One thing I keep hearing over and over and over is that Flight is "arcade" and not a true "flight sim", yet the reasons why people say this has me very perplexed. One of the main reasons I see people saying this is the gold rush or hoops course. Its a mission you can do, or you dont need to. If the existence of missions disqualifies Flight from being a "flight sim" then you must also disqualify FSX and FS2004. Another one is that Flight "encourages" players to do things you should not do in real life. Again, FSX had missions that asked you to do things like FLOWER BOMB A NUKE CARRIER. Again, FSX is disqualified?One of the big ones I hear is "Flight does not have ATC". In that aspect, almost all the past flight sims are instantly disqualified as being "flight sims". Like all of MSFS before 2002, and I think every Xplanes before 10? (Not sure when ATC was added to XP. Just going off the wiki). I also hear that its not a "flight sim" because it does not have X or Y aircraft, or no big airliners. Again, with that, you disqualify most flight sims including any MSFS before 95. Or how about "since it only has Hawaii its not a true flight sim!". This statement I think is the most ironic one, considering MSFS really didnt simulate the "whole world" till about 2000? Also great flight sims like Fly! and Flight Unlimited also didnt simulate the "whole world".Before you hit reply to rage on me, understand THIS. Im not defending Flight. Im just asking a very simple question. "What qualifies any game to be a flight sim vs arcade?"

Right now I can load up an airplane that I have flown in real life.Follow my real life checklist, verbally contact a live human being air traffic controller who will assign me the real runway the real controller would have assigned based on FAA SOP. He may even assign me a similar beacon code.I will take off looking at weather similar to the same weather I am looking at out my window and fly to another airport using nothing but my eyeballs looking out the cockpit window and following landmarks that I know from memory. I can also load up an airport that I have never been to before, follow the same procedures to depart, grab a real life sectional chart and also navigate to another airport using nothing but my eyeballs and that sectional chart. If I lose my way I can tune in any NAVAIDs I see on the chart and navigate that way.That's how I define a sim.(plus everything PMDG, lol)

That's how I define a sim.

So for you, the only real sim in existance is FSX? From reading what you posted, not even FSX itself qualifies, as it needed massive modifications.Also, do you think any single product could ever match your qualifications without costing a mint?

Edited February 6, 201214 yr by MVGibbage

With every new "game" you expect it to be more realistic, that´s what has happened in past with all the previous flight simulators we were always impressed with the new features, mainly the only conplain has been "frame rate" ( current pc's not running the game very well)but none of the simmers were conplaining of the game itself or the new features, Obviously some regreted the lack of better aircraft, or more detailed aiports etc, but in the overall everyone were very exited of the new flight simulator and very happy, until FSX first was released and it proveed to be not suitable to be run at that time in the average good pc's.With the "new" flight, the only new thing so far shown is the marketing strategy, they removed a lot of great things (or hide it) and we are conplaining now cause we see how a great simulation software is turned into a console game.just that

Fair point Ticosimmer, but to call it an arcade game simply because it does not have every feature of FSX and more is going a bit far. Its not FS11 and MS never claimed it to be such. Its a new product, not a contenuation of the old. My point is that most of the things people complain about Flight are present in almost all other games people considered flight sims, yet Flight gets labled "arcade". A good example of this is Aerofly FS and Take On Helicoter. Those two products are very similar to Flight from what I can see. Scenery limited to a very spacific region, limited number of aircraft, no SDK, yet I dont see those two taking nearly as much flack as Flight. If MSFS never existed, would Flight be taking so much heat? I doubt it.

A flight sim is a software and hardware combo that can be used by a pilot or student with instructor to simulate real flight. It's a mind game. My dad used a poster with a drawing of a cockpit on it as a simulator in the late 1950s when becoming a F-86 pilot.

It's a mind game.

Well said. At some point, when we sit down in front of our PC based flight simulator, we have to suspend reality. It's only to what degree people are willing to do that. I'm perplexed by those who see FSX as the holy grail. Flying a C-152 in FSX is a long way removed from flying one for real. But what would I know... I'm not a systems freak.Mike Dryden

A flight sim is a software and hardware combo that can be used by a pilot or student with instructor to simulate real flight. It's a mind game. My dad used a poster with a drawing of a cockpit on it as a simulator in the late 1950s when becoming a F-86 pilot.

Great post! Even looking back at the old Link Simulators back in WWII, even those were considered flight sims.

