I downloaded the free version of Microsoft Flight followed by the Hawaii Package and the Maule M-7-260C Orion. I have since compared flying the Maule Orion in FSX to flying it in MF over and around Oahu. Apparently Microsoft sees MF as an improvement over FSX as they put it "developed from the ground up". I have a hard time believing this after comparing numerous MF and FSX screens over different parts of the Island.

The following are several screens that compare MF with FSX with the Maule approaching Diamondhead and flying over Hawaii International. You be the judge whether MF shows any improvement over FSX.

025 FSX - Diamondhead
http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1330859820.jpg

032 MF - Diamondhead
http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1330867196.jpg

015 FSX - Hawaii International
http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1330875993.jpg

006 MF - Hawaii International
http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1330902516.jpg

I don't use fsx anymore, so I really don't know... but in the interest of fairness, that's default fsx scenery?

Well I don't know... :-?..!

When I fly around the Hawaiian Islands in my FS 2004 in my little Cessna 150, with my various installed scenery mesh, textures, etc, I see the Islands as being extremely mountainous, and undulating, and exciting to fly around, constantly weaving around the mountains, with a surprise around every corner....
...but in my new copy of Flight they are nowhere as hilly, or as exciting!
In fact in most places, they are almost flat...(and a bit boring!)!
The two Flight Sims just don't compare, regarding realistic Terrain detail!

I would much rather explore ALL the islands in my FS 2004... :-*...!
Flight is OK just for a change of flight; but for fun, and realism, my FSX, and especially my FS 2004, beat it for sure!

Paul.... :)...!

FS 2004:
FS Global SE.
Ultimate Terrain USA & Canada.
Selected area scenery mesh.
Real Environment Extreme.
Ground Environment Pro.
VOZ 1.8
...and Google Maps for comparison!

Groundbound1 wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 3:30pm:

I don't use fsx anymore, so I really don't now... but in the interest of fairness, that's default fsx scenery?

It isn't and I'm wondering what scenery that is aswell. :-?

...one thing that I find surprising, is that Flight runs extremely smoothly with my lowly? P4 dual core, 2.8 GHz processor, 2GB system memory, and GE-Force 9500GT 1-GB Graphics card at maximum graphical settings, (even though it recommends that I run it at medium to low settings, with my existing hardware!).
So there must be some difference in the internal graphics programming/coding between Flight and FSX...(which runs extremely poorly on my hardware!).
Maybe the new Flight programming/coding is more efficient than the original Ace's FSX?

Paul... ;)...!

Fozzer wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 4:13pm:

...one thing that I find surprising, is that Flight runs extremely smoothly with my lowly? P4 dual core, 2.8 GHz processor, 2GB system memory, and GE-Force 9500GT 1-GB Graphics card at maximum graphical settings, (even though it recommends that I run it at medium to low settings, with my existing hardware!). So there must be some difference in the internal graphics programming/coding between Flight and FSX...(which runs extremely poorly on my hardware!). Maybe the new Flight programming/coding is more efficient than the original Ace's FSX? Paul... ;)...!

Paul,

Perhaps it's due to the lack of other features in Flight at this point (AI, ATC, dynamic weather, global scenery) that allows it to run so smoothly, where as with FSX those built in features draw resources from the CPU and GPU.

Honestly, I don't know why; I don't think I can even touch Flight. My computer is older than yours is!

(Make the 2.8 a 3.0, and remove one core... that's my box!)

Alan  :o

I wonder, as we had so many problems running Ace's FSX programming on our hardware at the time, maybe the latest programmers have had a re-look at the program code again, and speeded and smoothed things up somewhat, in their edition of Flight?
We have often thought  that maybe Aces rushed the FSX program out a bit too quickly, when a little delay, and re-think regarding the coding, may have improved things somewhat and caused less frustration and heartache?
Perhaps Flight programmers have picked up on it, and improved the programming?
It would be nice if that were the case.. :)...!

Paul... :)...!

