Talk:Microsoft Flight

"Fly for free"
On the video section of the official site, the Webisode 3 FREE has the subheading "Fly for free...Microsoft Flight." Is this supposed to suggest that Microsoft Flight will not have to be bought to be played? --123.243.161.49 (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

---Regarding the Fly for Free statement, I think it's supposed to be more "Fly Free" as it is in the video, meaning that you get to either, fly where you want, or fly in the sim free, with the exception of paying for the sim.


 * I'm not so sure eh, I wouldn't be surprised if MS released it for free, maybe funded my micro-transactions. I'm sure we're find out either way soon enough. 118.90.112.76 (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It is likely to be microtransaction based, following in the footsteps of the recently released Age Of Empires Online, which is free to play w/ microtransactions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.14.71 (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it refers to the fact that you fly free whenever you want with Flight, except for the initial payment to buy the simulator itself. —Hughes-MDflyer4 (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It means you can, for free, download the basic game. It is the Big Island of Hawaii (other islands there, info little further), and comes with two aircraft. You can also download, for free, the models of other paid aircraft (means that you can see them in multiplayer when others flying them). And for free, you can solo and muliplayer Hawaii. The other islands will be very basic to you and if you don't have the models of paid aircraft you'll see flying triangles instead of the actual planes in multiplayer. You get to do many missions and geotags and other bits with only some limitations. Free flying whenever you want. (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Windows XP statement reference
The first paragraph states "It will no longer be compatible with Windows XP due to space constraints", with a link to the first reference page. Reading through the reference, there is no mention of Windows XP. Furthermore, none of the three references mention Windows XP in any way at the time of writing this comment.

I am therefore removing the sentence in question. Please re-add it if there is an actual source for the quote. mj_sklar (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

SIMULATION vs. GAME
--- GAME vs. SIMULATION --- About the small edit-war going on in regards to this being a "simulation" and not a "game" - it is one and the same - if you notice, the article is classified under "games". PC simulations ARE games, and games can be simulations. Flight Simulations are played, and enjoyed, as a leisure/learning activity by those who use them, which make them "games". This classification extends even to wargaming. So calling it a "flight simulation game" or even a "flight game which is a simulation" is all the same. So, stop bickering on the edit and just come up with an agreed way to state it. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All the other microsoft flight simulator articles describe their versions of the simulator as a simulator. Heck; EVERY flight/space/train/other simulator article describes their simulations as a simulator. Why should we start bucking the trend here? Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

So it's settled then? "Simulation" stays in the article? TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Seriously? Again?TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears that there is at least one person that likes to ignore the talk page... The changes are not really that frequent and as such I wouldn't worry too much about it Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 07:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the comments above, I think I need to intervene with a quick backgrounder to help us all understand why some users have engaged in an edit war. :) The disagreement stems from the shift in focus between MS Flight (MSF) and MS Flight Simulator (MSFS). MSFS is certified and used for real-world pilot training because it is so technically detailed. This will probably not be the case for MSF, because a lot of that detail has been dropped to stress the action/adventure side of things more. This is widely recognized in the online simulation community, where there is a general feeling that MSF is not as strong a simulator as MSFS was. (In fact, many enthusiasts will continue using older MSFS software in the future for just this reason).

With that information in hand, it should now be easy to see why some users got touchy when they saw "game" and "simulator" being used carelessly and interchangeably. These words are not "one and the same". However, these users should also realize that it is possible for a product to be both things at the same time. MSF and MSFS are cases in point. No one can seriously argue that one of these software packages is "only" a game or "only" a simulator. But there is no doubt that MSFS can be used as a more serious simulator, while MSF is intended from start to finish for more casual play.

