Will Flight avoid this fate?

[Guest jahman]

Making a game/flightsim more accessible does not necessarily mean that it has been simplified

No, but lack of ATC certainly does. Ditto for the cockpit-less P-51. And other shortcomings so far.

I think that FLIGHT has enormous potential and I am hoping that MS will do the best they can.

Indeed, we all hope Flight is a rotund success and that with a bit of luck we can eventually get geographically unrestricted flying in complex aircraft with complex home-built cockpits for a better, more stable simming experience than FSX is today..

If MS really wanted to make an NGX aircraft, they could do it very easily. They have the resources far beyond any developer in the world and they have 50 some odd people on the team.

The mistake that you can solve software challenges by throwing more resources at the problem has been widely explored decades ago and written in the book: The Mythical Man-Month.Truth is it takes years to get a well-honed team working together and efficiently. You can't just hire away top talent and expect them to be productive right off the bat. Worse if you try to develop the talent in-house. It takes years. See how long MS failed at Windows until it got it right. See how long MS failed at 32-bit Windows until it got it right.MS's only avenue would be to buy PMDG outright, assuming it was for sale, and then pay through the nose to avoid the talent leaving.Cheers,- jahman.

[Ben Cap 89]

Indeed, we all hope Flight is a rotund success and that with a bit of luck we can eventually get geographically unrestricted flying in complex aircraft with complex home-built cockpits for a better, more stable simming experience than FSX is today..

I seriously think this is how Flight will end up. I see no reason as to why simmer *wouldn't* want to switch over. The dynamics are truly fantastic and the whole engine is so seamlessly blended together to form an excellent base platform.

[Arwen 289]

No, but lack of ATC certainly does. Ditto for the cockpit-less P-51. And other shortcomings so far.

Apparently you missed this part of my post that you quoted: "And it is being built around a free core platform, which is designed to grow as more features are added."ATC could be one of the many features that will be added as Flight grows.Just because MS decided to add a basic aircraft to the DLC choices, is not exactly a "shortcoming" of Flight (even though I personally think it was a really bad decision) . . . it is OPTIONAL, you do not have to purchase it!What "other shortcomings" are there with the Free Core part?

[Guest jahman]

Arwen,Lots of features could be added in the future to Flight and I truly hope they are.Alas, currently the "serious simmer" (especially the world tubeliner crowd) is not the target of Flight.Cheers,- jahman.

[Glynn 405]

I see no reason as to why simmer *wouldn't* want to switch over

HelloLack of hardware support may be one reason.The types of cockpit hardware we are used to using are not supported by FlightIf you are using a yoke, rudder pedals and throttles you are fine with the built in control assignments, but if you use Goflight modules, or VRinsight stuff you are out of luck sadly.For serious simulation it falls well short of what is required at this point.

[Arwen 289]

Alas, currently the "serious simmer" (especially the world tubeliner crowd) is not the target of Flight.

I consider myself to be a pretty serious simmer. And I see Flight as an expansion of what we have available to us.To be blunt, there is no flightsim that does everything really well . . . they all have shortcomings. Right now (based on the beta version of Flight that I'm using), Flight currently does enough things better than FSX, that it is still the flightsim that I'm using the most. Yes, it is limited right now, in scenery, features, and aircraft choices . . . but it is still a very good flightsim (in my opinion).

[Guest jahman]

I consider myself to be a pretty serious simmer. And I see Flight as an expansion of what we have available to us.

I did not mean to imply you're not a serious simmer. My reference was to serious simming as in the activity of flying a complex airliner in the sim.

To be blunt, there is no flightsim that does everything really well . . . they all have shortcomings.

Agreed, but perhaps with the exception of helos as some else mentioned, FSX does come pretty close to universal simming in terms of aircraft and world scenery.

Right now (based on the beta version of Flight that I'm using), Flight currently does enough things better than FSX, that it is still the flightsim that I'm using the most. Yes, it is limited right now, in scenery, features, and aircraft choices . . . but it is still a very good flightsim (in my opinion).

I'm sure it is Arwen, but those of us for whom flying a complex airliner around the word is a key part of simming must remain with FSX for the foresaeable future, and thus won't benefit from all the software advances implemented in Flight WRT to scenery, VC lighting, improved flight dynamics, etc.Cheers,- jahman.

[Arwen 289]

I'm sure it is Arwen, but those of us for whom flying a complex airliner around the word is a key part of simming must remain with FSX for the foresaeable future, and thus won't benefit from all the software advances implemented in Flight WRT to scenery, VC lighting, improved flight dynamics, etc.

The problem is that that many of the posts in this forum made be members who prefer flying the airliners over smaller aircraft often come off as elitist (and I'm not referring to you or any individual).Until Flight adds airliners (and helicopters, and small jets), all we have are the small passenger planes . . . which, by the way are modeled very well (including their flight dynamics). Too many members here seem to have the attitude that Flight can not be a serious flightsim, because it doesn't have any airliners.

[Guest jahman]

which, by the way are modeled very well (including their flight dynamics). Too many members here seem to have the attitude that Flight can not be a serious flightsim, because it doesn't have any airliners.

