In the last two issues of PC Pilot, there has been an article on the up and coming Microsoft Flight.Microsoft have started from 'ground up' with this software and their focus will be on the 'universal appeal of the experience of Flight' They said that they are not ready yet to expand on the 'gameplay' aspect of Flight.I run FSX and I am content with my set up and frame rates. Will Flight be any better - yes I am sure it will. Will I change to Flight - probably - one day. 'Flight' will be aimed at both 'gamers' and flight sim enthusiasts with the ability to 'play' as Microsoft put it, either on line or stand alone.I am building my 737 cockpit so 'gaming' does not appeal to me. I started on FS 2002, changed to FS9 and will stay with FSX for quite some considerable time as it is the best there is for what I want. Each and everyone of us is rightly entitled to their own opinions when it comes to which brand and model of a particular sim to use.Embrace progress but do not knock what we have still got. At the end of the day, if it wasn't for FS9 or FSX then we probably wouldn't have the progress onto MS Flight.

In my opinion, FSX was like the MSFS version of vista or the iPhone 4.

Aside here... I'm an Android guy myself, but the idea that the iPhone 4 was "riddled" with problems is a bit much - it has an antenna issue that you have to physically try to cause, that's it right?

Am I the only one who thinks those Flight screenshot look quite average. I mean for the time between FSX and Flight, I'd expect to see some more improvement in the visuals. I understand the realism and 'physics' may have improved...But come on. FSX with REX + UTX etc blows those screenshots away.

Aaaaand here we go again... it never changes does it? There's still people saying they'll never leave FS9 8 years later and now we're already starting up with the same stuff about FSX vs. Flight, which is 6 years old itself next year.The Flight team has stated that performance is their primary concern - if Flight looked exactly like FSX but performed at 60FPS without overclocking and all that it would be worth it alone, big time.

Indeed. Couldn't agree more. I don't give a damn if Flight looks the same or better than FSX, if it performs better I will buy it, that's a no brainer for me.Ryan: judging by the thread, you are not the only one. I for one think they look okay, actually.

The Flight team has stated that performance is their primary concern - if Flight looked exactly like FSX but performed at 60FPS without overclocking and all that it would be worth it alone, big time.

Alrighty then, but not at 60 $. I am not paying twice for the same product.Dom MasonAirdailyx

Indeed. Couldn't agree more. I don't give a damn if Flight looks the same or better than FSX, if it performs better I will buy it, that's a no brainer for me.Ryan: judging by the thread, you are not the only one. I for one think they look okay, actually.

Amen. A stable flight sim from the start, without so much tweaking and voodoo arts, which takes advantage of everything the flight sim developers have learned from the past while correcting all previous shortcomings, is all I can hope for. Namely, that means using all a cpu's cores, offloading more cpu tasks to the GPU, better memory management, and a better weather/AI engine.

As the Microsoft development team state they are trying to improve performance with Microsoft Flight, would it be better putting off the NGX for FSX until there is hopefully a conversion released for Microsoft Flight?I don't like the idea of buying new add ons for FSX only to find tha a few months later the new improved Microsoft Flight comes out. I?f the basing is the same though you could transfer the planes across but if it's not...

Aside here... I'm an Android guy myself, but the idea that the iPhone 4 was "riddled" with problems is a bit much - it has an antenna issue that you have to physically try to cause, that's it right?

I have the iPhone 4 and I have never had a problem with it, in fact it's one the mobile phone I have had least problems with. Can't say that about my earlier Nokia phones. And I have had less problems with FSX than FS9, lost a lot of hair under my FS9 period.

Aside here... I'm an Android guy myself, but the idea that the iPhone 4 was "riddled" with problems is a bit much - it has an antenna issue that you have to physically try to cause, that's it right?

The Iphone4 is a great product. Its quality is unmatched and its pretty " sexy' phone as well. The ONLY flaw it MAY have is the antenna. But if you learn how to hold the phone there are little to no problems with it. I also want to add that the clarity of the phone calls is crystal clear. Its an extrodinary phone, and so much more.ps- I pretty much always use my hands free anyway.

As the Microsoft development team state they are trying to improve performance with Microsoft Flight, would it be better putting off the NGX for FSX until there is hopefully a conversion released for Microsoft Flight?I don't like the idea of buying new add ons for FSX only to find tha a few months later the new improved Microsoft Flight comes out. I?f the basing is the same though you could transfer the planes across but if it's not...

I wouldnt worry about it. If FSX is working for you than whats the problem. I find that i get many many hours of enjoyment from it, and dont even think about a new version until I actually see it and read some reviews about it first. I read all the FSX bashes and quite frankly find them tasteless and with little or no merit to them. Its also rude, as the fine folks at ACES put a ton of work into it.

I beg to differ.Eye candy may be good or bad, higher resolution terrain is nice, it is not a 'joke'. Better cockpit lighting techniques are not a joke either.And flight modelling doesn't necessarily need more CPU power, as many 3-rd party aircraft in FSX showed you can get exceptionally good flight modelling with what you have today.

I'm not saying I don't like the higher res terrain (photo scenery is great), but as for the flight modelling it leaves a LOT to be desired. Just pick up DCS:A10 or DCS:BS and see what I mean. FSX can't get close (and those sims run far better than FSX too - no slide show even at max detail in a multiplayer environment).