Flight Ace wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 3:06pm:

I downloaded the free version of Microsoft Flight followed by the Hawaii Package and the Maule M-7-260C Orion. I have since compared flying the Maule Orion in FSX to flying it in MF over and around Oahu. Apparently Microsoft sees MF as an improvement over FSX as they put it "developed from the ground up". I have a hard time believing this after comparing numerous MF and FSX screens over different parts of the Island. The following are several screens that compare MF with FSX with the Maule approaching Diamondhead and flying over Hawaii International. You be the judge whether MF shows any improvement over FSX. 025 FSX - Diamondhead http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1330859820.jpg 032 MF - Diamondhead http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1330867196.jpg 015 FSX - Hawaii International http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1330875993.jpg 006 MF - Hawaii International http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1330902516.jpg

First off, Flight is visually far improved over FSX. I know this because all during development, I did the comparison screenshots each month with default FSX, max settings, and matching weather.

Second, there is a problem with your screenshots. You are using add-ons in FSX and different weather settings. (specifically in the final shot.) Please tell me how in the world this is supposed to show the true improvement? Comparing default to default is a comparison...comparing add-ons to default is not.

What I would like to see are pure default comparisons between FSX and Flight. Obviously, if you have Flight DLC content, that is alright to use, as it only adds locations and planes. But adding stuff to FSX that changes the way the sim actually looks isn't a good comparison.

Yeah, I didn't think that was default FSX, so you really can't compare the two. On the other hand though, atleast we can improve, and add to FSX, if we were so inclined... :-/

How can I make a flight from My country to Hawaii , Brandon? where are the jets ? what kind of improvements? , Graphics ? I think the Guys that work in that software did not realize what software they would be compare too ,they did never saw FSX

Its Better the Flight Ace's FSX Photos and valid  from the Flight because one simple reason , FLIGHT WILL NEVER ACCEPT PHOTO TERRAINS we will be at the will of what M$ wants no third party.. the deal is FSX still the best and we can add photos terrains ,airports airplanes EVEN starships

Its Literally like compare a House it the whole New York City ,Its INSANE TO DEAR TO SAY FLIGHT ITS BETTER THAN FSX 

Its should be rude and unpolite to the world 's intelligence  to even dear to compare FSX which is a complete World Simulator with a game of 1 island With Propellers aircraft I consider Offensive to my intelligence

this whole thing of this software came to replace M$ previews version Do they really belive their own bull $**s??


.how long will it last the watter improvements? the terrain improvements? do you think Flight will last ,I will give 6 month before every ones gets bored and even delete it from their computers

I still enjoy FSX and not because of the airplanes , its because FSX renew it self, Its a serious Simulator for grown ups persons , for people that wants and dream to built Prototypes as XPAND does, or me making my little models around Or PMDG making almost realistic commercial aircraft  ,this is something Flight will never have .. (if it survive the next 6 months)

Important ,I'm not saying that Flight Its a bad game, But is not a Simulator ,its something else ,It has a nice textures ,landscapes as Ive seen i your pics, what really impressme that do you still compare FSX with the Flight, Do u think the Moon and the Sun can be compared ?

also they should be in every Forum paying attention because from what I see I Google error code 8007000D and its very common right now among many many users and there is no answer to this terrible issue that thousands myself included are having ,I just finished again for the 4th time still that issue ,the same computer that had Beta Flight with everything exactly they put right in here, 
No a single feedback in many forums about this ,or fix