I think this is valuable information for the article, don't you? It's perfectly reasonable to use both "simulator" and "game" to describe MSF, but care should be taken in how/when the words are applied.Nojamus (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Just pick a term and stick with it. I mean, without actual FAA FTD Level certification the terms "game" and "simulator" are just interchangeable in this particular article. It's talking about the piece of software itself, which cannot - on it's own - be certified for use in a real pilot's log. My own local instructor called it a "game", but I personally perceive it as having "simulator" aspects because of my home use. At our local airfield, the MSFS simulator there was certified by the FAA and it got an FTD Level 6 rating - it has a cockpit and and such modeled in for the Cessna. The software, if removed from the external modelling, is stripped of the FAA certification and might as well be called "a game". TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I don`t much care one way or the other, but you`re reffering to MSFS whereas the subject of the article is MSF, which seems as though it will be much less of a sim. Maybe we should create a term...how about calling it a `gimulator` :) Andy Johnston (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You missed my point. I should've been clearer. My point is that it is the community and hyped-up fans who call these software products simulations when they are viewed by professionals with much tighter standards (MS Flight & MSFS are no more "simulations" in the eyes of pros than any other software product you buy at GameStop). But, it's an age-old tradition to call them simulators - even as far back as the Commodore 64 - and I'm all for that. Heck, it simulates the feeling & fun of flight: So, let's just settle on simulator? I guess? TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We can stick with "Simulation game" for now. People will be able to judge for themselves on February 29, which isn't really that far away anyway! Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's all besides the point and not adhering to our rules by which we go by the sources. MS calls it a "PC-game" so we go by that. It is also clear from the latter and probably any other source a simulation so the genre is Simulation video game. The article reflects this correctly at the time of my typing. Everything else is wp:OR.TMCk (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I kinda stated that in my first post. I still agree. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's my two cents, and probably worth every penny, well maybe half. MSF (Microsoft Flight) does in fact contain every bit of a "real" flight sim (except its way more realistic; visually, environmentaly, and the physics), but you don't have to. That's the whole and entire arguement. Many old time players heard that anyone could simply fly with a mouse and they lost their minds. But you can turn that all off, the automatic stuff. It will allow you the complete flight simulator experience of MSFS (Microsoft Flight Simulator and other sims), except not everyone will have to do it like that, and the weather (fog, clouds, light, shadow, etc) will be much more realistic. Take a look at that cockpit view of the Maule, all those buttons, switches, knobs, pedals can be used, all of it. The complete control is there; only some kid or grandma might be using their mouses and have all of that stuff being done for them by the computer. And they, the fanboys errr  I mean the serious aircraft simulator users, hate that so very much. Go to any flight sim forum and read all the rage, it's insane. At some point it will be coupled to some real expensive hardware and become an actual certified simulator. This shouldn't be listed as a "simulation game" because it isn't. It is a simulator that is smart enough, AI wise, to introduce people with little skill or time to flight simulation. It's also brand new, so there's a lot of old timers hating on it because the kids are standing on their lawns. Most haven't played it. Few who have didn't bother to turn the AI off (and hated the fact that the AI allowed others to fly almost as good as someone who spent a thousand hours on their old simulator games learning how). Those that did, and gave it go, changed their minds; many times after seeing their kids actually enjoying something that before, because of the super steep learning curve, they hated so very much. So, maybe, you might want to watch for some very angry edits on this. It's also brand new. 70.176.129.182 (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Cancellation

 * I do not see where the mentioning of X-plane (with a link) as a possible cause of the cancellation of Microsoft flight and basically advertising for it which is not factual and rather purely speculative without merit and should be removed. I would see it more factual if the cause was more directly related to department of Microsoft agreeing to write off/ write down a bad investment from a purchase back in 2005 that didn't mature as expected and cost Microsoft 6.3 Billion Dollars which was announced July 2, 2012 just over 20 days before the the announcement of the discontinuation of developing DLC for Flight Ref:(http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/Press/2012/Jul12/07-02CorpNewsPR.aspx). FSX (and the other 9 in the series where "simulators" in title only, a simulator is a device used to help train which if it's necessary what FSX and the other 9 where was a program emulation of a simulator. Microsoft Flight didn't imply or suggest it was a simulator or even a simulation of, rather more of an experience of a feeling of flight and the adventure a user could experience, which any mention of simulator or simulation should be removed because again it speculative without merit and not factual. As of 9/1/2012 Flight post on the steam forums, their website and the Facebook page that that they will be having a 2ed beta test by invitation only to test fixes and updates to Flight, flight is still supported and it is still sold. What the big announcement said was simply they where discontinuing DEVELOPMENT OF DLC for flight which if I was wanting to speculate on anything it wouldn't be the "death" of flight rather more the early progression of flight to in it's development that was talked about in interviews, meaning...I am speculation that Microsoft will open up the development of DLC for flight to third party developers in a fairly short time span which in interviews pre-Flight release the speculation on J. Howards comments read one to two years, move that time line way back to just over four months... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeholder (talk • contribs)


 * It is a quote from a reliable source. If there are additional reasons for the cancellation or more detail from reliable sources then they can be added along with the ref cited. Please see WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

One..unnamed "reliable source" Cite other sources:, which one source doesn't make it factual until it can be shown with other sources that reported the same exact subject and reason with "named" sources of the writers information, One source is simply saying one person has a theory...and it is not proven and again advertising for another product which is not factual and rather purely speculative without merit and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeholder (talk • contribs) 01:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree. You are wrong when you say it is an un-named source - the quote is correctly attributed to Glenn Pew of AVweb, a reliable aviation news media website with no connection to either Microsoft Flight or X-Planes. The comment is on topic and presented in a WP:RS and complies with WP:V. You don't to make up new criteria for inclusion like the same opinion has to be presented in multiple sources. You have not presented a convincing argument to remove this quote and do not have consensus to do so. - Ahunt (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

So you can disagree all you want, but the fact of it is what was written was simply a speculation of one person with no facts or sources to back up his personal theory but the failing to "mention" the 6.2 billion write off and a 4th quarter loss that has basically reset Microsoft back to 2007 has no barring what so ever on the this product, really?

here some...cross referenced self supporting documentation that would be less speculative than a theory of one man with a Mac.

