Isn't the flight modelling at least as good as fsx?

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.

Well, I am not a pro, but I would think that the game-engine as a whole (not just graphics engine) including the way it is setup (favoring a certain play style) would need to be changed heavily to accommodate serious simming. I agree, the graphics-engine in terms of performance and looks is marvelous.

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.

No, I fear not (as in I agree). I was merely giving personal advice as to what one could do. Obviously, FSX and previous versions down to FS'95 remain an option.

Isn't the flight modelling at least as good as fsx?

I thought it was quite "arcade-gaming" like. Maybe just my impression...

Edited February 29, 201214 yr by J.P.

Things I have discovered :*.PAK files are just ZIP files. 7-zip is your friend.

Thanks for that tip !It worked even with my good old 1990´s Winzip after renamimg *.pak to .zip.Now I found the file where the aerodynamic data ist stored : Aerodynamics.spb(for the Stearman e.g. in SimObjects \airplanes\Stearman \Sim\).So could you find out how to properly view the data stored within ?All I could determine so far via opening it in Notepad is, that it seems that we have a "lookup-table"- flight model like previous FS Flight simulators finding text entries for stability coefficients like "CYBeta", "CmAlpha" etc. The rest is not readable as text. Is that in hex like in the former *.air.files ?Carl

I thought it was quite "arcade-gaming" like. Maybe just my impression...

Based on what? During beta, there were many people who OWN AND FLY the Vans RV6 and they said they nailed every aspect of the Vans. People who flew the Stearman in real life said it fly's very well, but the stall is a little off. Icon only knows how the Icon is. Nobody really commented about the Maule, but im confident its very accurate.FSX's FM is very rigid. Feels like your flying a roller coaster, and not in a thin fluid. Flight to me feels very fluid. In weather, your constantly "on the stick" and you really NEED TO FLY to keep the aircraft under you. The Stearman and Icon are simplistic by there very nature, so if your basing your opinion on just that, your missing a lot. XP10 is the only other sim with FM that made me really feel like I was flying. And yes, I do have some real life flying experience to back that up.

- 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.

I disagree with that. I suggest turning OFF all of the "helpers" in the UI, then attempt the aerobatic training missions. The entry is performing your "first spin." Aside from a very, very few a/c from companies such as Real Air will you find any FSX a/c that can do spins properly.Once past that, learn how to fly chandelles, hammerhead stalls, etc. It's really very entertaining as well as eye-opening! :Peace:

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.

If the missing features were to be added to Flight, performance would drop significantly. The added detail in HI would cancel or severely reduce any performance gain from better use of quad cores and GPUs.Calculating dynamically changing real-time weather, multiple cloud layers, AI traffic - air and ground, ATC, autopilot, multi-engine planes, glass-cockpit, GPS, higher levels of AA and AF - all of which I use in FSX would give fps in the same ballpark. Yes, ground detail would be better, but I would trade 30 of my 60 fps in Flight to have all of these features.As it stands now, the sum of the missing features is far greater than the benefit of higher ground detail and any fps over 30 is a waste of heat in most cases.

wow - this forum is getting frustraing - you write a reply to a thread and press post - and the thread has gone already !!flight models don't feel anywhere near the quality of those in for example IL-2 Sturm for me yet - but I'll try furtheroverall the game is just not doing it for me - yet

If the missing features were to be added to Flight, performance would drop significantly. The added detail in HI would cancel or severely reduce any performance gain from better use of quad cores and GPUs.Calculating dynamically changing real-time weather, multiple cloud layers, AI traffic - air and ground, ATC, autopilot, multi-engine planes, glass-cockpit, GPS, higher levels of AA and AF - all of which I use in FSX would give fps in the same ballpark. Yes, ground detail would be better, but I would trade 30 of my 60 fps in Flight to have all of these features.As it stands now, the sum of the missing features is far greater than the benefit of higher ground detail and any fps over 30 is a waste of heat in most cases.

how can you say that ? I agree performance is nice ... but without AI (I haven't found any yet - please tell me if wrong) - it feels like a completely sterile and unbelievable island

can we have a consolidated "bugs" and glitches thread please ? No flames required - just a list of bugs and graphical anomolies ?

how can you say that ? I agree performance is nice ... but without AI (I haven't found any yet - please tell me if wrong) - it feels like a completely sterile and unbelievable island

How can I say what? Read my post again. I think we actually agree.

How can I say what? Read my post again. I think we actually agree.

oh sorry Attila - long day at work - mis-read your postI totally agree with you :)does anyone think MS are missing a trick with their pricing ? Medium prices, and low volumes are not as good as low prices and high volumes ...I would have bought one or more planes if they had say been £2.50 each - but at £9.99 each ? no waymodel works for IOS apps

Edited February 29, 201214 yr by Buckster

Add the world, ATC, and an SDK and they'd be in the ballpark.I don't even care about real world weather, the stock planes flying realistically, etc. 3rd parties can do that if allowed to do so as in FSX.I'm hoping that the next incarnation, years from now or whatever, goes back to a global vision. That's not going to happen if Flight and it's DLC model succeeds over what FSX produced.So it's a two edged sword. I don't want to sound negative and I'd like to enjoy what's here but Flight's initial failure as a business model may be the only way to reground the series into what serious simmers need.They started down the right path revamping their profit structure but then went way to far with just limiting it to Hawaii, not putting out an SDK, and stopping 3rd party interaction. They could of had their cake and ate it to by releasing Flight like FSX (a globally featured sim) and then feeding off 3rd party royalties, etc (assuming they set a reasonable rate, which it appears they didn't from some vendor's reports months ago).Honestly, we have consoles to blame for this. I agree with the guy earlier who said this is just another in the list of franchises dumbed down and completely changed from it's roots in search of more cash because of console success. Ubisoft has been the main culprit and I hate to see Microsoft going down this road when they've always seemed to release games that were outside of the box and deep (Age of Empires series comes to mind).