If FSX was really a joke there would be no one here writing that FSX is a joke because there would be no one here - this place would be empty. Nobody is buying add-ons to something that is a joke. Judging by how crowded these forums are - it is far from a joke.

FSX is very good for straight and level flight, and the aircraft are excellent procedural trainers/simulators for aircraft systems, but as far as the flight model goes it is severely lacking. There are too many issues with it (particularly flight performance) and even aerobatics can't be done properly as FS just can't handle inverted aerofoils. Because of its poor flight dynamics engine, it can't stall properly, spins are problematic (I know some aircraft spin OK but they still aren't doing it right), aircraft don't yaw properly, they do not handle correctly at high altitude (AoA modelling is extremely poor and stall AoA is static instead of changing with altitude as it should), etc.. It is time this part of the sim was re-written and dragged into the present day.FSX works, and is enjoyable, but just doesn't cut it beyond procedures. Get a copy of OF4.7 installed and see what can be done. Even the original Falcon 4.0 (14 years old) is ahead of FSX in the *flight simulation* department. A certain FSX F-16 is a good visual effort, but is just ridiculous when it comes to how it handles - the reason is the FSX flight model just isn't sophisticated enough to do more than straight and level flight.The FSX flight dynamics haven't changed since FS98. FS2000 saw the introduction of reheat. Aside from a bit of re-organization, the basics haven't moved on, and are too simplistic.Best regards,Robin.

I don't like the idea of buying new add ons for FSX only to find tha a few months later the new improved Microsoft Flight comes out. I?f the basing is the same though you could transfer the planes across but if it's not...

Well, if it's anything like the evolution from FS9 to FSX was, it's not as if there will be a whole slew of add-ons available on the day of release of Flight. I think you'll find yourself waiting a while for the 3rd party developers to catch up with Flight just as we did with FSX. To PMDG's credit, they did release the FSX 744 relatively soon after FSX hit the market.-john rodgers

Aside here... I'm an Android guy myself, but the idea that the iPhone 4 was "riddled" with problems is a bit much - it has an antenna issue that you have to physically try to cause, that's it right?

Since I'm still on the 3GS, I must admit I was basing it off what others had told me. Aside from the antenna, some of my friends said they had issues with the original iOS4 which was subsequently solved in later updates. They said that some apps would run slow and others would constantly freeze or crash.

My worry about Flight is how 3rd party development will be supported. Most people on these sorts of forum are looking for high fidelity simulations whether it be scenery, aircraft, etc. It takes developers 6 months to make a single airport or 2-3 years for a single aircraft developed at this level. Regardless of the advances seen in Flight, I doubt it's "baseline" will be equal to what our payware developers can give us presently. I have little doubt that Flight will exceed FSX out of the box graphically and probably in many other aspects (hopeful stability and performance in particular). However, to make it the "simulator" that we all want is still going to rely on 3rd part add-ons. I think MS realizes that they can't exclude open development without loosing a large part of the sustainable community (i.e., those that will not buy, play through the missions once and then drop it). However, it seems that MS wants a cut of this and most 3rd party developers insinuate that they are barely keeping their financial heads above water now. If MS takes too big a cut, it could virtually shutdown 3rd party developers financially.

I'm not saying I don't like the higher res terrain (photo scenery is great), but as for the flight modelling it leaves a LOT to be desired. Just pick up DCS:A10 or DCS:BS and see what I mean. FSX can't get close (and those sims run far better than FSX too - no slide show even at max detail in a multiplayer environment).FSX is very good for straight and level flight, and the aircraft are excellent procedural trainers/simulators for aircraft systems, but as far as the flight model goes it is severely lacking. There are too many issues with it (particularly flight performance) and even aerobatics can't be done properly as FS just can't handle inverted aerofoils. Because of its poor flight dynamics engine, it can't stall properly, spins are problematic (I know some aircraft spin OK but they still aren't doing it right), aircraft don't yaw properly, they do not handle correctly at high altitude (AoA modelling is extremely poor and stall AoA is static instead of changing with altitude as it should), etc.. It is time this part of the sim was re-written and dragged into the present day.FSX works, and is enjoyable, but just doesn't cut it beyond procedures. Get a copy of OF4.7 installed and see what can be done. Even the original Falcon 4.0 (14 years old) is ahead of FSX in the *flight simulation* department. A certain FSX F-16 is a good visual effort, but is just ridiculous when it comes to how it handles - the reason is the FSX flight model just isn't sophisticated enough to do more than straight and level flight.The FSX flight dynamics haven't changed since FS98. FS2000 saw the introduction of reheat. Aside from a bit of re-organization, the basics haven't moved on, and are too simplistic.Best regards,Robin.

Sort of comparing apples to oranges, aren't you? I could compare FSX to the DCS series all day. FSX does what it was built to do.DCS A-10's flight model was designed for aircraft of a certain type. You know, your run of the mill military fighting aircraft. My airliners in FS9/FSX feel right. So do my small GA aircraft. I don't use FS for stall training or any other end of the normal flight envelope maneuvers. Those maneuvers are best practiced in the actual aircraft. Try the same maneuvers in an airline's FM level-d. I also don't use FSX for air to air combat... For that matter X-plane's flight dynamics feel completely off to me and they use a much more advanced airfoil simulation. To call FSX a joke because stall behavior is whacky is absurd. :(