1. http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/Press/2012/Jul12/07-02CorpNewsPR.aspx

2. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/04/microsoft-s-6-2-billion-writedown-shows-it-s-losing-war-with-google.html

3. http://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthof/2012/07/02/the-6-3-billion-dud-will-microsoft-ever-master-the-online-ad-business/

4. http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/Press/2012/Jul12/07-02CorpNewsPR.aspx

5. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/microsoft-takes-62-bn-charge-slows-internet-hopes/269080-11.html

6. http://mikebrengs.blogspot.com/2012/07/microsofts-62-billion-dollar-writedown.html

7. http://www.thestreet.com/story/11613456/1/money-for-nothing-can-microsoft-make-up-for-this-63-billion-failure.html

8. http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/07/03/1859248/microsoft-writes-off-62-billion-from-aquantive-acquisition

9. http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-is-taking-a-62-billion-write-down-for-online-services-2012-7

10 http://www.business-standard.com/generalnews/news/microsoft-to-write-off-62-bn-for-aquantive-acquisition/27831/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeholder (talk • contribs) 05:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

by the way...just another thing, here some more "stuff" you got the title of the game incorrect.

http://www.microsoft.com/games/mgsgamecatalog/flightpccredits.aspx Microsoft Flight Game Credits Product Info: Microsoft Flight Live — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeholder (talk • contribs) 06:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's go over your refs proposed and see what they have to say about the subject of this article:


 * 1. http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/Press/2012/Jul12/07-02CorpNewsPR.aspx - doesn't mention Microsoft Flight


 * 2. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/04/microsoft-s-6-2-billion-writedown-shows-it-s-losing-war-with-google.html - doesn't mention Microsoft Flight


 * 3. http://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthof/2012/07/02/the-6-3-billion-dud-will-microsoft-ever-master-the-online-ad-business/ - doesn't mention Microsoft Flight


 * 4. http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/Press/2012/Jul12/07-02CorpNewsPR.aspx - Duplicate of #1


 * 5. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/microsoft-takes-62-bn-charge-slows-internet-hopes/269080-11.html - doesn't mention Microsoft Flight


 * 6. http://mikebrengs.blogspot.com/2012/07/microsofts-62-billion-dollar-writedown.html - doesn't mention Microsoft Flight and this is a self-published blog and is not acceptable as a ref


 * 7. http://www.thestreet.com/story/11613456/1/money-for-nothing-can-microsoft-make-up-for-this-63-billion-failure.html - doesn't mention Microsoft Flight


 * 8. http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/07/03/1859248/microsoft-writes-off-62-billion-from-aquantive-acquisition - doesn't mention Microsoft Flight and this is a self-published anonymous article and is not acceptable as a ref


 * 9. http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-is-taking-a-62-billion-write-down-for-online-services-2012-7 - doesn't mention Microsoft Flight


 * 10 http://www.business-standard.com/generalnews/news/microsoft-to-write-off-62-bn-for-aquantive-acquisition/27831/ - doesn't mention Microsoft Flight


 * None of those references can be used in this article to explain why Microsoft cancelled this product, because none of them mention a connection between advertising write-downs and the cancellation. While it may be tempting to speculate that the advertising loss write-down caused the cancellation of this product, there is no evidence that says that. Drawing that conclusion in the article would be WP:SYNTHESIS and, as that link explains, is not permitted on Wikipedia. What we do have is one reliable reference that says quotes Microsoft on why it was cancelled: "Microsoft said the decision was part of "the natural ebb and flow" of its portfolio management, but there may have been other factors." Neither of the other two refs cited in the article on the cancellation connect the cancellation to the advertising loses, either.


 * As for http://www.microsoft.com/games/mgsgamecatalog/flightpccredits.aspx, I am not sure what your point is. That page clearly states that the product was called Microsoft Flight, which is supported by another Microsoft page http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/Microsoft-Flight/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d8044d5308d2 which also calls it Microsoft Flight. - Ahunt (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The Note comment for the C-46 "the team worked to release it as a "farewell" to the game." is not factual and is not remarked in the reference #15 (https://news.microsoftflight.com/blogs/post.aspx?App=news&y=2012&m=08&d=24&PostName=i-think-i-see-forty-six-reasons-to-read-this-blog-post&wa=wsignin1.0) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeholder (talk • contribs) 03:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You are quite right, thanks for pointing this out - ✅ - Ahunt (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

another "note" is also incorrect, in the "Carbon Cub-Deluxe" for Available aircraft is "noted" as a "upgrade to" the "Carbon Cub-Basic" which the Deluxe DLC for the Carbon Cub Deluxe is completely separate from the Basic-Carbon Cub and Deluxe Carbon Cub has no effect on Basic Carbon Cub which remains in the inventory of the users "hanger" which the Carbon Cub Deluxe is an addition (not an upgrade) to the inventory for the user.

