Now that I've had a bit of a play:Change the kgs back to pounds, the km/h to knots and the altitude back to feet in the records. It's shown as that on the MSF home page, so not impossible.Clouds... definitely clouds. More 'random' weather wouldn't go astray. I use 'RW' weather in FSX/FS2004 - I don't care if it's not actual rw right there where I'm 'flying' - but at least it's not a fixed, unchanging theme.Swap the external view pan around. THE FSX one seemed much more intuitive.The temp gauge in the Stearman doesn't seem right - looks like it's reading high.All that said, I see potential. I hope it comes to fruition. The lighting looks great. Was landing into a setting sun in the Icon and there were scratches in the windscreen! I'll happily fly around in it for a few weeks. I like the little cargo jobs - this is where the random weather thing would really help.Mike D

Edited February 29, 201214 yr by Mickel

Um, I can't say I've ever seen a PC without a keyboard, and these days I doubt you'd find one without a mouse either! :Thinking:

No, I mean people will be using the same Ui on their xbox............

How quaint!

Best scene ever. :)

No, I mean people will be using the same Ui on their xbox............

Consoles take the concept of dumbing down to new heights. Still, I don't see why they could have slightly different interfaces on the PC and XBox version.

Edited February 29, 201214 yr by JimmiG

Here's a proper critique: They took 27+ years of software development (no other software ever written lasted that long) and dumbed it's user interface down to that of an XBox 360 game thus eliminating a great deal of what makes a flight simulator have long term value.Sure, they upped the short term interest with gold coins and the like. However, there's nothing about Flight that provides a path further beyond that. There is no indication that any path beyond gold coins will provide for a more realistic or more complex interaction.In short, it's a very, very simple game.

Well said, you always do.Dirk.

Consoles take the concept of dumbing down to new heights. Still, I don't see why they could have slightly different interfaces on the PC and XBox version.

Why, yes.I am indeed an advocate of UI's that cater to different levels of user interest/capability. :Thinking:

I think the ui is great - seems modern, fsx's was looking very last decade. Can't see why they couldn't add more complexity to it - i do need yoke calibration, controls for the cockpit switches and proper realtime weather - but the UI won't stop any of this happening if they decide to add the features.

Here's a proper critique: They took 27+ years of software development (no other software ever written lasted that long) and dumbed it's user interface down to that of an XBox 360 game thus eliminating a great deal of what makes a flight simulator have long term value.Sure, they upped the short term interest with gold coins and the like. However, there's nothing about Flight that provides a path further beyond that. There is no indication that any path beyond gold coins will provide for a more realistic or more complex interaction.In short, it's a very, very simple game.

+1

After installing and playing with Flight myself, here are my views.It has potential. It's a simple game now, but it will be interesting to see if Microsoft ups the complexity of the game over time. The next question there is will it come at a cost?That said, there is nothing in its current state that Flight has over FSX (albiet a modded FSX). I've seen people post about the sun reflection so you can see scratches on the aircraft. FSX already has that in the way of specular maps, an often overlooked but amazing capability of FSX, something that Flight has carried over. The dynamic wind sound that is generating a lot of hype already exists in FSX, A2A Simulations just released Accu-Feel Global FSX Enhancement which performs those same functions. Overall graphics by default are a bit better in Flight than FSX, more autogen (that does seem to be a bit more performance friendly than default FSX autogen) and higher resolution default ground textures are what immediately stuck out for me, but again, both of those items aren't a vast step up from an FSX with good addons installed. The only thing that really caught my eye as innovative in Flight was the ease of use of the Free Flight map to set up a flight. My point here is that with a little TLC, FSX is not that far off whatever default improvements Flight has. And for me, as with many other simmers, the future of Flight as a serious platform in the community depends on how MS looks at Flight and the nature of any upcoming feature additions to Flight.So yes, in SOME respecets, Flight is a step up over FSX out of the box. But we won't know Flight's true potential until there are more regions to fly in the world, what new features MS plans (if any) over time, and at what cost those items come by. It's even hard to tell if the Flight engine is that much more optimized for performance over FSX SP2 until we can throw in AI and much more complex user-aircraft and sceneries. I'm willing to give it the benefit of a doubt and give it time, but I'm not holding my breath, nor do I see FSX migrating out of the community any time soon.Just my 2 cents.

Edited February 29, 201214 yr by deltafan

Here's a proper critique: They took 27+ years of software development (no other software ever written lasted that long) and dumbed it's user interface down to that of an XBox 360 game thus eliminating a great deal of what makes a flight simulator have long term value.Sure, they upped the short term interest with gold coins and the like. However, there's nothing about Flight that provides a path further beyond that. There is no indication that any path beyond gold coins will provide for a more realistic or more complex interaction.In short, it's a very, very simple game.

Spot on Ed! :Applause:MS Flight = I'm bored alrady, so what will I do now?

