LOL is this a joke? Where have I said that Flight is Hawaii only? I said IF... and in my previous conversations on the topic I have simply made the point that it is a POSSIBILITY at this point just as much as it is a possibility that it will include the whole world, what is so hard to understand about that?

Thank you sir for clearing it up. When it comes out, lets do some flights togather.

People keep going on about the flight dynamics of X Plane. Thing is, I don't really care how it's done, the end result is basically the same, and X Plane doesn't do immersion, which is really important for me. I've never felt like I was part of the scenery in X Plane like I do with a well sorted FSX installation. With FSX you can get lost in your monitor and forget you're sitting at home with a beer next to you. X Plane can not do that and is therefore, despite all the flight dynamics claims, less realistic than FSX. I tried the demo, there's an improvement over previous versions, I love the lighting system etc... there's a lot of potential and Microsoft could learn a lot about a lot of things, but again, who cares how it's done, FSX does what X Plane can't do... yet.I have great hope for X Plane though, there are many things about it which are the "right" way to do things. If they can get the kind of after-market addon market that FSX enjoys going, I can see it ending up being the better option. But for now, it's not there.

I like your insight. I have been waiting for people to give unbiased review of X-plane 10. People who use that sim claims its the greatest sim since slice bread...and I really don't see that. beleive me I tried.

Sure, if you really love Hawaii then you will Love flight :(

ROFL

Ok,If we look at the pattern that Microsoft has created when developing whether it be Flight Simulators or Operating sytems then it will eventually be good enough to enjoy. How Microsoft have done things in the past with their operating systems we can probably be safe to assume that FS2004 is the equivalent to Windows XP (it just worked) and FSX being the equivalent to Vista (we all know how problematic that version was don't we Bill). So, in my own humble opinion, I believe that you may not find too many extreme changes aethestically but rather a more solid and scalable engine making it a more appeasing simulation. Graphically and functionally speaking I believe Microsoft will know that a new engine (hence the code re-write; speculation but very plausable) will be needed to take the sim to new heights. Who cares that there may be very little differences in the texture sizes but if the code is re-written to accomodate for more elements to be added to the textures then this would enhance the immersive experience. And as long as the SDK is available then there will always be somebody to make what the community wants, there just has to be demand for it. Microsoft have always been able to create a foundation to build on with Flight Sim and they know this. You don't think only end user simmers read these forums do you? Anyway, I think Microsoft have realised that FSX was half finished (hence the preview DX10 option we all drool over but cannot use) and now they are buiding on what was cool with FSX and adding a touch of "moving with the times" or in this case moving with the hardware. Let's get excited, i'm sure we all will achieve good framerates based on our hardware so if this is what we can expect then we will all be less confused about what hardware to get (based on variable and suprising hardware configs for low to high end pc's) and hopefully confirm that faster is better.That's all from little old me, hope you all have a happy New Year.Kelvin

+1. Pretty much sums up what I've been thinking from early on.

+1. Pretty much sums up what I've been thinking from early on.

+1

When "flight" is released, so enjoy another year of crap and cups of tea :(

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok,If we look at the pattern that Microsoft has created when developing whether it be Flight Simulators or Operating sytems then it will eventually be good enough to enjoy. How Microsoft have done things in the past with their operating systems we can probably be safe to assume that FS2004 is the equivalent to Windows XP (it just worked) and FSX being the equivalent to Vista (we all know how problematic that version was don't we Bill). So, in my own humble opinion, I believe that you may not find too many extreme changes aethestically but rather a more solid and scalable engine making it a more appeasing simulation. Graphically and functionally speaking I believe Microsoft will know that a new engine (hence the code re-write; speculation but very plausable) will be needed to take the sim to new heights. Who cares that there may be very little differences in the texture sizes but if the code is re-written to accomodate for more elements to be added to the textures then this would enhance the immersive experience. And as long as the SDK is available then there will always be somebody to make what the community wants, there just has to be demand for it. Microsoft have always been able to create a foundation to build on with Flight Sim and they know this. You don't think only end user simmers read these forums do you? Anyway, I think Microsoft have realised that FSX was half finished (hence the preview DX10 option we all drool over but cannot use) and now they are buiding on what was cool with FSX and adding a touch of "moving with the times" or in this case moving with the hardware.Kelvin

I'd agree if it weren't for the fact Aces is gone. The pattern of development you speak of is all but rendered mute at this point.