The Deluxe RV-6 is "mentioned" as being free with the Hawaiian Expansion pack but is not listed in "Aircraft" that are available and the cost related or the provision of it's purchase.

(thanks for cleaning up the C-46 "farewell" note) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeholder (talk • contribs) 18:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have any references for these, even primary refs, we can confirm and correct those - Ahunt (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(note) this page needs some "bones" put into it such as: Both the Xbox dlc and the Steam version use the same GFWL files that are installed with the game and a user can have duel install of both the Xbox Ms Version of 'Flight and the Steam Version of 'Flight installed simultaneously enabling the end users to be able to participate in "bundle sales" on steam that are not on the Xbox Live GFWL site, both installs "update" with the purchases from either the Xbox GFWL or Steam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeholder (talk • contribs) 19:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you also have any references for these, even primary refs, we can confirm and add those as well. - Ahunt (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * activity with MS Flight after the announcement of the cancellation of flight.

after announcing the end of development of DLC, Ms continued to fine tune the core of the program with a post release beta test involving Steam users which a Title Update (1.1.1.30063) was released for GFWL users on 25 September 2012 which the update first was done in the steam version after the post cancellation beta test and later was applied to the GFWL version it was noted on the Steam forums and Flight's Ms Facebook page announcing the "bug fix" post cancellation update.

https://news.microsoftflight.com/blogs/news/archive/2012/09/24/yay-betas-no-not-the-fish.aspx https://www.facebook.com/msflight/posts/429405410454779 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeholder (talk • contribs) 19:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That is good info, I will add it from those refs. - Ahunt (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ - please have a look and see if I got it right. - Ahunt (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks Good, still has some minor issues and some additional information that can be added but, remember the Basic Carbon Cub being said it was upgraded with the Carbon Cub Deluxe, here is an in game picture of my hanger showing the Deluxe models which have a yellow 'Tab on the upper left corner (with my red arrow), the Basic's don't. if you Notice there are TWO carbon cubs in my hanger one is the basic the other is the Deluxe so IF the deluxe was an upgrade for the Basic cub...they both wouldn't be together in my hanger correct?

I learned something by the way...Timeholder (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining that. We can't use an image as a ref of Wikipedia, since interpreting it falls afoul of WP:OR, so we need to cite a ref that says this. Also I had to nom your image for deletion - this is a copyrighted image and you uploaded it under a CC licence, which isn't allowed. - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The JPG image I made and edited of a "screen shot" on my computer which was used to benefit the information for the stub on a 'talk page has a Copy Right issue? Interesting. Can we take a look across this Stub and review some of the sources that are quoted to see if the information is being cited from a source that is "protected by a legal copy right" by the website that owns it and see if the stub is authorized to use it?

(/REf/ #6) is "protected" under Copyright Aviation Publishing Group. All rights reserved, is clearly shown on the bottom of the website screen, which Copied text was lifted and pasted into the stub..and there is an issue with a picture I produced (not copied) and edited?Timeholder (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

REF/#3 should clearly helps clear up the first couple sentences in the very beginning of the stub, which just a side note Ref 3 is for the a FAQ page for the title which can be found herebut ref #3 goes to which even at the FAQ page sheds more light on to the beginning of the stub when it is stated "Microsoft Flight is a flight simulation game from Microsoft Studios created as a successor to the discontinued Microsoft Flight Simulator series." which that could be seen as presumptive because in the actual FAQ's for the title See: it is stated "Microsoft Flight is a new PC game from Microsoft Studios.  Microsoft Flight is available to download for free from the Games for Windows –LIVE Marketplace and brings a fresh perspective to Microsoft’s long-standing Flight Simulator franchise.". which the intention of Microsoft Flight wasn't "created as a successor to" but rather a "a fresh perspective to Microsoft’s long-standing Flight Simulator franchise". Hope that helps a little because the first paragraph has the word "Simulator" as an unsupported description of the Title "Microsoft Flight".Timeholder (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note on ref 3, I'll have a look and see if that can be used to correct the article. I'll check ref 6's text as well.