We might all be dancing around a semantic problem here: Serious simmer for me means someone spending lots of time and money on this hobby and expecting to fly large complex aircraft (that many of us have spent even more money on just to but the aircraft manuals!, never mind the CDU, MCP and EFIS hardware modules.)The opposite of serious simming is not trivial simming, but rather flying smaller, non-complex aircraft that are easier to learn systems wise (although they can be more difficult to pilot on approach due to the light wing loading.).There is a big difference between the two: Even as a RW pilot, it took me quite a while to wrap my head around my first complex aircraft, the PMDG B-747 just to understand the systems design philosophy of a large airliner so I could fly it "professionally". And any new airliner is again a pile of work to understand all the little details. On the other hand, once you've mastered a GA twin, another GA twin is just a breeze to learn to fly. So one aspect of simming I enjoy is learning about the complex systems built into the large airliners that the sim lets me fly. Take that away and my interest in simming drops by a solid 70%. It's that dramatic.

Until Flight adds airliners (and helicopters, and small jets), all we have are the small passenger planes . . . which, by the way are modeled very well (including their flight dynamics).

Yes, we have to see what will be added to Flight, which can hopefully be more than we expect, but can also be less. Thruth is we don't really know.

Too many members here seem to have the attitude that Flight can not be a serious flightsim, because it doesn't have any airliners.

Flight could even be such a thorough sim that it's OK'd by the FAA as a PCATD for GA aircraft, while at the same time for lack of airliners still wouldn't meet the needs of us interested in flying airliners.And in the long term of course none of us would really want to fly with two different sims and have to buy two sets of scenery. Just imagine the confusion, let alone the expense.Cheers,- jahman.

[ViperPilot 81]

We might all be dancing around a semantic problem here: Serious simmer for me means someone spending lots of time and money on this hobby and expecting to fly large complex aircraft (that many of us have spent even more money on just to but the aircraft manuals!, never mind the CDU, MCP and EFIS hardware modules.)The opposite of serious simming is not trivial simming, but rather flying smaller, non-complex aircraft that are easier to learn systems wise (although they can be more difficult to pilot on approach due to the light wing loading.).There is a big difference between the two: Even as a RW pilot, it took me quite a while to wrap my head around my first complex aircraft, the PMDG B-747 just to understand the systems design philosophy of a large airliner so I could fly it "professionally". And any new airliner is again a pile of work to understand all the little details. On the other hand, once you've mastered a GA twin, another GA twin is just a breeze to learn to fly. So one aspect of simming I enjoy is learning about the complex systems built into the large airliners that the sim lets me fly. Take that away and my interest in simming drops by a solid 70%. It's that dramatic.Yes, we have to see what will be added to Flight, which can hopefully be more than we expect, but can also be less. Truth is, we don't really know.Flight could even be such a thorough sim that it's OK'd by the FAA as a PCATD for GA aircraft, while at the same time for lack of airliners still wouldn't meet the needs of us interested in flying airliners.And in the long term of course none of us would really want to fly with two different sims and have to buy two sets of scenery. Just imagine the confusion, let alone the expense.Cheers,- jahman.

Jahman,While I agree with the overall tone of your post, I have to respectfully disagree with you on one small point. I consider myself to be a 'serious' Flight Simmer, although I very rarely spend time operating large jetliners.One can be a 'serious' FS enthusiast regardless of the type of flying he (or she) is doing. If I spend time looking at Sectionals, reading METARS and checking Wx before I take a flight in my C-206 does that make me lessserious than someone who's punching info into a FMS, spooling up the hamster wheels and pushing back in a 737 NGX getting ready for their flight?Whether you fly A319's or C-140's... it's your passion for the hobby that determines how 'serious' you are.The worst thing we as a community can do is start separating FS enthusiasts by the type of flying they do, whether it's jetliners or GA. That's what smacks of elitism and is going to chase new members away.It's no secret that the majority of FS enthusiasts fly passenger jets; just look at the ads on the Forum Pages, the files in the File Library, and what's available in add on aircraft.It's the exclusion of this aspect, along with the absence of ATC, that has so many up in arms. Will Microsoft eventually add those features at a later date? Possibly.I just think we're all pilots here, regardless of the iron we strap ourselves into.

[Guest jahman]

One can be a 'serious' FS enthusiast regardless of the type of flying he (or she) is doing

Yes, absolutely! That's what I was trying to say in my post.Cheers,- jahman.

[ViperPilot 81]

We're on the same page, my friend... :(

Edited February 15, 2012 by ViperPilot

[Attila 2]

Clearly, the type of plane you fly isn't as important as how you fly it and how much of its systems are simulated and to what degree. I am sure that no one in this forum would consider flying from behind a plane with a head-up display serious flying. Yet, Flight aims at the crowd that will likely want to do this and offers the P51 without a cockpit.It is true that you can raise the seriousness from that low point by a few notches, but only so far. I suppose one can call crop dusting serious flying, just as one can call a Sunday drive serious driving, but people could argue that one needs a certain level of sophistication in whatever they do to call it serious.People can golf, but not be serious golfers. You decide where to draw the line on that one.I would characterize Flight as going for a Sunday drive. You need a certain level of attention and knowledge to operate a regular car, but it's a whole lot different to drive an Indy car. So it is with aviation. There is a reason one gets cleared to fly VFR first and then goes up the ladder to be allowed to fly the jets.Yes, one can fly IFR in two planes, but the weather in which you can do it is a theme with expected behavior. Not as serious as real-time weather. There are many more examples like this, but this should be enough to illustrate my point.