Good idea Pete I completely agree because your right, Flight isn't a sim.

A few people may disagree but it's a sound idea that I have been thinking about saying for a few days.

Also if this happens shouldn't Flight screenshots go in The Cage?

It's not an opinion -- it's Microsoft who specifically call it 'not a simulator' - 'a game' That is VERY specific from the team.

Sounds like a poll-worthy question if I ever heard one! 

Whatever it is and love it or hate it, it is what we have to work with and it is the latest flight game from MS.  Love it or not, this is what MSFS has become, so I say keep it here.  Don't put it above FSX, but leave it. 

Where's the bias? I'm asking a question.

It's not an opinion to state that MS have very specifically asked this not to be categorized as a simulator. That have very specifically asked this to be classified as a 'game' .. & they are very specific about this.

The question here is, as I put it : Should it be in the same category on this forum as 'Flight Simulators' ...

No bias. A simple question.

I agree with Pete, it should be moved to "Computer Games and Software" - especially since even MS themselves have categorized as a game.

My fault for speed reading.   A better way to put that...
It should be moved to "Computer Games and Software" - especially since even MS themselves have categorized as a game.

andy190 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2012 at 4:41pm:


That sounds like a good idea,  if it means less unpleasant arguments!

I recall, the same blinding arguments occurred, during the introduction, and release, of FSX, but at least it was classified as a proper Flight Simulator at the time!

Paul... ...!

What's the category for Wii bowling? Same place...put it there...

You know, it's not my place to tell you what your job is Pete, but I would suggest that by relegating Flight to the Games and Software category you'll be killing it as the current edition of FS before it even gets started.  We still do not know where MS is going with this and it COULD grow over time into something.  After a year or so when the major land masses are out and more planes are available, it may turn into a real world sim.

Right now, except for the cheesy missions, it's really not that much different in that you decide your own level of participation.  You decide if you do the walkarounds, you decide if you do the checklist.  You decide if you want to follow proper taxiing procedures.   Truth is, in FS, you can go out and hop in a plane and turn off the crash setting and taxi across the grass and take off from a hillside if you want.  That makes FS into a game. 

I am not trying to make Flight into FS11, and I'm not here to sing it's praises, but I do think a lot of people are looking at it from that viewpoint. People are pissed off at MS about the removal of 3rd party and I agree with that.  I think Flight is as much game as sim right now, but how about at least giving it a fair shake and let the dust settle before we reject it totally?

I might add that if you want to move Flight, you might want to consider revamping the entire Current Simulator section.  Adding traffic and gates might be more of a development issue.  Flight school might be more of a real aviation thing.  If you're going to have Flight Gear, you might also want to consider adding X-Plane and whatever else is out there...

www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorx/

www.microsoft.com/games/flight/

Flight is Microsoft's successor to FSX. Both Flight and FSX are classified as games by the publisher and retailers no matter how much that ruffles serious simmers' feathers. I can't help but think it's a little bit pretentious to insist that flying make-believe airplanes on a computer screen MUST be called a simulator and not a game. And I say that as I'm paging through a detailed XB-70 checklist and making an IFR flight plan. Keep Flight where it is.

Groundbound1 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2012 at 8:36pm:


Not only can I believe this is still up for debate, if it ends up like it's console driving game "sim vs. arcade" counterpart, the debate will continue indefinitly, or at least as long as MS keeps putting out related product, and people keep playing.
Oddly enough I can see somebody making a sim-pit for it as well. There's got to be at least one Flight fanatic somewhere planning it right this minute...

Hehe. Ironically, the people at Wiki have been having an edit war over game vs. simulation for months now. It's the longest topic on the talk page. I think the most recent idea was that they should call it a "gimulator".
Do we have a gimulator section by any chance? Probabbly make things easier...
No, i'm not serious. 

Groundbound1 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2012 at 9:28pm:


There is a reason that those of us in the college acadermic community frown upon its use as a reference. 

best,

...............john

There it is, right on the cover of my copy of FSX Gold.

Games for Windows.