 * As far as copyright goes actual exact text and images can be copyrighted, but information cannot be. Citing information from a copyrighted source and then citing where it comes from is legal and academically permissible as well. Copying short amounts of text verbatim is permitted as quotes under US copyright law as "fair use". Copying longer works or copyrighted images is not legally permitted, except under specific circumstances. Screenshots of copyrighted computer programs are covered by the copyright. You will find those on Wikipedia (but not Commons) when their use meets the specific requirements of "fair use". What you can't do is take a copyrighted computer program, make a screenshot of it and then upload it to Commons under a permissive licence, like CC 3.0, as it violates the copyright. Fair Use doesn't allow uses like talk pages, too. There is more detail at Copyrights. - Ahunt (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay I have checked Ref 6 (the AVweb article by Glenn Pew) and the article uses just a short quote from the ref, and is well within US copyright law as "fair use". I have also added the ref you gave https://microsoftflight.com/en-us/faqs/#general, removed the existing ref since it didn't support anything and reworked the lead a bit as per the ref. I interpret the phrase "brings a fresh perspective to Microsoft’s long-standing Flight Simulator franchise" as marketing talk meaning that it is the latest game in the series and that it is therefore reasonable to say it was "created as a successor to the discontinued Microsoft Flight Simulator series" - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice rewrite if I could I would give you three stars..if I may suggest a bit of ticking to it: Microsoft Flight is a aviation game from Microsoft Studios created as a successor to the discontinued Microsoft Flight Simulator series.[3] Microsoft Flight is no longer being developing new DLC for the Title but The core game, which includes the Icon A5 aircraft and the Big Island of Hawaii scenery area, is free to download from the game's website. It can then be expanded with additional downloadable content (DLC) from the integrated Games For Windows Marketplace on Xbox- Live or also from the Steam website.

I do not know if this 'stub' would except a users opinion about the "reviews" flight recived when it was released but I took in the reviews, of the reviewers postings of the Title when it was first released, which the reviews where on Metacritic, Eurogamer, GameSpot, GameSpy and IGN which one can back-trace those published reviews and reread them. When I did I came to the conclusion that possibly sixty percent of the reviewers where running the program assuming because the "discontinued old title" was working so beautifully on their machine, that this title should also performed just as well also. This is so apparently evident in the "screen shots" that they posted with their review of the title. How can I say that any better other than when we read those we end up deciding if we want to purchase it and if the reviewers who wrote them are judging the title on a sub-par machine assuming the "discontinued old title" work well they expected the new title to work 'out-of -the-box' just as well if not better than the older "discontinued old title". As evident to the Screen Shots, most of the poor ratings came from reviewers that didn't understand the requirements differences between the two titles for CPU,GPU or the Ram requirements and probably failed to update their graphic drivers as well, which MSF ADVISED the later heavily. Which this I think is one of the reason why the game received such a poor to average rating. Now some just may take me to task on this but I know one person (me) that assumed the above scenario because of the "discontinued old title" while using it with my motion platform (some would refer to that as a "simulator" btw) that my computer should of been more than able to handle Ms-Flight, I don't want to admit to this but I was so very wrong to assume that because the "discontinued old title" performance was remarkable on my setup, I had to modify my setup 'slightly in order to have the New tile perform just as well if not better. Which I probably can give some Screen Shots of back when I pulled the gear up for the first time and how it looked like some of those reviews and compare back then to now after my mod to my ram and the help from the support team who found the correct graphic drivers on ATI that where listed incorrectly for my machine. The differences are stunning, which I all ready know someone would have a panty twist moment claiming "copy right infringement" if I provided evidence to the above.Timeholder (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Another thing, just to mention this but the you may want to add to the stub, that after the release Ms Flight released an update that enabled the users to use TrackIr with the Title, and if your computer uses ATI/AMD Graphics that the title will use multiple monitors using hydrovision. If your interested I will look up some ref/ref's for the stub to show.Timeholder (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

no, I don't work for Microsoft or a sub corp, but, I have made a "JPG" Picture that shows Each Model, and the different paint schemes for all the DLC airframes, think of as if it was a "picture spread sheet"...which I all ready know that would twist someone really hard, so...yea gotta wait for that, BUT in all the reads for the Carbon Cub Deluxe there is no mentioning of it "upgrading" the included with Alaska 'Free carbon Cub Basic' as the stub states, you might want to look around or I will provide all the ref/ref i have for the CC deluxe, that is if you got the time to read all of them.Timeholder (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay I changed the lead as per your suggestion, breaking it out into a new paragraph and combining it into another similar para. The other additions you have suggested are fine, but we need refs to add them. As far as reviews go they can certainly be quoted from as long as they are from reliable sources and not self-published sources like personal blogs or forums, etc. - Ahunt (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

>

yep yep...understand I will /clue fonts/ together for you and see what happens...

so for you happy happy joy joy and what ever your reason for the season may be, I did a bit of RSR just on the top of the stub...no I don't live up there but that is the first anything someone goes into reading about the topic..and well just the first three sentences just kind of make me sit and wonder just where is..from the end of FSX to the begin of MS Flight..which I traveled back in time through the depths of the internet so..hum hope you enjoy some of this, you might like the Bruceair read, seem the man had the inside track..and an Rv-6...to boot (hum)

№ 1.Microsoft Flight is a aviation game from Microsoft Studios created as a successor to the discontinued Microsoft Flight Simulator series

№ 2. The game[3] is offered "free-to-play"; charging gamers for downloading extra content, aircraft or scenery....(<-what?)