this is the Error Log

Logging Started: 03/03/2012 19:57:37
EXE: C:\Archivos de programa\Microsoft Games for Windows - LIVE\Client\GFWLClient.exe (3.5.50.0)
DLL: C:\WINDOWS\system32\xliveinstall.dll (3.2.6.0)
Source Folder: C:\Archivos de programa\Microsoft Games for Windows - LIVE\Client
OS v5.1 Service Pack 3 (build 2600) 32 bit
OS Product Type: 0x00000000
User Default LCID: 0x0409
-------------------------------
(19:57:37) Installing C:\Documents and Settings\Alex\Configuración local\Datos de programa\Microsoft\GFWLive\Downloads\EA2CCA3391C0088731FE638820AAE1E665143B3E_76E46592-2EAE-44D5-B121-EB428F08C5F8_1.cab to C:\Archivos de programa.  Flags: 0x00000007
(19:57:38) Stage 0: Start
(19:57:38) Stage 0: Finished
(19:57:38) Scanned C:\Documents and Settings\Alex\Configuración local\Datos de programa\Microsoft\GFWLive\Downloads\EA2CCA3391C0088731FE638820AAE1E665143B3E_76E46592-2EAE-44D5-B121-EB428F08C5F8_1.cab. Size: 1532133145. Count 0 [Code:0x00000001]
(19:57:38) Extracted manifest from C:\Documents and Settings\Alex\Configuración local\Datos de programa\Microsoft\GFWLive\Downloads\EA2CCA3391C0088731FE638820AAE1E665143B3E_76E46592-2EAE-44D5-B121-EB428F08C5F8_1.cab to C:\DOCUME~1\Alex\CONFIG~1\Temp\extAE5D.tmp\Content [Code:0x00000000]
(19:57:38) Parsed C:\DOCUME~1\Alex\CONFIG~1\Temp\extAE5D.tmp\Content\ChainInstall.xml from C:\DOCUME~1\Alex\CONFIG~1\Temp\extAE5D.tmp\Content [Code:0x00000000]
(19:57:38) Extracted EULAs [Code:0x8007000d]
(19:57:38) Stage 1: Error. Reason:Install [Code:0x8007000d] Msg:
(19:57:38) Stage 1: Error. Reason:Generic 1 [Code:0x8007000d] Msg:
(19:57:38) InstallProduct exit [Code:0x8007000d]
(19:57:45) Installing C:\Documents and Settings\Alex\Configuración local\Datos de programa\Microsoft\GFWLive\Downloads\EA2CCA3391C0088731FE638820AAE1E665143B3E_76E46592-2EAE-44D5-B121-EB428F08C5F8_1.cab to C:\Archivos de programa.  Flags: 0x00000007
(19:57:45) Stage 0: Start
(19:57:45) Stage 0: Finished
(19:57:45) Scanned C:\Documents and Settings\Alex\Configuración local\Datos de programa\Microsoft\GFWLive\Downloads\EA2CCA3391C0088731FE638820AAE1E665143B3E_76E46592-2EAE-44D5-B121-EB428F08C5F8_1.cab. Size: 1532133145. Count 0 [Code:0x00000001]
(19:57:45) Extracted manifest from C:\Documents and Settings\Alex\Configuración local\Datos de programa\Microsoft\GFWLive\Downloads\EA2CCA3391C0088731FE638820AAE1E665143B3E_76E46592-2EAE-44D5-B121-EB428F08C5F8_1.cab to C:\DOCUME~1\Alex\CONFIG~1\Temp\extCD3F.tmp\Content [Code:0x00000000]
(19:57:45) Parsed C:\DOCUME~1\Alex\CONFIG~1\Temp\extCD3F.tmp\Content\ChainInstall.xml from C:\DOCUME~1\Alex\CONFIG~1\Temp\extCD3F.tmp\Content [Code:0x00000000]
(19:57:46) Extracted EULAs [Code:0x8007000d]
(19:57:46) Stage 1: Error. Reason:Install [Code:0x8007000d] Msg:
(19:57:46) Stage 1: Error. Reason:Generic 1 [Code:0x8007000d] Msg:
(19:57:46) InstallProduct exit this guy its broke ,there's nothing we can swezze from him abort abort now [Code:0x8007000d]

;D ok I add the red one

Alex I agree with you completely. ;)

Brandon, while comparing default to default would be better this shows one of the many flaws of Flight. FSX is open to third-party development while Flight isn't.

Flight isn't a Flight Simulator.

If it was it should support all of the different types of aircraft which it doesn't.

Also a Flight Sim should have the whole world which Flight doesn't.

So if you think Flight is better that FSX then you’re either in denial or mad.

Hit the nail on the head Alex. :)  Also, the scenery is MegaSceneryX Hawaii.