Kevin, when I was six years old (sometime last century at least), I drew some instruments on the inside of a cardboard box, and used a broken bit of a broom handle for a flight stick. I'd sit in the box for hours making aircraft noises. IMHO, that qualified as a sim! :(

...........and the kids today do nothing but complain !! :(

So for you, the only real sim in existance is FSX? From reading what you posted, not even FSX itself qualifies, as it needed massive modifications.Also, do you think any single product could ever match your qualifications without costing a mint?

Yes FSX is the only thing right now for me. I did try X-Plane but it's not there for me yet. And you're right, FSX doesn't qualify by itself, but I have said before, if it weren't for add-ons I would never touch it. It does come close though. The taking off from my own airport thing I mentioned is true with default FSX scenery. They haven't made a good scenery add-on for my area yet. Of Course ORBX is better, but it's not required. The planes are obvious - I suppose the default 172 isn't vastly different from the real thing, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it realistic.How do you define mint? I think the vast majority of QUALITY fs add ons are vastly under priced. Take a look at the NGX. It's practically the same price as an x-box game. I would have paid 500 dollars for it. I once paid 200 dollars for one of the very early version of x-plane.Hypothetically speaking, if Flight were to be a successor to FSX, in that it had the whole world, the ability for independent developers to develop for it (VATSIM, hardware support, ORBX/FSDT quality scenery, PMDG quality planes etc), plus had advancements in weather (like X-Plane or DCS A-10), I'd fork over up to $1000 for it. I have spent 4 times that much since FSX came out just on hardware and I have only recently got it performing well.A good analogy I have heard before is that FSX is the operating system. I then but the OS on my computer and pick and choose the add-ons I want based on my own preference.

A good analogy I have heard before is that FSX is the operating system. I then but the OS on my computer and pick and choose the add-ons I want based on my own preference.

Great post and I fully agree with everything you have to say. One of the most amazing features of FSX is its SDK. That allowed us 3rd party Dev's to make what FSX is today. Flight does not have that, so the future of Flight is in MS's hands, not ours. I would rather it not be like that, but does that make it "arcade"? No. It makes it less attractive to hard core users, thats for damn sure! Also, I know of MANY MANY people who still use FS2002 or 2004 because of similar story's to yours. They have invested massive ammounts of time and money and would loose a LOT "upgrading" to even FSX. Henry Ford said it best, and I think it applies here. "I would rather have 1% of 100 people's efforts then 100% of my own".

A flight sim is a software and hardware combo that can be used by a pilot or student with instructor to simulate real flight. It's a mind game. My dad used a poster with a drawing of a cockpit on it as a simulator in the late 1950s when becoming a F-86 pilot.

This sounds like the same idea the Air Force used still through 1999 with a paper poster of the T-37B instrument panel. I think if I looked hard enough in my basement I would find my Tweet cockpit poster as well as the TH-57B and TH-57C posters. The instructors told us to pin it to the wall and sit in a chair and "Chair-Fly" the heck out of it so that by the time you went up for your real flight, you would have drilled it into your head from start-up to shut-down. At the present time you can almost do the same with the right addons and the right ATC solution for your liking, i.e. Radar Contact 4, VATSIM, VOXATC, or any other program available. I don't know from my viewings of Flight if we will have the same attributes of a simulator.

Right now I can load up an airplane that I have flown in real life.Follow my real life checklist, verbally contact a live human being air traffic controller who will assign me the real runway the real controller would have assigned based on FAA SOP. He may even assign me a similar beacon code.I will take off looking at weather similar to the same weather I am looking at out my window and fly to another airport using nothing but my eyeballs looking out the cockpit window and following landmarks that I know from memory.I can also load up an airport that I have never been to before, follow the same procedures to depart, grab a real life sectional chart and also navigate to another airport using nothing but my eyeballs and that sectional chart. If I lose my way I can tune in any NAVAIDs I see on the chart and navigate that way.That's how I define a sim.(plus everything PMDG, lol)

+1 zillion.

From reading what you posted, not even FSX itself qualifies, as it needed massive modifications.

Be real. The point is FSX can be mofifies via third-party add-ons and Flight can't. You know that.

Also, do you think any single product could ever match your qualifications without costing a mint?

No, but what does this have to do with Flight?Cheers,- jahman.

No, but what does this have to do with Flight?Cheers,- jahman.

Everything and nothing. I just asked what defines a flight sim. So far, the definition varries from every poster. From something thats an ultra-modified FSX costing over a grand in add-on's, to a poster on the wall. Yet for some people, Flight does not qualify. Im just trying to figure out why. What defines a flight sim for you, jahman?