№ 3. Unlike the enthusiast-centric Microsoft Flight Simulator games, Microsoft Flight focused more on the mass appeal of flight and aimed to engage a much wider audience.

№ 1 (wasn't this fixed...all ready?) if the successor of MSFS 10 (fsx) needs to be covered, then go ahead and cover the title that was the MSFS  next succusosor that actualy is -in line- as the Successor of MSFS 10 (FSX) which is Preparзd™. Ms Flight which is what the stub is for is quoted as being "a fresh perspective to Microsoft’s long-standing Flight Simulator franchise."

№ 2. as being the turn of the opening, the subject of the title in № 1, goes in to № 2. with a sudden (what is the purpous of the sentince, why is it here..as far as 'Gamers is considered rather speculative and unsupported, where the more proper "user" should be used but it wouldn't help this sentice. (Gamer's...play what cards?) a computer user uses programs, which no matter what type of program the 'user' has on his computer, doesn't change what he/she is, on the other hand if this was an "xbox 360" or a WII, Flight would be classified as a "video Game" and...those Gamers have a different degree of Stages..from "N00B" to "Hard-Core" to "Pro-Gamer" (which yes that has kind of made me giggle seeing the Hard-Core Flight simmers...(ahum) that don't play ..video games. (humor giggle)

№ 3 Sorry to here the MSFS complete game series (was a)  Nissian Brake Rotor: (enthusiast-centric™)

(so That why my desk chair squeaks..brake cleaner maybe?)

Suggest fixing №1, and deleting №2 and №3 all together.

(Fluff and filler?) ok so..the very tip top, FSX was this, died xx-xx-xx- then Flight is said to be succesor of FSX...bla bla, which look at the ...so I figured I would show you exactly what was going one durring that time frame with the time line I built during the period day to day read and Press..and hum people like brueair always seem to be having some 'friends over. (this read, was the -at the time- the very first sign that Microsoft was going to over haul the Series)

Microsoft Flight Simulator: A Change of Perspective

I’ve learned a little more about the aftermath of Microsoft’s decision to close the Aces studio and end development of its longest-running title, Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The games group has formed a new team, apparently called something like "Flight/Live," which ties into the Games for Windows Live initiative. Details about the flight-related game that the group may produce are sketchy. Apparently it will be designed to have "broad appeal." At present, the flying game doesn’t have a name.

Now, I don’t know whether the new title will offer races, aerobatics, or other forms of competition in the world of civilian aviation, or whether it will feature an air-combat model–for example, dogfights from World War II or high-tech jet fighters launching missiles and zooming around the sky.

In the end, however, the setting probably won’t be the new game’s most salient departure from the old Flight Simulator model. The big difference is more likely to be one of perspective–from a detailed representation of an aircraft cockpit and a world based on real airports, air traffic control, weather, and the like to what I call an "out-of-cockpit experience." 

Aug 17th 2010

Tucked away within the press release for Age of Empires Online was the announcement of a new entry in a really long-lived Microsoft game series: Microsoft Flight Simulator. The latest Windows-exclusive title, now called simply Microsoft Flight, "will bring a new perspective to the long-standing genre," according to the press release, "welcoming everyone, including long-time fans, to experience the magic of flight."

There are no details beyond that, and the listed website is not live at the moment. However, the "welcoming everyone" language combined with the symbolic omission of the word "simulator" gives us an idea of what to expect: a more game-like, streamlined experience. 

At the Gamescon 2010 conference in Cologne, Germany, Microsoft Corp. announced the first series of Xbox LIVE games that would launching on Windows Phone 7 this holiday season, as well as the newest addition to their famed “Age of Empires” franchise, “Age of Empires Online.” They also announced a new version of their “Microsoft Flight Simulator” franchise, entitled “Microsoft Flight.”

(in MS press release at Gamescon 2010) Introducing “Microsoft Flight”

Twenty-eight years after the debut of “Microsoft Flight Simulator 1.0,” Microsoft Game Studios also announced the internal development of “Microsoft Flight,” a new Windows exclusive. “Microsoft Flight” will bring a new perspective to the long-standing genre, welcoming everyone, including long-time fans, to experience the magic of flight.

At Gamescom 2010 in Cologne, Germany, Microsoft announces the new Microsoft Flight title for PC Gaming and Games for Windows - Live.

Microsoft Flight marks a return to the 28-year-old Microsoft Flight Simulator series, last seen in 2006's Flight Simulator X

Microsoft Flight: no release date, but another tease (11/15/2011)

After Microsoft Flight Simulator (and Aces Game Studio) was axed back in January 2009 as part of a cost cutting move, we’ve been getting occasional and fairly cryptic messages from something new from Games for Windows Live called “Microsoft Flight”, which was first announced last August. Today, they’re at it again, posting that while they’re “not quite ready” to talk release date yet (but check back in December for an “exciting announcement”!), they are sharing a bit of information. From the blog post:

Amongst the most popular questions the Flight team has been asked via e-mails to msflight@microsoft.com are those about the release date and game performance. While we aren’t quite ready to talk about a release date, we did want to share a bit about our approach towards performance and hardware.

