I've just skimmed through the new avsim review (I will read it properly later, I promise). One thing that has been on my mind, and is sort of touched on there, is that the real test of performance will come when we see more regions with dense cities, AI traffic, accurate airports and the like. I was pleasantly surprised by how well flight runs on my system, but without the other elements it is not for me at present. However, every once in a while I will look again to see what is on offer.Regarding the author of the review linked in the first post, he seems to have a low opinion of those who take our hobby seriously. While there is obviously truth in what he says about some members and their posts on AVSIM, I do feel that he has picked the biggest brush he could find and used it to tar the lot of us. Also, his remarks concerning home cockpit builders (I am not one) strike me as childishly sarcastic. His review of Flight is reasonably balanced, but his review of hardcore simmers is not.

The author of the article is referring to the archived posts from the forum before it was summarily shut down. I highly advise NOT reading all of that garbage, unless you are masochistic enough to like bleeding eyes! :LMAO:

Damn! now you've planted the seed, I'll have to go and do it.

Edited March 1, 201214 yr by tipitout

Mad DogLook again at the SC you posted of Flight. Note the smooth shorelines,not angular, as in your SC of FSX. Note the road running along the river rather than just vanishing at the bank, as in your SC of FSX

But again, in FSX you have whole world. Its not so hard to make few islands with great details, look at flytampa grenadines for example. It is hard to cover whole world with that high level of details for one team.Its all about compromises and priorities.FSX and flight are absolutely two different products, I think there is no space for comparing. Variety is always good for community as we have freedom of choice. :)

But again, in FSX you have whole world. Its not so hard to make few islands with great details, look at flytampa grenadines for example. It is hard to cover whole world with that high level of details for one team.Its all about compromises and priorities.FSX and flight are absolutely two different products, I think there is no space for comparing. Variety is always good for community as we have freedom of choice. :)

Agreed. I noticed the things I pointed out because I fly without any scenery add ons. Oh, I've added a few of my own airports, a couple of free planes and a really stupid looking flying crayon thing that I made, but that's about it. Yes, I can't add even those simple things to Flight, but It doesn't really bother me.

I stopped reading this after his comments regarding VATSIM. LTFN

There is a lot of BS in this review. No, seriously the word 'bovine droppings' (BS) was used at least three times. I stopped counting and reading on the third one. The authors disdain for this community is apparent. For me Flight is a 'Frankensteined' disappointment. MS pulled selective parts from FSX and updated the default scenery, missions and threw out everything else like AI, ATC, Real Weather etc. I am not a fan of the 'a la carte' download BS. :) What is an autopilot going to cost? ATC? AI? I'm not a fan of how MS has rolled this sim out. Their non participation in flight communities along with the 'not telling you anything' about the future ensures I'm not investing one dime in downloads. Why fund a project without a known future? Thanks.Bob.. :)