Many, many words have already been said about Microsoft's return to the computer flying game genre. Many, or even most, of these words have been so full of vitriol, you'd have thought that Microsoft and the flight simulation community are at war - albeit one-sided and coming from the flight simulation community...
Microsoft have just done their thing, based on their homework and it really pees me off, when I see the hate that is being poured on Microsoft.
Oh... didn't I mak a few caustic remarks about MS myself? Yes indeed! I am just as guilty of MS Bashing as many others. I make no excuses, nor will I try to explain why I feel my approach is different to the rest of the hate mail aimed at MS.
So for the uninitiated: what the dickens am I on about?
Microsoft released their latest game to the market at the end of February 2012. It is called "Microsoft Flight!" and is being marketed as a game for anyone interested in flying. Please notice that four letter word: GAME. First and foremost, Flight is a game where you can score points, gain experience and even attack and crash into other planes when you are flying online. It is initially being offered on the Microsoft Live / XBox pages as a free download for which you get the completegame engine, scenery and terrain meshes for the Big Island of Hawaii and two aeroplanes: the Icon A5 float plane and the Boeing PT17 biplane.
Currently MS only offer just a few payware extras for the game - you can buy the rest of the (major) Hawaiian islands scenery (which includes the Vans RV6A Kit-plane) and two more planes - the Maule and the P51 Mustang. I think the total runs to around 20 dollars for the Hawaiian Adventure Pack, 15 dollars for the Maule and 8 dollars for the Mustang. Yes - there is a big price difference for the extra aircraft - Microsoft have taken a new approach in that they offer planes in Standard or Deluxe variants. This means that if you want a virtual cockpit, then you will have to buy deluce aircraft models in future, because the standard aircraft will not have a cockpit for you to "virtually sit in".
The picture above shows the Flight "marketplace" screen on
www.microsoftflight.com I must remind you here, that you are looking at my page, signed in through my own Live ID. Anything you see will be slightly different.
If nothing else, then one thing that MS is good at is presenting themselves. The page is slick, attractive and clear. Whether I personally like that is not open to discussion. Once you have downloaded and installed the game, a new icon is added to your Windows games library. If you take an enlarged look at the small picture on the left here, you will see that Microsoft have chosen to depict Flight, the game, through the use of a very obvioulsy cartoon-like image, while in the web page window above, the aircraft are shown almost photo-real.
This little icon is probably the single biggest giveaway to the whole background behind the vitriol that has been aimed at Flight, the people behind it and Microsoft.
Yes. I am being serious here. Although I am looking at the situation from a wider perspective than you may be thinking. Most of the MS-Bashing has been by either the MS Flight Simulator franchise marketers and developers and their supporters and followers. i.e. everyone who likes to buy addons or install freeware addons for their flight simulator. And before you start to sharpen your quills, bear with me for a bit.
In developing Flight, MS chose to go a new way with their approach to PC flying (I say that as opposed to flight simulation). When the game was announce, they also told the whole world that all third party developers were going to be shut out from creating content for this game. Oh yes, there was an offer to allow some development if that developer signed over all copyrights to Microsoft and also gave them a swingeing cut of the turnover. I am not privy to the exact numbers, but the copyright signover is "bad enough".
So... Flight is now to be an MS only product? With a childish cartoon plane as an icon? The "big names" in the franchise scen were not long in starting a call to arms. Oh, it may not have been a real "call", but the tone of commentary from virtual airlines, developer shops, marketplaces, forum owners and the like was generally downbeat against Microsoft's Flight. True, most did state that FSX still has years of life in it and that FSX and FS9 products will continue to be developed and sold or given away as freeware, but the tone that came from the top tiers of the old FLIGHT SIMULATION community was generally negative.
...and it was THAT, dear reader, that sparked off the lower end of the community family to start spouting vitriol at MS. Just about every single Flight basher hates Flight because they will not be able to add planes, scenery, weather, ground features, terrain meshes of their own. And "...oh my God, what about all the stuff I have already bought for FSX - I will not be able to use that in Flight..."
The forums were overflowing with such pitiful comments by the worst kind of flightsim community member - the low IQ, selfish brat mentality that stands there, fat bellied and with a wide open mouth screaming "I WANT NOW!"
There were even a few "Forum wars" started and some fligh simulation community members resorted to low punching at the serious flight simmer. It wasn't just a case of calling Microsoft "FS Nazis" and many other bad-mouth terms... even forum managers and admins would get flamed as dictators if they "dared" to restrict a forum member's "freedom of speech".
Yes - I am digressing slightly from the main theme, but I want the reader to understand the "forum wars" side of the vitriol that has spiralled around Microsoft's Flight game. Would you believe that this even spread to the Microsoft beta forums? No? Well I was accepted as a beta tester for MS Flight and started to take a closer look at the game from January 4th this year (2012). There was even one betatester who was so "against" whatever anyone said pro flight that he resorted to swearing of the worst possible kind - even I was referred to as parts of the female reproductive anatomy because I dared to say that I found his manner offensive.