You tried the demo, didn't like it, then went out and spent 80.00 on the program. Or your giving advice if you dont like the demo you wont like the full programs. Man I'm confused.???? Wont get my sympathy. Next time you want to throw away 80 dollars, there are many charitable organizations that could sure use the help.

Couldn't agree more.For the record, do the default planes in FSX fly nice? Not even close; most of them are crap. Don't even get me started on the default A320 from FSX or the default 737-400 from FS2004...the argument that the default planes in XP10 fly like "s#*%" is mute.

the argument that the default planes in XP10 fly like "s#*%" is mute.

It's only moot because there is no argument to begin with

I have the x-plane 10 Demo(with not time limit) and the 747 is better than the default FSX 747...and yes the default fsx 321 is not great...Remeber we are talking about a 6yr-old game. The 777 in XP10 is not great, but the small planes are good. Anyhow, the problem for me with XP-10 is just the overall feel, setting it up, the controls, the breaking (default setting) and while the scenery is ok and yes plausable, there's something missing. I just don't feel immersed in the game. I tried, and tried and will contiue to try. This is exactly how I feel: XP-10 is like a vacation to me where FSX (with several add-ons) feels like home.Thanks.(p.s. From what I've seen thus far, do you think XP-10 scenery is BETTER that FLIGHTS' scenery...at least in Hawaii?)

Ok,If we look at the pattern that Microsoft has created when developing whether it be Flight Simulators or Operating sytems then it will eventually be good enough to enjoy. How Microsoft have done things in the past with their operating systems we can probably be safe to assume that FS2004 is the equivalent to Windows XP (it just worked) and FSX being the equivalent to Vista (we all know how problematic that version was don't we Bill). So, in my own humble opinion, I believe that you may not find too many extreme changes aethestically but rather a more solid and scalable engine making it a more appeasing simulation. Graphically and functionally speaking I believe Microsoft will know that a new engine (hence the code re-write; speculation but very plausable) will be needed to take the sim to new heights. Who cares that there may be very little differences in the texture sizes but if the code is re-written to accomodate for more elements to be added to the textures then this would enhance the immersive experience. And as long as the SDK is available then there will always be somebody to make what the community wants, there just has to be demand for it. Microsoft have always been able to create a foundation to build on with Flight Sim and they know this. You don't think only end user simmers read these forums do you? Anyway, I think Microsoft have realised that FSX was half finished (hence the preview DX10 option we all drool over but cannot use) and now they are buiding on what was cool with FSX and adding a touch of "moving with the times" or in this case moving with the hardware. Let's get excited, i'm sure we all will achieve good framerates based on our hardware so if this is what we can expect then we will all be less confused about what hardware to get (based on variable and suprising hardware configs for low to high end pc's) and hopefully confirm that faster is better.That's all from little old me, hope you all have a happy New Year.Kelvin

Not a bad point.

It's only moot because there is no argument to begin with

Thank you for spelling moot correctly! :( For the other posters, please trim the caboose from your replies. There's no need to quote the entire ten-thousand word essay we all just read a few posts above, only to read a "+1" reply, or a single sentence! :(

Remember we are talking about a 6yr-old game.

Sigh. It's FIVE years old.

It's got HORRIFIC flight dynamics,,,

No it doesn't, or at least it's not any more "horrific" than what's offered by the default planes in FSX.

Basically, you won't recongnise the town your flying in...

The same is true of FSX if you happen to be flying outside one of the few specially detailed cities.You don't like X-Plane 10, that much is clear, but these kinds of exaggerated criticisms border on lies.

No it doesn't, or at least it's not any more "horrific" than what's offered by the default planes in FSX.

I could barely take off in the XP-10 Cessna 172. It flies NOTHING like the FSX 172 at all.

I could barely take off in the XP-10 Cessna 172. It flies NOTHING like the FSX 172 at all.

It's not supposed to fly like the FSX 172.

It's not supposed to fly like the FSX 172.

He said the default aircraft don't fly any worse than in FSX. I can easily fly the default FSX 172, but I struggle to take off in X-Plane 10's 172.