Microsoft evidently considers FSX a game too, so I guess that forum is in the wrong category too.

cheers,
Joe

Flight Ace wrote on Mar 10^th, 2012 at 11:49pm:



I don't have to write it.  Here's a smattering:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki

http://gnovisjournal.org/2009/10/29/academic-views-on-and-uses-of-wikipedia-a-co...

http://www.infotoday.com/online/mar08/Badke.shtml

http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2007/feb/07/profs-question-students-wikipedia-...

best,

................john

In comparison to FSX it is clear that Flight is currently not as fully featured and offers less opportunity for modification and configuration. However I believe that Flight is just as much a flight simulation game as FSX. Therefore it should stay where it is.

It would be nice to see this forum becoming more of a support and informational resource similar to other sim forums. I've noticed that even Avsim's Flight forum has moved towards that.

As some have already pointed out it may well be worth reviewing whether Flight School and Adding Aircraft Traffic etc should be relocated to a different area of the site.

MS probably just get their PR staff to do the wiki entries - almost 100%    ... so it's really just an ad.
& it will get vandalized ... they'll get the notification email and fix it -- & this can also be done automatically ..

Wiki info is of good value for light info on some stuff (I use it often for a general light info resource about historical stuff, etc ... but it's not in any way authenticated material) -

To take it as a fact site -- or particularly to read it as fact about commercial products - is really hanging your brains out to dry ....

Game or simulator. I suspect that MS Flight will not be getting a certification for use from the FAA any time soon for use in instrument training

What MS call FSX on the box is not really relevant, after all a Porsche tell us a Cayenne is a 4 wheel drive off roader

FSX like all MS entertainment products has a game label only due to MS wanting a streamlined product category. Otherwise there would be debate about what catagory any game could go into. Car race "simulations", game or sim. Halo, game or futuristic military simulator. Game covers everything and saves the arguments. As for FSX, the title tells us everything we need to know no matter what is on a flag in the corner of the box. FSX, Flight Simulation 10.
MS Flight in MS's own words is a game, advertised as a game, sold as a game and aimed at the gamer market.
For these reasons, it should be in either "games and software" or possibly "other sites"

That's my opinion

Matt

I agree with those pushing the 'give it some time' line. It is too hard to tell currently where it will lead. In its current form I don't suspect I will use it much, however that is not due to its being a 'game.' Rather, it is due to its pricing model and lack of third party support.

The discussions here seem to have proved that it is arguable both ways (Simulator vs game), I think what it becomes will define it, not what it currently is. 

Camel_Moe wrote on Mar 11^th, 2012 at 7:31pm:


First let me say that your posts are very humorous - "room full of poo and a broken typewriter" - you got to be kidding me. However, I just checked your spelling of poo with Wikipedia and they immediately changed it to poop, wait - wait - just a moment, somebody just changed it back to poo! Now tell me that wasn't you.

Camel_Moe wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 10:58am:


In all seriousness, Wikipedia is referred by some as a virtual on-line Encyclopedia. I read somewhere that PC Pro created an article and purposely put errors in it, submitted it to Wikipedia, and within hours it was corrected. I would like to think this forum is a friendly discussion group looking for help or just information while not getting involved in worrying whether a post meets some sort of academia standard.

The way I look for new product information is first go to the source of the infromation. In the case of Microsoft Flight, go to the Microsoft Studio. Then if one desires, check several more sources which could or not be Wikipedia. This will give you a better perspective about the new product. In most instances, if it was Wikipedia, Microsoft would have already fed them their information and the only thing new would be their own characteration of the product. In my case, they referred to Microsoft Flight Game as Microsoft Flight Simulator Game which I totally agree. I have also found that Wikipedia has a very sophyticated consensus model with far more internal checks and balances than I first envisioned.

Having said all this and because of the apparent distrust by some in using Wikipedia as a source, I will never refer to them again in this forum.

It's the 11th version of the Microsoft Flight Simulator series. Leave it where it is.

jetprop wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 1:06pm:


Your right, it is the 11th Flight Simulator Game they produced. So leave it where it is.