Performance optimization has been a core focus of our development from an early stage. To achieve this, we constantly monitored game performance metrics across a range of hardware configurations and reacted each time we saw a new feature or code change that caused a dip below the established thresholds. The end result is that Flight looks fantastic on a brand new PC, but because of the emphasis on performance throughout development, it also runs well on older desktops and budget laptops.

The graphic below illustrates the visual difference between the low and high settings. compare photo

January 24, 2012...(FULL CIRCLE..(BACK TO BRUCE AIR!)

Microsoft Flight, the successor to Microsoft Flight Simulator, is in beta. Now more details about the new game (Microsoft dropped simulator from the title) are emerging. You can find a summary from one person who attended the unveiling at Microsoft here.

As I’ve noted elsewhere, the game will be offered as a free download. That initial release includes only a couple of aircraft and the scenery and activities are limited to Hawaii. Users eventually will be able to download additional scenery, aircraft, and activities from Microsoft, with each module coming at a price, as yet unannounced.

According to the account above, however, Microsoft will not publish information about how to create add-ons for Microsoft Flight, and, apparently, it will not allow others to host or distribute additional content for the game. Everything will come from Microsoft.

That latter point is telling, and it ends a decades-long practice that led to a worldwide community of developers and enthusiasts who created add-on aircraft, scenery, and features for the Flight Simulator franchise.Timeholder (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, nice.blunt yet funny review 3/7/12Timeholder (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeholder (talk • contribs) 09:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am having a bit of a hard time understanding your points here, but let me look over the sources you have indicated and see which ones can be used for reviews. - Ahunt (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaks as if...ACES Studio has all been dismissed and closed, but that didn't happen untill Feb/26/2009...want more odd?

Microsoft Flight Simulator: A Change of Perspective February 18, 2009 "I’ve learned a little more about the aftermath of Microsoft’s decision to close the Aces studio and end development of its longest-running title, Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The games group has formed a new team, apparently called something like "Flight/Live," which ties into the Games for Windows Live initiative'''. Details about the flight-related game that the group may produce are sketchy. Apparently it will be designed to have "broad appeal." At present, the flying game doesn’t have a name.'''

Now, I don’t know whether the new title will offer races, aerobatics, or other forms of competition in the world of civilian aviation, or whether it will feature an air-combat model–for example, dogfights from World War II or high-tech jet fighters launching missiles and zooming around the sky.

In the end, however, the setting probably won’t be the new game’s most salient departure from the old Flight Simulator model. The big difference is more likely to be one of perspective–from a detailed representation of an aircraft cockpit and a world based on real airports, air traffic control, weather, and the like to what I call an "out-of-cockpit experience."

for the development aspect, this was the first 'mention about the new title, Microsoft Flight with some 'detail'

Here is the location of the 'Credits' for the Title, just in case you might find anything in there that might be of interest.

yea just may want to see who is who..and realize most of the 50 that got fired when ACES closing went to Cascade game foundry, a couple others went to Lockheed Martin, which when Flight's Development in the Credits show that now back at Microsoft most of the names from the old Ace Studios minus a couple(down at Lockheed)show up on the Ms Flight project development team! which I can find the article about that also.

I got the Aces studio being shuttered, 8 days after that post, along with the finalizing of the purchase of the intellectual property (including the source code) for the Microsoft ESP product. Microsoft ESP is the commercial-use version of "Flight Simulator X SP2 to Lockheed Martin (<-wiki) which Microsoft Flight Simulator would of tanked and didn't need any further development and the ACE Studio was CLOSED and Microsoft said they just FIRED aka laid off the development team...or did they? Back to that first read They where already gone off working on the NEXT Microsoft Game Title 8 days before they got fired (to thin huh?) and then the oops moment at GamesCon 2010 which Microsoft inadvertently mentions in another game release, Opps yea we are making another Flight...Game "Microsoft flight"

just in case your not confessed yet...there is ...more to come.Timeholder (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

over at Cascade Game foundry

We bring a rich level of expertise in programming, design, production, art, and audio, across the PC, Xbox 360, and mobile platforms. Team members have shipped dozens of successful titles in the Simulation, Action, Racing, Strategy, and Sports genres, including Microsoft Flight Simulator, Microsoft Train Simulator, Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator, Project Gotham Racing, Forza Motorsports, Alan Wake, Fable, Kinectimals, Halo, Shadowrun, NFL Fever 2000 – 2003, and many others.