ViperPilot wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 5:16pm:

Perhaps it's due to the lack of other features in Flight at this point (AI, ATC, dynamic weather, global scenery) that allows it to run so smoothly, where as with FSX those built in features draw resources from the CPU and GPU.

Mmmm, I think your right.

LOL : the software can find himself

http://www.petenetlive.com/KB/Article/0000359.htm

http://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/genuinewindows7/thread/8e047dc1-ddfc-47a6-a40a-e60a84817d92

;D ;D ;D

BrandonF wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:25pm:

Flight Ace wrote on Mar 3rd, 2012 at 3:06pm: I downloaded the free version of Microsoft Flight followed by the Hawaii Package and the Maule M-7-260C Orion. I have since compared flying the Maule Orion in FSX to flying it in MF over and around Oahu. Apparently Microsoft sees MF as an improvement over FSX as they put it "developed from the ground up". I have a hard time believing this after comparing numerous MF and FSX screens over different parts of the Island. The following are several screens that compare MF with FSX with the Maule approaching Diamondhead and flying over Hawaii International. You be the judge whether MF shows any improvement over FSX. 025 FSX - Diamondhead http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1330859820.jpg 032 MF - Diamondhead http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1330867196.jpg 015 FSX - Hawaii International http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1330875993.jpg 006 MF - Hawaii International http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1330902516.jpg First off, Flight is visually far improved over FSX. I know this because all during development, I did the comparison screenshots each month with default FSX, max settings, and matching weather. Second, there is a problem with your screenshots. You are using add-ons in FSX and different weather settings. (specifically in the final shot.) Please tell me how in the world this is supposed to show the true improvement? Comparing default to default is a comparison...comparing add-ons to default is not. What I would like to see are pure default comparisons between FSX and Flight. Obviously, if you have Flight DLC content, that is alright to use, as it only adds locations and planes. But adding stuff to FSX that changes the way the sim actually looks isn't a good comparison.

BrandonF,

I enjoy flying the new Microsoft Flight especially nap-of-the-earth.. The scenery is visually improved over the FSX default scenery developed over five years ago. I would expect nothing less than something developed today to be better than its five year old predecessor.

Remember FSX is the tenth version of Microsoft's popular line of Flight Simulators. It was released on October 17, 2006. As a part of that release, Microsoft opened their FSX code allowing outside Software Contractors to develop and sell add-on improvements. These improvements include GEX, UTX, REX, Photo-real Scenery and many other complimentary packages including Aircraft. As a result FSX has changed considerably from its release date. Today it is a very robust, dynamic, and realistic Flight Simulator when applying the improvements developed over the years.

You asked me to please tell you, and I quote, "how in the world this is supposed to show the true improvement?" When you compare FM to FSX, it is both FM and FSX this date (Today) not FM today with FSX over five years ago.

The screens I posted compare FSX today with Microsoft Flight today.

Regards,

Flight Ace

Before I start:

Brandon stated "What I would like to see are pure default comparisons between FSX and Flight. Obviously, if you have Flight DLC content, that is alright to use, as it only adds locations and planes. But adding stuff to FSX that changes the way the sim actually looks isn't a good comparison. "

Seriously, I respect you defending what you like BUT we must compare to what we have NOW and what we can replace it WITH to make an informed decision.

You expecting us to compare a 2006 default to a current to make that choice, when hell we don't even have access to international areas is just insane  >:(

I believe most choose FSX above MS Flight because no MS Flight user can fly in & take a realistic looking screenshot like most FSX users can in FSX.

Therefore one cannot compare FSX with MS Flight.

The one is a game and the other a pure bred & well expanded simulator.

However,

It just shows that Flight, besides that it is a game, cannot offer the visual and realistic experience FSX can offer and NEVER will due to MS intent to avoid 3rd party development.

As for performance, OF COURSE flight will perform all nice and wacky. It has NO AI, NO ATC and it is one tiny bubble you fly in.

Very little in that bubble compared to FSX.

Add all that to Flight and we talk again about performance. Looks like MS's intent to ellude "gamers" that flight is smoother then FSX worked well.

