The Icon is the most horrible thing I have ever flown

The Icon reminds me of a updated modern version of the Republic Seabee. I have enjoyed flying the Seabee in FSX.-ed

Hey... you forget one thing folks - the Icon A5 is in the LSA class. Of course it will handle totally differently to a normal GA. Also not to be forgotten - it has auto mixture and if the makers say it is close to how the real thing flies, then who are we to say otherwise?Having said that, I have been on betas with RW pilots who have needed to be asked the right questions before they recognise that a sim model is in fact flying wrong. All too often hobby pilots are just that - "drivers airframe" and do not know as much about the physics of flying machines as do test engineers, test pilots, maintenance engineers and aeronautics engineers.And how many people still follow Bernoullian flight physics? Bernoulli sucks! It's Newton that makes aeroplanes fly these days... ;) Oh there's nothing wrong with Bernoullian physics, but it doesn't tell the whole truth about how aircraft fly.[edit]Reading material: Scott Eberhardt and David Anderson: How Airplanes Fly: A Physical Description of Lift

Edited February 15, 201214 yr by stormpup

I've enjoyed flying the Icon. It isn't my favorite aircraft in Flight (that would be the RV-6A), but it does give you some variety and is a very nice Light Sport Aircraft.If you go to Icon's website, under reviews:Kirby Chambliss (5 time US Aerobatic Champion & Red Bull Air Race Champion) states: "As an aerobatic pilot, Red Bull Air Race pilot, and airline pilot; I've done about every kind of flying, and my favorite is still flying low altitude, windows open, in a Light Sport Aircraft with my daughter. ICON hit the nail on the head with the design of the A5 - it captures the essence of what great sport flying is all about. I'm looking forward to getting mine."

Edited February 15, 201214 yr by Arwen

IMHO there's a big blind spot about some of the MS-bashing that I've read on this site and elsewhere.It's not MS who monetized "the add-on market", or who turned a hobby into a commercial enterprise. That was done by what we now call euphemistically "third party developers": meaning, people who spend some of their spare time (full-timers are a very recent phenomenon I suspect) in making the sort of product that used be uploaded FOR FREE onto the libraries hosted on this website and others. The last few years have witnessed a massive acceleration in the exploitation of FS for brazenly commercial, non-hobby, purposes - in a way which, I am sure, was never envisaged or intended by MS.I don't pretend that I saw it coming - but, honestly, what were we thinking?The flourishing and largely undiscriminating add-on market revealed to MS that they were under-valuing FS. Unwittingly, they had created a sort of mini-operating system or ecosystem on which others could, in effect, run their own code. Flight was a perfectly rational response: it is a reduction of FSX, slightly prettier in parts, and re-packaged in a way that lets MS sell back the individual components of FSX at a price which seems high but which MS hope will isolate, or establish, their market value.It will be interesting to see whether they've got the balance right. But FS fans who are sorry about the direction MS have taken are a mere drop in the ocean compared with MS's target audience; and the disappointment of this class is simply not a reliable indication of Flight's likely fate, one way or the other.Tim

Ok,So why not let the current developers step in?Microsoft could keep the idea to offer the base sim for free and welcome third party developers (upon SDK licensing, paid or free) to offer their products as DLC at some kind of central "Microsoft Flight Network Store". The offered content could be free or paid, in which case Microsoft would keep a percentage per sell. This way they could earn continuous revenue and please a broader audience.Planes, scenery, utilities... even Vatsim or IVAO could be included as an "APP" (in case of a network like vatsim would be more an APP gateway).Developers could keep developing for hardcore simmers and ALSO (meaning new opportunities) creating new products for occasional players (new Flight missions) or even entry level mission tutorials aiming to convert occasional players into possible hardcore simmers. Current developers would also benefit from reaching a broader audience through Microsoft channels. New people could enter the hobby.There are a lot of ways to please hardcore simmers and newcomers using this centralization scheme. It is a way to increase community control and not to loose a big market for other promising simulators like X-Plane (great simulator by the way!).It will not matter market the "Flight" product to general audience... Non simmers in the past bought FS sometimes just to run it once or twice, just to fly a little bit and apreciate a little bit of scenery because they find aviation "beatiful"....These same people will buy a DLC once or twice tops and say "ohhh nice!!!!" - some hours later: "boring". Mission to get coins? What now? Is Flight the new "solitaire"?Do you have any idea on how many children and adults ask me somethings like: "so how do I kill other planes?" and then I have to explain what is the simulation all about?I think they (Microsoft) should speak to the simmer community because they have costumers here. I think they should try to really partner up with the stablished market, the trade: a new marvelous base engine. Regards,

Edited February 15, 201214 yr by neodigital

Ok,So why not let the current developers step in?Microsoft could keep the idea to offer the base sim for free and welcome third party developers (upon SDK licensing, paid or free) to offer their products as DLC at some kind of central "Microsoft Flight Network Store". The offered content could be free or paid, in which case Microsoft would keep a percentage per sell. This way they could earn continuous revenue and please a broader audience.

