us feedback regarding to this. We will listen very good to our community, to understand, what the community want. If the majority would really - and against to my conviction - say, "Hey, we want to fly around the southpole", then we certainly would concentrate to realize that in a following DLC." [...]

OK! Now it´s really exciting to see, what they do with all the good ideas, which they received from the feedback of their community!

I´m looking forward to Alaska, but have some expectations, which goes much further than just new scenery and a new plane. Lets hope we get much fun with it and that it takes a long time to discover everything with new cockpit-planes, functions, missions, weatherthemes, supported hardware,a.s.o - because thats what the majority want!