Please do not get me wrong, I would have used flight if it was a simulator and PLEASE do not tell me it is.

NO AI.
NO wider selection of AC.
NO choice of "where to fly"

Quite frankly, products like P3D will likely become the future follow up to FSX.

P.S: Please make it a rule that screenshots of MS Flight may only be posted where we post pictures of OTHER non simulator screenshot posts eg. the likes of COD etc.  ::)

B737-800 climbing out over the Hawaii islands.
http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1330881404.jpg

Quote:

P.S: Please make it a rule that screenshots of MS Flight may only be posted where we post pictures of OTHER non simulator screenshot posts eg. the likes of COD etc. ::)

Flying Mouse I completely agree with you.

But I don't think that people would be so let down about Flight if they hadn’t made the assumption that Flight would be a Simulator.

"Flight" is a simulator full stop.

andy190 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:24am:

But I don't think that people would be so let down about Flight if they hadn’t made the assumption that Flight would be a Simulator.

That's the most intelligent statement I've seen on this subject. It was obvious to me right from the start. The fact is that Flight was never intended as an extension to the MSFS series. That finished when the Microsoft ESP platform was licensed to Lockheed Martin. One provision of the licence is that Lockheed is specifically excluded from the Entertainment market.

Hagar wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 4:05am:

andy190 wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 2:24am: But I don't think that people would be so let down about Flight if they hadn’t made the assumption that Flight would be a Simulator. That's the most intelligent statement I've seen on this subject. It was obvious to me right from the start. The fact is that Flight was never intended as an extension to the MSFS series. That finished when the Microsoft ESP platform was licensed to Lockheed Martin. One provision of the licence is that Lockheed is specifically excluded from the Entertainment market.

I would have to disagree to a point.  When MS say, "the sky is the limit, now everyone can enjoy the fun, freedom and adventure of flight. Feel the power at your finger tips and take to the skies" (their words not mine),then it sounds like a simulator to me  :-/

Matt

expat wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 5:29am:

I would have to disagree to a point.  When MS say, "the sky is the limit, now everyone can enjoy the fun, freedom and adventure of flight. Feel the power at your finger tips and take to the skies" (their words not mine),then it sounds like a simulator to me  :-/ Matt

To me that looks like a slogan dreamed up by an advertising agency.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by simulator. From what I've seen & read about it so far it's a game. Nothing wrong with that but I can't see it appealing to MSFS enthusiasts who expected an improvement on FSX. To be fair MS never promoted it as FSXI. Unfortunately the minimal information posted on the Flight website was deliberately vague & people could read into it what they liked.

Hagar wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 6:19am:

expat wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 5:29am: I would have to disagree to a point.  When MS say, "the sky is the limit, now everyone can enjoy the fun, freedom and adventure of flight. Feel the power at your finger tips and take to the skies" (their words not mine),then it sounds like a simulator to me  :-/ Matt Unfortunately the minimal information posted on the Flight website was deliberately vague & people could read into it what they liked.

That sums it up. We should have know better right from the start ::)

Matt

It is a fact, that it is completely "different" from any of the MS Flight Simulators that we have used before.
"Flight" seem to be aimed at a market of "aircraft game" newcomers, and to that end it may prove to be very successful.

Maybe, after a short while, they could become even more interested in the experience, and purchase the proper MS Flight Simulators for a more genuine flight simulator!

Perhaps, that way, we may accumulate even more flying enthusiasts, over time!

Paul....busy simulating... 8-)...!

expat wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 6:45am:

Hagar wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 6:19am: Unfortunately the minimal information posted on the Flight website was deliberately vague & people could read into it what they liked. That sums it up. We should have know better right from the start ::) Matt

It gives me no satisfaction to say "I told you so!"