Edited February 29, 201214 yr by bonchie

Hi FolksApologies for the late response,and excuse these ramblings,in what is almost a stale thread.

Fourth. Why force people to do the first two missions? Some of us know how to fly already.Please let us be able to exit that and move onto free flight mode without being led around like a little child in day care.I think MS is pissing off more "hard core" simmers by forcing them to dodge balloons and land next too a boat for a wedding party.

Kevin -Not disagreeing with your other points.Just addressing #4 quoted above.FSX also had a mandatory set of intro missions.You chose to fly one of three options,effectively - total noob, done a bit, serious simmer.People lied & fell out of the sky.Those intros were one-offs,similarly the missions were stand-alone,and Free-Flight only logged a few parameters.All had zero-impacton any subsequent aspect of the game,(apart from granting rewards).Sidenote -I am in no-way decrying any serious-simmers,or what some of you folks get up to in 'heavies'.I have every admiration for those mastering managing complex multi-engine aircraft.However -Being able to land 30 feet either side of the centre-line,or having a runway thats > 3 times longer than essential,are IRL civil aviation safety-related compliances.FSX in-game,those same safety-compliances,permitted total-newbies to jump into 'heavies'without even acquiring the rudiments of flying,and then to develop, and persist in those, bad habits. FSX has a set of entirely optional & non-technical 'heavy' missions,Amsterdam-London Airline Run, Quito Approach, Limited Options, Monsoon Approach, 747 Test Flight, etc.however, excellent though they were,and being entirely optional,were bypassed by the majority.Bottom line -FSX, and previous, allowed you to get away with anything,but hey, its a simulator.Flight's two mandatory intros are essential.Pause for cynical laughter at this point. As we all know, almost nobody ever RTFM's, (where F == Fine).So the mandatory intros are a good way to -- Tell users how the keys work, (different from FS-previous).- Set some basic user targets.- Give instructions how to achieve them.But AIUI -Far more importantly in Flight,those intros -- Monitor the user's performance against those targets.- Categorize the user according to their performance, (into one of 3 buckets).- Tailor the Activities - Missions / Challenges / 'Jobs Board' various task's difficulty to match.And I might well be being totally paranoid here,(difficult to tell as my joystick broken ATM, and I'm flying by mouse),they possibly affect the various Aerocache's detection radius.The user's performance in Flightis far more extensively instrumented,and continuously monitored in both Activities & Free-Flight.The user's category is continually assessed& if nescessary, reassigned accordingly.Some of those monitored parameters can be seen in -- In-game on the GUI menu at - Pilot Profile - Careeror- After signing-in, at - The Flight website - My FlightThe user's career progression has potential for reflecting IRL.e.g.Flight locks the opportunity to fly Charter Passenger jobs,until the user has achieved a certain level of proficiency.Whilst not nescessarily implemented ATM,as all Jobs are dynamically generated,Flight has the capability,that if a user subsequently performs badly,they could potentially remove that 'license' to fly Charter Passenger jobs.To those of you knocking Flight's gold-coins.Flight may have a prettified & gamey front-end,but behind all that,she can be a hard & unforgiving task-master.Pause for more cynical laughter.Seriously -Flight has great potential as a learning toolit shows signs of both a structured,though entirely optional method,of introducing concepts & consequences,resulting in a better understanding of flying-related-principles.If not for our stuck-in our-ways selves,who might not make use of such content,at least to do so, for an up-and-coming generation of users.On that note -Might I suggest trying the various AIRCRAFTTYPE Landing Challenges.Particularly the 6 off Stearman Landing Challenges.When you've earned Gold for all of them,if you're still not happy with Flight's performance monitoring, and training aspects,please come back & say so.Preferably & hopefullyyou'll all have done so with some merit.Personally, as a 99% of-the-time chopper flyer,they forced me to lose some bad habits.Whilst I dislike the ICON as a plane, (though admire its modeling),as Flight's default aircraft,it's an enormous improvement, capability-wise,over the FSX product's default trike aircraft.The Stearman is a different beast entirely,especially on full-realism settings.I've never felt so frustrated,died so frequently/spectacularly/or needlessly,yet had so much fun, in a long time.Flight - Earn your wings !HTHATBPaul

Edited February 29, 201214 yr by basys

Brilliant Paul, absolutely brilliant!

With all these complaints about the flight modelling, I'm beginning to wonder if anyone actually bothered turning off the assists.

With all these complaints about the flight modelling, I'm beginning to wonder if anyone actually bothered turning off the assists.

I suspect not. those complaints are all too often accompanied by tertiary statements along the lines of "Stupid training missions.... after 15 minutes I uninstalled this piece of......."Etc.

Edited March 1, 201214 yr by HiFlyer'