The Simulation Game:

stress note 1: Kathie Flood’s new venture is Cascade Game Foundry, which she established with Rick Selby and several other Aces veterans....

After the unexpected closure of Microsoft’s Aces Game Studio, home of the Flight Simulator franchise, Kathie Flood and Rick Selby assembled a talented and diverse team of designers to start Cascade Game Foundry

www.nbcnews.com

"While the internal Microsoft team that developed those titles, ACES, was dissolved in 2009, many ex-ACES team members have reportedly come back to work on the new title."

Stress note 1:The team behind Microsoft Flight® consists of roughly 50 people, including a mix of professional pilots, 40% of which worked on the previous team.

Stress note 2: Three years into development?....(what? really seriously are you KIDDIN9..CONFIRMATION!)

in December 13th 2011, the team at Fly Away Simulation were invited to an event demonstrating and discussing Microsoft's next flight simulator release, Microsoft Flight. Many facts, information and topics were discussed at this event. William Luxton, a member of our editorial team was at the event and has the following report for your reading pleasure.

The team behind Microsoft Flight® consists of roughly 50 people, including a mix of professional pilots, 40% of which worked on the previous team. Three years into development, Project Manager Joshua Howard

hum that silly wabbit! in the weboid on the Flights website the interviews with the team you see many face from CGFTimeholder (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

all of the above you should be able to write a NICE TIME LINE from the closeing of ACE studios, the sell of FSX to Lookheed Marten and the show of work done with MS Flight up to the release of the title.Timeholder (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's just list those potential refs and see what we have - Ahunt (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In looking though these most seem like WP:RS, except for the bruceair.wordpress.com ones, which are WP:SPS and therefore can't be used. Given the volume of information and the fact that I am having trouble understanding what you have written above it may be quite a while before I have the time to spend on this article in sorting all this out. I would suggest that you may want to just go ahead and incorporate this all yourself. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

if you read #25...where it states Flight was in development for 3 years, back track to the firing of the old ACES STUDIO of FSX one could very well see how Bruce's post would show what he was shown was the developed "Concept" of Flight, which Microsoft was by the read referenced in #25 would support that the Flight Title's development actually started before the official ending to that other program that became Prepar3d at Lockheed around the exact same time 3 years before the release of the Title 'Flight by Microsoft.Timeholder (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Lets clear some stuff up real quick before the world comes to an end :)

still up at the top it is reading and I will quote this...

"Microsoft Flight is a aviation game from Microsoft Studios created as a successor to the discontinued Microsoft Flight Simulator series." using the #2 reference. which reads "brings a fresh perspective to Microsoft’s long-standing Flight Simulator franchise."

the only program that is a successor to the discontinued Microsoft Flight Simulator Series is Perpar3d which was produced by lockheed martin using the esp and the source code from Microsoft flight simulator Ten, which was the last in the series of Flight simulator that was produced by Microsoft, MS FLIGHT is not a SIMULATOR so it can not be a successor to one.

Do you really want me to start editing the stub or can you manage that, I just stop here and point out of respect to the stub and...the work that is on it.Timeholder (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Go ahead, I'm going to be tied up for a while with other tasks. - Ahunt (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

another reference:

Microsoft Flight® is a new approach to a beloved franchise. It is a completely separate product from FSX, designed to appeal to the faithful Flight Simmers (prior primary target) as well as the casual flyers and the masses. Timeholder (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Reception
Someone already write something about the game's reception. Many reviews, articles and news sources consider it to be a bitter disappointment in microsofts usually great flight simulator franchise. So put something in the article guys. 80.187.111.9 (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Microsoft Flight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130817022736/http://support.xbox.com/en-US/games/pc-games/pc-marketplace-closing to http://support.xbox.com/en-US/games/pc-games/pc-marketplace-closing
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130817022736/http://support.xbox.com/en-US/games/pc-games/pc-marketplace-closing to http://support.xbox.com/en-US/games/pc-games/pc-marketplace-closing

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Microsoft Flight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121112235540/https://microsoftflight.com/en-us/faqs/ to https://microsoftflight.com/en-us/faqs/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121112235611/https://microsoftflight.com/en-us/marketplace/ to https://microsoftflight.com/en-us/marketplace/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130106015028/http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/Microsoft-Flight/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d8044d5308d2 to http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/Microsoft-Flight/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d8044d5308d2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121213064851/http://store.steampowered.com/app/203850/?snr=1_7_suggest__13 to http://store.steampowered.com/app/203850/?snr=1_7_suggest__13
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121217180945/https://news.microsoftflight.com/blogs/news/archive/2012/09/24/yay-betas-no-not-the-fish.aspx to https://news.microsoftflight.com/blogs/news/archive/2012/09/24/yay-betas-no-not-the-fish.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

the "discontinued" Microsoft flight simulator series
With the new announcement this month maybe we should remove all occurrences of the adjective "discontinued". Zyzzek (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)