JBaymore wrote on Oct 8^th, 2011 at 4:49pm:

Hagar wrote on Oct 8th, 2011 at 3:18pm: Boikat wrote on Oct 8th, 2011 at 2:48pm: Hagar wrote on Oct 8th, 2011 at 1:38pm: Boikat wrote on Oct 8th, 2011 at 11:32am: What Capt. P said is something i've also said before:  How is MS going to stop an independant designer from developing their own Flight addons and distributing them? No matter what they would try (if they were to try to prevent "unauthorized addons") someone would figure out a workaround within a matter of minutes or hours, anyway. You're forgetting one little thing. Freeware developers rely on tools included with the appropriate SDK to produce addons for FS9 & FSX. Now, supposing the Flight SDK is restricted to approved developers who pay for the privilege, only they will be able to use it. Then there is still FSX, FS9... Besides, I really don't think MS marketing is so stupid that they would intentionally shut out one of the main reason people still buy FSX, or FS9, or even older versions. Time will tell. We'll see who's right when it's released. ;) In the meantime, it's all pure supposition based on the deliberately vague comments posted on the MS Flight website. For example: Q: How does Games for Windows – LIVE factor in? A: Games for Windows – LIVE introduces a new level of connectivity to virtual flight, enhancing both the social and game play experiences of the title. Content is updated virtually. You can fly solo or join an entire global flight community online. You can easily connect with and facilitate flight experiences with your friends. The addition of Games for Windows - LIVE creates an ubiquitous virtual world of flight that offers easy and engaging access to the magic of flight for all. You can read into that whatever you like. Games for Windows® Marketplace Yup Hagar, that little quote you gave is worthy of the best polititian.  Promise everyone whatever THEY want to read into the comments... but leave "plausible deniability" for use later. best, ...............john

Do you know what...

..every time I delve deeper into "Flight" I am constantly bombarded with the words; "X-Box"..and "Windows Live for Games"...
I haven't got an "X-Box", and "Windows Live for Games" has not yet been conceived by me, and I doubt if they ever will be, so why cant I just use a simple Windows XP/7 computer and software, to play all my existing Games/Simulators, etc?.
To me, the X-Box, and a Personal Computers, are two entirely different animals, involving entirely different societies!
Chocolate's "FS Host" Server enabled us to communicate with each other in our flight sims, without recourse to Microsoft's X-Box involvement!
It looks as though Microsoft have deliberately excluded any "Flight" coding to enable 3rd-party Servers to enable on-line Multiplayer activity using Windows PC's... :'(...!

Paul... :(...!

Fozzer wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:59am:

Do you know what... ..every time I delve deeper into "Flight" I am constantly bombarded with the words; "X-Box"..and "Windows Live for Games"... I haven't got an "X-Box", and "Windows Live for Games" has not yet been conceived by me, and I doubt if they ever will be, so why cant I just use a simple Windows XP/7 computer and software, to play all my existing Games/Simulators, etc?. To me, the X-Box, and a Personal Computers, are two entirely different animals, involving entirely different societies! Chocolate's "FS Host" Server enabled us to communicate with each other in our flight sims, without recourse to Microsoft's X-Box involvement! It looks as though Microsoft have deliberately excluded any "Flight" coding to enable 3rd-party Servers to enable on-line Multiplayer activity using Windows PC's... :'(...! Paul... :(...!

Just thank goodness we still have good ol' FSX, and even FS9..

The recycle bin is always hungry for stupid "apps", or Gamulations like Flight..

But from what I have heard, I wouldn't even call flight a "gamulation." its just pure game, with no simulation properties at all...

It would be like calling Battlefield 3 a military simulator... Sure it has realistic weapon models, and it even takes bullet drop into account..  But just because of that (or in Flights case, a realistic flight model) it does not make it a simulator.

I can't beleive there are people STILL arguing that Flight is a simulator!!!

Even FSX and FS9 are just scratching the surface of simulation..

and for a simulator, Flight is a step backwards...

But as someone else has suggested, Flight might bring more people to FSX. Which all in all, that one thing kinda makes it nice... Most people that use FSX, or fs9 won't want to make Flight their primary Game/sim..

But people just getting started with the free "Flight" might want to expand to a whole world of FSX or FS9. Which if anything, will hopefully increase 3rd party designers for the true Flight Simulator series.