I thought this was exactly what they HAVE done? And then certain 3PD's decided that they didn't want to participate?

Ok,So why not let the current developers step in?

A couple of points spring to mind:1. MS want to see if they can take the third party developer model to the next level by monetizing basic things that we have come to take for granted, such as ATC, complex weather, AI aircraft and so on. Flight has some good points but unless you are a beta tester, you will be astonished at how much is missing, compared with FSX. This is absolutely maddening but it is also absolutely typical of modern marketing: the manufactuers call it "segmenting" I think; consumers like us use a variety of less polite labels.2. We have no insight into the timeframe MS have allowed themselves to see whether Flight will fly. So far as I know, MS have not definitively excluded third party developers from the party for all time: there are some such as PMDG who seem to have fallen-out with MS for the time being, but (i) we don't know about the others and (ii) anyway, who knows what the future will hold?Tim

Edited February 15, 201214 yr by tfm

I think they (Microsoft) should speak to the simmer community because they have costumers here. I think they should try to really partner up with the stablished market, the trade: a new marvelous base engine.

HelloFar too much common sense in this post for my liking.

2. We have no insight into the timeframe MS have allowed themselves to see whether Flight will fly.

How can one purchase DLC for Flight, if MS is not sure if Flight will be viable? Seriously MS's marketing this time around is one of the worst I have seen.

Edited February 15, 201214 yr by frankla

A couple of points spring to mind:1. MS want to see if they can take the third party developer model to the next level by monetizing basic things that we have come to take for granted, such as ATC, complex weather, AI aircraft and so on. Flight has some good points but unless you are a beta tester, you will be astonished at how much is missing, compared with FSX. This is absolutely maddening but it is also absolutely typical of modern marketing: the manufactuers call it "segmenting" I think; consumers like us use a variety of less polite labels.

Interesting… Lets see what happens. If they offer me an unlock key to all features for an price compatible to FSX, and a real possibility to, maybe, in the future be able to buy sceneries (high quality) and an airline like my PMDG 737 NGX (don’t mind to pay for quality), no problem.But let the developers in.. and if the current ones don´t want in for any reason, I think that others will. Imagine: FLIGHT STORE and FLIGHT DEV CENTER with proper support for the developers… cooperation with real aircraft companies, feeds for costumers to follow developers… Flight lessons with Angle of Attack quality (let them in too!) ... Convert those that like avition on simmers or maybe pilots in the future! Why can´t we all be friends? LOL Ok I know, I am dreaming! :)But right now, the way things are… when available, I will download FLIGHT just out of curiosity. Anyways:I don´t wish bad to anyone or the FLIGHT team, and I imagine that they as human beings that have taxes to pay, monthly bills, maybe families to raise are of course trying their best and have their vision.Unfortunately their vision backed up on the general public interest in FLIGHT is naive… But it is their decision. IMHO Flight will not fly.Regards.

Edited February 15, 201214 yr by neodigital

The new “Microsoft Flight” retains the full fidelity simulation longtime fans have come to expect

As a beta tester, I can tell you that is completely inaccurate coming from Microsoft.And "that" is the basis for all the negativity toward FLIGHT.

As a beta tester, I can tell you that is completely inaccurate coming from Microsoft.And "that" is the basis for all the negativity toward FLIGHT.

+1 very misleading indeed.

I believe that when MS says "full fidelity simulation", they mean physics, not features.

And how many people still follow Bernoullian flight physics? Bernoulli sucks! [edit]

It's called LIFT not SUCKS .................same effect. :(

Out of curiosity, has anyone with access to FLIGHT actually tried to take a look at its internals? There is constant mention of "missing" features, but are they really missing, or just currently inactive/unsupported?Answers to that might prove illuminating.

I was in the beta, so can’t discuss any topics.But you seem to be asking the right questions?