HelloThe Maul is too complex, I can't seem to get that Autopilot to work :(

AP is not for those who fly the plane but for those who operate the plane.

Doesn't the P51 have a cockpit? If you pay for it. As I understand it there are two versions. $18 and $9. That would make sense from a money making point of view.But I could be mistaken

Doesn't the P51 have a cockpit? If you pay for it. As I understand it there are two versions. $18 and $9. That would make sense from a money making point of view.But I could be mistaken

There has been no mention of a deluxe P51, just the basic one without a cockpit.

Doesn't the P51 have a cockpit? If you pay for it. As I understand it there are two versions. $18 and $9. That would make sense from a money making point of view.But I could be mistaken

Hello RonThe P51 has no cockpit, you are meant to fly it from the chase view, new styleeIt is actually a LOT easier collecting the coins ect that way, so probably worth the purchase for that alone.Its the way forward.

There has been no mention of a deluxe P51, just the basic one without a cockpit.

There will be one with a cockpit.

It is actually a LOT easier collecting the coins ect that way, so probably worth the purchase for that alone.

How is that possible, the plane is blocking your view.

If all you wanted was a flying game that has no realism, there were dozens available a decade ago.

HelloIt is easier if you think of Flight! as Flight unlimited I & II reincarnated.In that context it is not that badFrom the Flight unlimited Wikipeadia page:Flight Unlimited is a 1995 aerobatic flight simulator video game developed and published by Looking Glass Technologies. It allows players to pilot reproductions of real-world aircraft and to perform aerobatic maneuvers. They may fly freely, race through floating rings against a timer or take lessons from a virtual flight instructor. The instructor teaches basic and advanced techniques, ranging from rudder turns to maneuvers such as the tailslide, Lomcevak and Immelmann turn.Sound familiar ?

Edited February 10, 201214 yr by mad dog

With Flight Unlimited II/III (I have both), at least you could actually fly it properly on instruments, using charts and nav aids!!!I'll be sticking to FS2004, FSX and Falcon BMS 4.32.Best regards,Robin.

AP is not for those who fly the plane but for those who operate the plane.

AP is a tool to assist the pilot in flying the airplane. Operating an airplane is the same as flying the airplane.Whatever you want to call it, hundreds of thousands of pilots do that all over the world every day. Part of doing thatis using the AP.

Whatever you want to call it, hundreds of thousands of pilots do that all over the world every day. Part of doing thatis using the AP.

Would you consider a pilot who overly uses AP as being dumbbed down? If features such as "flight assists" or "mouse-as-yoke" makes it easier to fly, would you consider fly-by-wire as dumbbing pilot down?

Edited February 10, 201214 yr by sibtiger

Would you 1) consider a pilot who overly uses AP as dumbbed down? 2) If features such as "flight assists" or "mouse-as-yoke" makes it easier to fly, would you consider fly-by-wire as dumbbing pilot down?

sibtiger,You bring up some interesting points; let me see if I can answer them for you honestly. Here goes...1) In my opinion, I would have to say that it would depend on the context of the situation.a) If the pilot (sim or RW) was operating a long distance flight (over water, for example) in a modern aircraft I would say the AP is being used to assist the pilot due to the duration of the flight and in order to cut down fatigue. It's the way sim pilots flying long haul on VATSIM and RW pilots under the same conditions operate. If the pilot (sim or RW) was flying in a vintage aircraft not originally equipped with an autopilot, but flying in the Present Day then I would use the above answer. The pilot could have installed a modern autopilot in a vintage airplane; happens all the time. Again, the AP is a tool to assist the pilot in flying the airplane.c) If the pilot (sim or RW) was flying in a vintage aircraft not originally equipped with an autopilot, but flying in the era when the airplane was new I would say it would be historically inaccurate, and the pilot would be cheating himself out if the experience of flying the airplane the way it was meant to be flown. Sort of like flying the Spirit of St. Louis with an autopilot!2) I don't know what you mean by 'flight assists', but with the 'mouse as yoke' issue I wouldn't call it "dumbing down" Unrealistic perhaps, but not dumbing down. As far as 'fly by wire', well... we kind of do that right now; when we pull back on the stick, electrical impulses are being sent from the stick to the computer, then from the computer to the specific control surfaces on the airplane, causing them to move. Fly by Wire, just like the F-16!This is opposed to mechanical control surfaces; cables or rods move the control surfaces based on stick input.Bottom line? Personally, I use a control yoke for FS because I like the stability of it as compared to a stick, but I have a stick also for flying my slower, less complex aircraft. If whatever method of controlling the airplane works for you; yoke, mouse, keyboard, stick... go for it!Alan :(