You had me at "Gamulations"!  ;D ;D ;D

Love it!  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Flying Mouse wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:15am:

Before I start: Brandon stated "What I would like to see are pure default comparisons between FSX and Flight. Obviously, if you have Flight DLC content, that is alright to use, as it only adds locations and planes. But adding stuff to FSX that changes the way the sim actually looks isn't a good comparison. " Seriously, I respect you defending what you like BUT we must compare to what we have NOW and what we can replace it WITH to make an informed decision. You expecting us to compare a 2006 default to a current to make that choice, when hell we don't even have access to international areas is just insane  >:( I believe most choose FSX above MS Flight because no MS Flight user can fly in & take a realistic looking screenshot like most FSX users can in FSX. Therefore one cannot compare FSX with MS Flight. The one is a game and the other a pure bred & well expanded simulator. However, It just shows that Flight, besides that it is a game, cannot offer the visual and realistic experience FSX can offer and NEVER will due to MS intent to avoid 3rd party development. As for performance, OF COURSE flight will perform all nice and wacky. It has NO AI, NO ATC and it is one tiny bubble you fly in. Very little in that bubble compared to FSX. Add all that to Flight and we talk again about performance. Looks like MS's intent to ellude "gamers" that flight is smoother then FSX worked well. Please do not get me wrong, I would have used flight if it was a simulator and PLEASE do not tell me it is. NO AI. NO wider selection of AC. NO choice of "where to fly" Quite frankly, products like P3D will likely become the future follow up to FSX. P.S: Please make it a rule that screenshots of MS Flight may only be posted where we post pictures of OTHER non simulator screenshot posts eg. the likes of COD etc.  ::) B737-800 climbing out over the Hawaii islands. http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1330881404.jpg

Poor Brandon  :-/ , but the way you argue with      Strategic Retreat ,all these months, No buddy dears to say or post anything bad about MSFT because in this part of the forum feeling uncomfortable because you could show up and argue to Defend MSFT  without even know it, I even restrain myself to talk because of you and only Strategic was brave enough to tell you his opinion an at the same time the argue became into fights between you and him  ,the way you still hold and idea,to defend  when almost every one are disappointed its whats makes me and others to tell you what I say in the preview page

  I'm not trying to convince you , you can defend to death anything you want ,what you can't do its dominate the forums like you did and act like a policeman for M$

F35LightningII wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 4:03am:

"Flight" is a simulator full stop.

Truth? Or Blind faith?

I'm inclined to go with the latter.

Now Brandon, you can't be a MS policeman any more. Get yourself out of the poo before you lose too much face.

I don't think any seasoned flight simmer would think Flight was a Sim so why your defending it I don't know.

And before you say, I'm a newbie so I don't know anything, I've been flight simming for 6 years & I'm working on my first aircraft for FSX.

andy190 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 4:14pm:

F35LightningII wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 4:03am: "Flight" is a simulator full stop. Truth? Or Blind faith? I'm inclined to go with the latter. Now Brandon, you can't be a MS policeman any more. Get yourself out of the poo before you lose too much face. I don't think any seasoned flight simmer would think Flight was a Sim so why your defending it I don't know. And before you say, I'm a newbie so I don't know anything, I've been flight simming for 6 years & I'm working on my first aircraft for FSX.

It isn't a sim,it isn't a game,its inbetween.

Its a game that wants to be a sim.

jetprop wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 4:49pm:

It isn't a sim, it isn't a game, its in between. Its a game that wants to be a sim.

I'm a Simpson that wants to be a Homer!... ::)...!

Paul... ;D... ;D...!

Fozzer wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

jetprop wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 4:49pm: It isn't a sim, it isn't a game, its in between. Its a game that wants to be a sim. I'm a Simpson that wants to be a Homer!... ::)...! Paul... ;D... ;D...!

I'm a simmer that wants to stay home.... :-? Yeah.

jetprop wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 4:49pm:

It isn't a sim,it isn't a game,its inbetween. Its a game that wants to be a sim.

It's a game. ;)

http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1330978730.jpg