It's strange to think that with the coming of Internet, people seem to take the phrase "Freedom of speech" so literally. Yes, we are allowed to have an opininion, but inciting violence, hatred, prejudice and such is NOT freedom of speech. That is simply criminal behaviour and the plankton that surfaced in the flight simulation community has succeeded in only one thing - they have made the whole flight simulation community look bad. All because a flying game has joined the genre as a standalone entity. Flight is not intended to replace Flight Simulator programmes. It is merely a game, where users can hop into an aircraft, buzz around the scenery, killing "gold coins and hoops", earn "points" and generally play at flying.
If the new Flight users want more, they will soon be asking questions and wanting to know what alternatives there are. When they come to the Flight Simulation community for help, they are likely to take one look at the scum floating on top of the pond and turn away for life. And while I am on the subject of scum, it has no place on our dedicated flight simulation pond.
Now... let's actually take a look at the game...
Nope, it's definitely not a simulation, although when you turn off the "helpers" it is quite a blast to fly low level through the Hawaiian scenery, upside down and to be amazed by the prettiness of the landscape.
The colours are much richer than in FSX and the scenery really does make an excellent first impression that will last for the game player. Oh yes - that is a deliberately biased statement. It doesn't take long for the flight simulation cognoscenti to spot the fact that MS have reduced the level of detail of scenery tiles and landclasses. When you climb higher over the landscape, the knowing pilot will soon spot a certain checkerboarding of the landscape and at dawn and dusk, you can see that streeghtlighting effects on the roadsreally looks nasty (and not just cheap).
(In the screenshot above you can see repetition taking place. If you actually GoogleEarth this area you see a biiig difference to the real world)
But those feelings are based on experiences gained from what is possible in a true flight simulation. Microsoft have really screwed back on details so that the game is not a system hog - which was the biggest single problem with the Flight Simulator series - you always needed up-to-the-minute "power" computers to really enjoy computer flying.
Microsoft flight cuts away the unnecessary frills and lets you enjoy some pretty damn good flying straight out of the box! And at a very reasonable price for now...
Let's just do a small comparison by flying around Honolulu in FSX and in Flight. The Flight version costs $19.99 US. In the following four screenshot pairs you will see me flying around Honolulu in the Vans RV6A in Microsoft Flight and in the A2A Accusim Piper cub in FSX. Which looks prettier? That is up to the beholder. Personally I prefer my FSX Honolulu, but then again I paid $60 US for Flight Simulator and then I paid extra fro the Piper Cub and Accusim. Oh yes, the scenery was extra (Mega Scenery - Oahu). I also have FS Global meshes loaded to give me more realistic appearance to the terrain shape. Active Sky has been added to improve the way the weather is presented and then there is another addon or two (XGraphics and Flight Environment) for the various clouds, water, lights and goodies that make FSX look just a bit more real. All in all I think I may have as much as $500 US worth of FS addons affecting the way Hawaii looks in FSX. Here are the pictures, you judge...
From those four picture pairs, it doesn't actually take much to recognise that "my" FSX outclasses Flight by light-years. But even a low budget FSX usercan see that the Flight city landclasses are typically FS9 or even older (just look at the road grid style in the last pair). The Flight water looks pretty, but the "addon-adjusted" FSX water simply washes the flight stuff away... Street lights in Flight are painted onto the roads - and in a far worse style than even in FS9. In my customised FSX I actually have streeghtlights that are above the ground.
This does not mean that Flight is terrible. Not by a mile! Microsoft have improved a few things so that when you are flying low level up various canyons (as an example), you will be stunned by the rock faces...
But... if you are a flight simulation enthusiast, then sadly you will be disappointed. Flight does feel sterile after you have flown a highly modified FSX with traffic, AI aircraft, animals and watercraft...
One of my "wow" moments while testing Flight happened while taxying at an airport and suddenly realising that the trees were blowing in the wind. Very etherealistic ;) And then I discovered that FTX / Orbx have now introduced exactly this effect into their scenery addons. And to go one beat further, in the FSX addons, you now have leaves falling from the trees in autumn.
All in all, Flight is a pretty newcomer to the genre "Flying on a PC" in the sub-set "games" You can't even think of comparing it with FSX really, because the Flight Simulation side of the genre just has so much openness and extendability, that there is no way Flight can compete.It doesn't even begin to try. It is just another flying game that is politically correct for the "younger minded". It is not a war game and there is no "combat" element, so it won't appeal to the World of Warcraft faction...
...well, it might... already there have been reports of Fight users flying along, minding their own businesses, when WHAM! Someone rams them from behind and send them spiralling to the ground... Yes - I too, have been rammed by some ninja plankton who seemed to think it was totally hilarious to do that.
Ah well.
All I can say here is that Flight is here, you can use it free and forever (yes yes, within the limits of two planes and only Big Island) and at that it is worth a try.
I may add to this write up later - let's see if I get scummed up... ;)
