I agree, that was the release time I would have guessed, too.

Based on their history, I think they will release it before all the bugs are ironed out, hence Christmas 2011.

I'd be pretty surprised if it came out early 2012, I  was thinking holiday 2012 if not early 2013. I hope your all right of course, the earlier the better! I've just uninstalled FSX for I think the 50th and last time. Out with the old, in with the NEW. I too hope they have taken the time to "iron out the bugs"... lets get what we pay for this time! 

It will never be perfect...but I doubt that it will be released in 2011.

But according to IGN it says TBA 2011 so who knows I could be wrong but I think it if it was to be released 2011 it wouldn't be as good as taking more time.  And they didn't give us any teasers for this month either...

New Light wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 8:15pm:



I think someone is being a little too harsh (and actually pretty unrealistic) and stuck in FSX days. Just because ACES made one mistake in the over 28 years of the MSFS series with FSX, why would the next version automatically be a failure? No, that doesn't make sense at all. MS has clearly seen their FSX mistakes and I do not see them making the same ones as of yet.

Ha, I love to read all these replies. It will be fun to reread later and see if anyone was close. I agree with most here in that corporate pressure will force the design team to release the sim too soon. I should say, 'Flight', rather than sim.                                 

Quote:


          

Quote:


   I don't know if this is part the "bet" that we can place. As soon as I saw the title "Flight", I immediately thought that MS is finally admitting that FS has become more of an "aviation photoshop" program. Even though there are some short vids available that do show aircraft flying, there a lot of folks that seem to be ooohhing & ahhhing about the scenery more than showcasing the aircraft, ATC, IFR operations, flight emergencies, more realistic airport operations, weather conditions, etc.

   I have learned to "fly" decently on FS9 which was just fine by me, and FSX has very, very nice scenery and aircraft (free & payware), but it seems that screenshots and scenery have become the benchmark of how good the Flight Simulator is. There are many nice and valid sub-disciplines within FS. Believe me, I love overhauling airports with AFX & IS2, writing flight plans, painting aircraft textures, etc.

   Scenery does make "flying" extremely realistic, but the main idea of Flight Simulator is to "act as if you are in an aircraft, performing actual ground and airbourne operations without being in the actual stress & danger of being in the real situation". But, the ability to see indivdual bricks on houses and pick out a single daisy or individual blades of grass in a field while hauling a$$ down the runway or the ability to see every stone and pebble on a mountainside may be a bit much in my opinion.

   Extreme scenery with no or bad flyablity and very adequate scenery and very good or great flyablility are definately two different animals. I'd rather have the latter.

Semper Fi,

Dave

It's already May 2011 and no recent teaser updates. I would love to be a fly on the wall over at MS. I have to admit they are marketing experts but I still doubt they can get it done this year. The EULA will likely take 6 months to conjure up!    Minimum 15 pages in #2 font with at least 4000 12 letter legal terms, when all that is really needed is....

(Don't even think about messing with us. )

Quote:


   Brandon, I kinda figured you were in-the-know with Flight by your responses. I understand why you said that I (Someone) is stuck in the days of FSX. The reason for the comment is that companies are just starting to come out with new aircraft (Carenado, etc) and scenery programs (REX, IS2, etc) for FSX. These programs are, also, still coming out with more updates, patches etc. to enhance FSX, thus my counter-comment of still being the days of FSX.

   Kudos to you for stepping forward. Now that you're out in the open, I think we can have more constructive conversations about what is really happening. I'm not sure if you are working on add-on programming directly for MS Flight or an aftermarket developer. I'm sure it affects you and all developers the same way. So, I'll ease up on you from now on.

   I know that you can't divulge any information even if their is anything solid happening with Flight. I will say that I hope that Flight is tested much better than FSX was. I don't know of the pressures on the new team (ACES +++, err... whatever you or they are called now), but I do hope MS double & triple checks the program before the program goes to market.

   As exciting as the news of the new program is, I'd rather wait until '13 and recieve a very good program (some minor bugs will always exist), than waste so much money, effort and aggrevation that we all experienced with FSX. If you consider all the time that MS used up fixing FSX, it would have been better if they just pushed back the release date, or better yet, MS should not have even suggested a general time period for release. If I remember correctly, FSX was released in October of '07 (may be wrong, but anyway), if MS would have taken the extra year and a half to get things right and released in, say, March of '09, which is about the time when everything was finally straightened out. It would have saved everyone a lot of grief Like I said, I'd rather wait awhile and get a good product than get a lesser product and get strung along for months and years of excuses etc.

   Hope all goes well...

Semper Fi,

Dave (err Someone if you like)

New Light wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 9:09pm:


No, I'm actually not working with any development teams for Flight. (I would guess that if I was, I wouldn't be able to say whether or not I was)

Exactly...working out the performance issues and crashes would have saved them so much criticism. ACES had the ability to program something that would take advantage of current hardware of the time, but it's likely that Microsoft simply did not allow them to change the parts of code that would allow for this. I would hope that they have learned from their mistakes...it's hard to say for sure since this is Microsoft, but who knows what will happen until it actually happens. 

New Light wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:28pm:


Dave, I think you are forgetting that what FS is to one person, is not necessarily the same to another. I have no idea of the ratios, I know there are a lot of people who want all the realism

they can get and treat it as a sim. While others are more interested in a bit less realism and want that great scenery. I would be one of them. I credit FS with increasing my knowledge of world

geography ten fold from what I knew prior to FS. And I would like to see landmarks and notable areas as close to the real thing as is feasable, without going the photoreal route. And if I could get

FTX grade scenery for the planet at a cost I could afford, I would buy it in a heartbeat.

All I'm trying to say, is that everyone's idea of what constitues the main idea of FS, is not the same. 

Cheers,

Larry

New Light wrote on May 15^th, 2011 at 12:43am:

No problem Dave.

And your post here brings up even more about the diversity of the sim community, things I had not even considered, writing flight plans, overhauling local airports etc.

I just wish MS would realize, acknowledge, and cater to all the diverse areas of the FS community. I'm sure both the freeware and payware developers would be pleased if they did. And it would benefit all of us.