I agree with the motive of the OP, that it's important not to just complain, but to present opportunities for improvement which will be more likely to be acted upon than comments that just call it an Xbox game.I think it has some good redeeming elements, mainly around performance. Flying with similar looking scenery, autogen and weather to what would give me 20 FPS in FSX, gives me 60 FPS in Flight. That has to mean it is better optimized, at least for modern set-ups like my i7.I personally like the UI because it is simple and let's face it, I don't load up a flight sim to "enjoy the UI".The sounds IMHO are a huge step up from FSX default sounds.Now onto my list of "opportunities" to make is a far better Flight program (whether that means 'game' or 'simulator', you are free to decide). :-- No AI. This has to be the biggest opportunity. Some people just don't go for Multiplayer, so no AI means very lonely skies.- NO ATC. Same as above really. For all it's apparant shortcomings at the time, I'm really missing FSX ATC in this program. Some form of ATC even if just for ambience, would really enhance the program.- Better compatibility with basic hardware features. I will not get emotional in this post about my disappointment that TrackIR is not supported, as I have to accept the fact that more 'Flight' users will not be using TrackIR than those that would want it. What I would say I personally feel is bordering on feeling like a bug, is the lack of support for a 'braking' axis, eg the brakes on Saitek or CH pedals. Flying in Flight is quite good fun, but landing and having to press the 'X' key on the keyboard to brake, is not IMHO. I hope this will be addressed, and for the record, I really hope that (given that a recent sim developer added TrackIR support with 1 man day of development time), TrackIR will follow. Let's hope so.- I personally feel that limiting our flying to that which requires us to be 'hands on' at all times, limits our enjoyment. So an autopilot of sorts (even just a wing leveller, or 'straight and level' type) would really add to enjoyment.- Generally speaking I think the visuals are great, but I agree that some clouds look odd and could be more convincing.For me, those are the key opportunities for improvement.Cheers.

Edited February 29, 201214 yr by Stick

MS Flight needs a world map, I don't care if it's not as beautiful as Hawaii map but at least something similar to the FSX stock scenery. I don't really mind buying new planes in fact, I find it a great idea, but being only able to fly over Hawaii is a bit limiting over time.

Well, after checking it out today I will say that, apart from Flight displeasing me overall as a concept, I can put my finger on the following issues.- Flight dynamics. I'm not usually one to complain about flight models and get into the nitty gritty, but Flights aerodynamic behavior is ridiculously simplified.- Flight is built from the ground up to be handled as a game with silly missions. It is not a simulator with the option of doing missions, it is a platform for them.- Microsoft said it would please both casual users and simmers. They lied! Flight will not please serious simmers without major modifications to its engine.However, there are some things I like about the game:- Performance. It looks real nice while running silky smooth on my Core2Duo 2.7 GHz and 460GTX with highest settings.- Really, there only is this one thing I like about Flight...Overall, I think it is safe to say that Microsoft is going "softcore" with Flight. To me, this resembles the general trend in entertainment software. I have seen many excellent series go down the drain because Corporate Commander wanted to make more dollars by expanding a franchises target audience, effectively gutting the poor game from everything that gave it character and made it popular to start with. Here are just a few examples, perhaps some of you will recognize them:- Operation Flashpoint - Silent Hunter Series- Comanche Series- many more...This is why I fear that Microsoft is not seriously planning on satisfying the core audience which has been following the Flight Simulator franchise for over 15 years. I think they will keep saying: "Sure, our product pleases even true flight simmers", gladly taking their money but causing nothing but disappointment.So, don't get your hopes up. My advice: Try X-Plane! Its here to stay and to evolve while Flight in all likelihood won't change.

Well, after checking it out today I will say that, apart from Flight displeasing me overall as a concept, I can put my finger on the following issues.- Flight dynamics. I'm not usually one to complain about flight models and get into the nitty gritty, but Flights aerodynamic behavior is ridiculously simplified.- Flight is built from the ground up to be handled as a game with silly missions. It is not a simulator with the option of doing missions, it is a platform for them.- Microsoft said it would please both casual users and simmers. They lied! Flight will not please serious simmers without major modifications to its engine.However, there are some things I like about the game:- Performance. It looks real nice while running silky smooth on my Core2Duo 2.7 GHz and 460GTX with highest settings.- Really, there only is this one thing I like about Flight...Overall, I think it is safe to say that Microsoft is going "softcore" with Flight. To me, this resembles the general trend in entertainment software. I have seen many excellent series go down the drain because Corporate Commander wanted to make more dollars by expanding a franchises target audience, effectively gutting the poor game from everything that gave it character and made it popular to start with. Here are just a few examples, perhaps some of you will recognize them:- Operation Flashpoint- Silent Hunter Series- Comanche Series- many more...This is why I fear that Microsoft is not seriously planning on satisfying the core audience which has been following the Flight Simulator franchise for over 15 years. I think they will keep saying: "Sure, our product pleases even true flight simmers", gladly taking their money but causing nothing but disappointment.So, don't get your hopes up. My advice: Try X-Plane! Its here to stay and to evolve while Flight in all likelihood won't change.

I agree that Flight currently doesn't offer much (anything?) to please the hardcore simmer, but I disagree that it requires changes to the engine to do so. It simply requires features to be added. The core engine appears superb in terms of performance, optimization, and visual fluidity.Also, I don't think an experience of Flight (good or bad) will send people in the X-Plane direction. People who choose not to pursue Flight, are more likely to spend their time in FSX. My personal experience with the X-Plane 10 demo was significantly less enjoyable than my experience of Flight, even with the latter's shortcomings in features.

Edited February 29, 201214 yr by Stick

- Microsoft said it would please both casual users and simmers. They lied! Flight will not please serious simmers without major modifications to its engine.

Give it some time and also try a ILS landing with some of the DLC planes in heavy fog weather preset no auto pilot , just a hand flight down the runway . its just on his first release day and here we go again with more of the same .