Edited February 10, 201214 yr by ViperPilot

Actually, it is your knowledge that's flawed. There are many different versions of an ADI, and that happens to be one of them.Note this example of the Falcon ADI:

Thanks for your reply. Actually I guess my knowledge is flawed, however I've never flown an aircraft with this type of an A/H and would find it somewhat disorientating. Perhaps I've been spoiled. Thanks to all who chimed in.

sibtiger,You bring up some interesting points; let me see if I can answer them for you honestly. Here goes...1) In my opinion, I would have to say that it would depend on the context of the situation.a) If the pilot (sim or RW) was operating a long distance flight (over water, for example) in a modern aircraft I would say the AP is being used to assist the pilot due to the duration of the flight and in order to cut down fatigue. It's the way sim pilots flying long haul on VATSIM and RW pilots under the same conditions operate. :( If the pilot (sim or RW) was flying in a vintage aircraft not originally equipped with an autopilot, but flying in the Present Day then I would use the above answer. The pilot could have installed a modern autopilot in a vintage airplane; happens all the time. Again, the AP is a tool to assist the pilot in flying the airplane.c) B) If the pilot (sim or RW) was flying in a vintage aircraft not originally equipped with an autopilot, but flying in the era when the airplane was new I would say it would be historically inaccurate, and the pilot would be cheating himself out if the experience of flying the airplane the way it was meant to be flown. Sort of like flying the Spirit of St. Louis with an autopilot!2) I don't know what you mean by 'flight assists', but with the 'mouse as yoke' issue I wouldn't call it "dumbing down" Unrealistic perhaps, but not dumbing down. As far as 'fly by wire', well... we kind of do that right now; when we pull back on the stick, electrical impulses are being sent from the stick to the computer, then from the computer to the specific control surfaces on the airplane, causing them to move. Fly by Wire, just like the F-16!This is opposed to mechanical control surfaces; cables or rods move the control surfaces based on stick input.Bottom line? Personally, I use a control yoke for FS because I like the stability of it as compared to a stick, but I have a stick also for flying my slower, less complex aircraft. If whatever method of controlling the airplane works for you; yoke, mouse, keyboard, stick... go for it!Alan :(

Thanks for the honest answers Alan! You brought some very good points about vintage aircraft that I did not even consider. :(

I'm sure that ALT+F4 performance will not disapoint me.

Thanks for your reply. Actually I guess my knowledge is flawed, however I've never flown an aircraft with this type of an A/H and would find it somewhat disorientating. Perhaps I've been spoiled. Thanks to all who chimed in.

Thank you for being gracious in your reply. Unfortunately, courtesy seems well on its way to becoming as extinct as the poor do-do bird, so I'm very pleased whenever I encounter it.As it happens though, the type illustrated by the Falcon is the type most commonly in use. The one you've described is the odd ball... :(

Thank you for being gracious in your reply. Unfortunately, courtesy seems well on its way to becoming as extinct as the poor do-do bird, so I'm very pleased whenever I encounter it.As it happens though, the type illustrated by the Falcon is the type most commonly in use. The one you've described is the odd ball... :(

Thanks n4gix. I've certainly learned something new after all these years of flying in the air force and 34 years mostly on Boeing A/C. But I have no experience on Falcons, etc. I guess it's kind of like the difference between Boeing and Airbus. They both fly but are quite different.