First off, nothing personal towards Wing Nut. I am quoting your post simply as a launching pad to post some thoughts.

Wing Nut wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 2:50pm:

Isn't that what we have had to do with every version of FS?

While a lot of addons have been backwards compatible, not all have.

And providing backwards compatibility was probably one of the primary reasons for ACES rehashing old code for new versions instead of starting from scratch. Was that their decision or Microsoft's?

How many complaints have been posted in this forum, and others, over the years complaining about ACES retaining legacy code and not utilizing the latest technologies?

Wing Nut wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 2:50pm:

It was never intended to do that. Anyone who thinks it was simply has not been paying attention.

Wing Nut wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 2:50pm:

Again, isn't that what we have done in the past?

Now we have the beginnings of a new flight sim.......erm, simulated experience, or simulator, that is not tied to code based in the stone ages of personal computing.

Is it FSNext? No.

Do I wish for a new full world, AI populated, ATC controlled with accurate airspace, terrain, flight dynamics flight simulator? You bet.

Do I want it locked to the performance-limiting core of the past, released before it's fixed, followed by Service Paks, each with their own SDK? No friggin' way.

I think that an important idea to remember is, unlike MSFS in which each version was released basically complete (then patched), Flight is in it's infancy and the potential for growth is unlimited.

Back to the issue of "is Flight a simulator or a game?", it's both. It is what you (the flight simming community) want it to be and what you want to get out of it. If you want to play like a game, go ahead, have fun.

If you want to use it as a flight simulator, you can, granted to a different level of immersion than FS9 and FSX,....so far. Personally, I find it very realistic, as I am a GA nut and former resident of Hawaii.

Thanks for reading.

cheers,
Joe

Wing Nut, where did you read that Flight's planes are in .model format?

From what I know it's all in .dll format.

I think the real point is not exactly backwards comparability of add-ons relative to how they work with MSFS. 
Discounting the computer costs, an expense that occurs with every new generation of technology anyway, you could buy any MSFS title, run it, and never buy a thing for it again. You had a larger stable of planes, with a variety to choose from,  a whole world, and assorted features like AI, right out of the box.   
When the next one came out, true you could bring things from past FS versions, but you didn't need to, you still had a whole world, ATC, default aircraft, etc.
Now you have to buy the whole program bit by bit, for a total that could reach into the hundreds of dollars or more, just to get a comparable content when compared to what was standard in a MSFS title.
So the real questions are: Is every version of Flight going to start fresh, and force the user to spend hundreds of dollars yet again to get the basic content and features that approximate an MSFS title? Or, on the flip side, is this it one continually evolving program that get's added to forever? The latter being unlikely just because eventually you'd have an antiquated bit of software with compatability issues pertaining to modern hardware in the future.
This brings us to another question: If there are new versions, and you can use old DLC, wouldn't the sales model eventually implode, as each one would sell less DLC than the previous as people became content with their collections?

Wing Nut wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 6:34pm:



Yep, was trying to help clarify, as he didn't seem to see a difference. Somehow I buggered up the qoutes that tied it all together. They ran away.


I can also point out an example of a game, that while not being free to play, has a simular DLC model.
EA's "The Sims" series.
What EA does, and why I lost interest, is put out new versions with some basic function updates to each one (Sims, 1,2,3),  but most of the popular content stripped from each one.
Each version starts out with has little of the previous DLC/expansion content has they can get away with without causing a revolt, and then they sell it all back to you again in "new" DLC and expansion packs.
The base game was improved enough from Sims 1 to 2, that I put up with it, but by the 3rd version it just wasn't worth buying everything again a third time.
I have the feeling that's where MS is going to try and go with Flight .

Wing Nut wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 5:27pm:

If this is directed to me, sorry I don't understand what your referring to. What's not?

Wing Nut wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 5:27pm:

I never said they could not, done a few myself.

Wing Nut wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 5:27pm:

I don't want backwards compatibility if it requires staying with the same old CPU clogging code that cannot take advantage of all the GPU advances that have happened in the last couple of years.

And yes there is a locked thread at Avsim in which members are cracking Flight and extracting models. That isn't the hard part, getting modified models back in will be the challenge. But that isn't "backwards compatibility", technically it's theft and will remain so until Microsoft releases an SDK, which I think they will at some point.

Camel_Moe wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 6:31pm:

Granted, I don't deny that.

Camel_Moe wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 6:31pm:


"Comparable content" is where you lose me. I think to get Flight quality visuals in FSX most people spend hundreds of dollars on Ultimate Terrain, GEX, FEX, REX, Active Sky, addon airports, you can go to Orbx alone and spend close to a grand.

I know that Flight doesn't meet all those addons in terms of quality .....yet. But it might in the future.

Wow, has this wandered off-topic. 

cheers,
Joe

JoBee wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 7:42pm:


You forgot SEX!  Sound Environment Extreme...   

JBaymore wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 11:40pm:


What was the question again?   

Seriously, this is almost the only thread going in a bit over two days, the other being a small thread for joystick help.
What it really comes down to, is that it's Pete's site, he can put Flight under the "Wierd things that give me headaches" section if he wants. He was thoughtfull enough to ask for member opinions instead of just up and moving it.
Frankly, I doubt that any move, or not moving of the board, will effect Flight itself in any real tangible fashion. We'll all just continue on with it just the same, OT silliness and all, regardless of where it ends up. If Flight is going to die, board location isn't going to speed that up, or stop it.

pete wrote on Mar 13^th, 2012 at 12:20pm:

you wont have to wait too long anyways..

6 month max.......

Alex

jetprop wrote on Mar 13^th, 2012 at 3:00pm:


Heck, since 1982 I could count all the payware I bought on one hand, up untill last month that is. Now all my saved "just in case there is an FS11" hardware money is being thrown at payware like ORBX and REX, Corenado, Just Flight, etc.  That's more about a recent desire to support 3rd party than it is about needing the stuff to get what I want out of FSX.
I just finnaly decided that now that it looks like FSX is going to be the last of it's kind from MS, I might as well "supercharge" it with the funds, and give the payware people some support in the process.
Freeware has done it for me just fine for years, and if I thought there was a next MSFS in the pipe, I probably wouldn't be buying all that payware now either.

It is my understanding that the Britannica review process will remain very much the same, so I would imagine the objections to referencing the Britannica online will be about what they are now.  It's not like people will be able to make changes "wiki style", on the fly.
However, universities generally frown on using the encyclopedia has a primary reference already.

striker wrote on Mar 14^th, 2012 at 6:40pm:


And where did you read that Carenado are making Props for Flight?

It doesn't matter if Carenado are making Props for Flight, if we buy their FSX stuff more than their Flight stuff then they will realise what they've signed up for.

Wing Nut wrote on Mar 14^th, 2012 at 8:43pm:




Wikipedia perhaps? 

THIS is why I have less than 300 posts since 2002. Nobody can derail a thread like the camel can....

Flight Ace wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 5:31pm:

I would like to believe that's true. This article is one of many that seem to prove otherwise. No shame in copy and paste for Internet-age students

Hagar wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 6:07pm:


Believe it,

This article you provided is about students who practice the art of plagiarism or copying information from the internet or from wherever without credit given to the authors. Has nothing to do with the paragraph you are responding to. In most cases when a student is caught doing this, some corrective and sometime punitive action including expulsion is taken.

Flight Ace wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 8:19pm:


I think this conversation is getting off topic, but I can't resist giving my 2 cents

In my degree (Bachelor of Law), secondary materials are rarely used formally, we would almost always reference primary materials like Cases and Legislation. With secondary material we only use peer reviewed materials.

However Wikipedia is used all the time to get a general overview of a particular subject area.

My conclusion - Use it in private but for goodness sake don't tell anyone that you do 


Also plagiarising can be enough to be expelled from uni, or alternatively result in being refused admittance to the Bar in my case...