Microsoft Flight not so bad?

[Mickel 42]

Thanks Bill. That was what I wanted to check.Mike

[Geofa 108]

Been a fan since 1981.Flight will be collecting dust-xplane 10 new interest-just saying....

[Guest bstolle]

I don't know why some people consider FLIGHT not a simulator. The flight (and ground) dynamics have been definitely improved over FSX and FINALLY the engine/prop sound is correct.Contrary to x-plane I can take off in a GA plane in a 10kts crosswind :wink:I have to admit that I also spent MUCH more time than initially planned on the first day with FLIGHT.Impression after the first day is that even in its initial stage it looks sounds feels and perfoms like a slighty improved FSX equipped with high quality add-ons.

[japascoe 98]

John-Alan, I'm tired after so many hours, but I was attempting to both welcome a "newbie" and provide a of levity while doing so. It was meant as a tongue-in-cheek comment, nothing more.As for your observation on the Icon's behavior, it is indeed quite accurate. Also note just how much induced drag dropping the gear causes, as well as the delightful "roar of wind" the gear cause. It really enhances the immersion factor of the experience.Try opening the canopy during low speed flight. It's like having a honking huge spoiler! :LMAO:

Sorry if it sounded like I was attacking you personally. Like I said it was not about your specific post, but more about a general theme in this forum both now and in the Time That Shall Not Be Mentioned . I saw quite a few posts where people posted something positive about Flight, which was immediately followed by a bunch of posts to the effect of "finally someone is positive about Flight, I guess we'll get flamed pretty soon". If those kinds posts keep being repeated it creates the image that there are only a few people that are enjoying Flight, who are continually under siege by a bunch of haters. The truth is there's quite a large number of people on this forum that enjoy Flight and thanks to the active moderation going on the flames are relatively few and far between. Focussing on the fact that there are lots of people that do like Flight rather than on the possibility of getting flamed will help build / maintain a positive atmosphere.As for opening the canopy, it's on my list of silly stuff to try out. I didn't want to scare my very first paying passenger though

[Avantime 81]

Will you guys still be playing MS Flight 1 or 2 months from now, with only free flight, repeatable missions and aerocache hunt in Hawaii on a handful of GA aircraft?

[flyerboy 114]

Will you guys still be playing MS Flight 1 or 2 months from now, with only free flight, repeatable missions and aerocache hunt in Hawaii on a handful of GA aircraft?

I think some still will be as more areas are released ect.Only time will tell

[japascoe 98]

Will you guys still be playing MS Flight 1 or 2 months from now, with only free flight, repeatable missions and aerocache hunt in Hawaii on a handful of GA aircraft?

I played FS 4 and FS 5 for years with only a hand-full of aircraft and I don't think I ever got further than 15 minutes flight from Meigs field, though of course I was younger at the time.I'm pretty confident I'll be firing up Flight whenever I only have a limited amount of flying time and feel like some quick hassle-free flying without having to worry about flight planning and the like. The aerobatic challenges sound like something that could keep me busy for a while too, though I haven't even started on those yet.

[Gibbage 199]

Will you guys still be playing MS Flight 1 or 2 months from now, with only free flight, repeatable missions and aerocache hunt in Hawaii on a handful of GA aircraft?

Me? No. Not unless they make more DLC. Would I buy a PNW or Alaska DLC? IN A HEART BEAT! Would I buy more aircraft? Only if modeled to the level of the RV6 and Maule, but someone set the bar rather high on those... Lets see if they can keep the standards high.

[LHookins 3,109]

Will you guys still be playing MS Flight 1 or 2 months from now, with only free flight, repeatable missions and aerocache hunt in Hawaii on a handful of GA aircraft?

Well, I flew the beta for a month with only the main island and two aircraft. Accumulated 120 hours of flight time. Got really bored at one point but found other things to do. And now, I have the rest of the islands which should be worth another month or two at least. :DHook

[vector 7]

Flight is very new at the moment and I have a huge amount invested in FS9 both in terms of two major hardware upgrades over the last eight years and a significant number of addons to give me a very satisfactory experience of flying in Western Europe, which is where I live.I am not going to rush to download Flight but will wait to see how it develops. At the moment its scope is too limited to hold sufficient interest for me.This is not meant as any criticism of Flight. I am very satisfied with what I currently have which is why I never considered moving to FSX or X-Plane either.David

Edited March 1, 2012 by vector

[keithb77 308]

If you are flying in multiplayer and someone else has a plane that you do not (Maule, Vans, the P-51) they will be shown as some space alien

That explains it...must have been a Mustang, cos he was doing exactly what I expected mustang kiddies to do - zooming around and knocking people out of the sky.I think there is a big risk that that sort of behaviour will ruin multiplayer...Has anyone found good charts for Hawaii?CheersKeith

[Mickel 42]

Here:http://avn.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=aeronav/applications/VFR/chartlist_sectUnder 'H' about half way down.Mike

[JimmiG 244]

Its a joy to finally fly with a modern FS engine - one that doesn't stutter, have flashing textures, takes forever to load ect. I'm surprised at how well it looks and flies (aka smooth) on this less than stellar laptop.Thanks MSjja

The new graphics engine is the best part of the sim. It doesn't seem to be limited to the core graphics engine, though. They've also optimized the scenery by reducing the variety of autogen and the total number of different textures displayed at once, and tweaked many other aspects of the scenery. This is a good thing, since the FSX engine was simply being pushed too far, especially with 3rd party scenery. It was at the point where the engine stuttered and displayed corruption and visual artifacts, or even crashed completely, regardless of the performance of the hardware it was running on. The Flight engine just feels more modern, optimized and balanced, distributing the load more evenly between your CPU cores and the GPU. It's a welcome change - every new version of FS always ran at 5 FPS on current machines, forcing everyone to upgrade.

[Glynn 405]

It was at the point where the engine stuttered and displayed corruption and visual artifacts, or even crashed completely, regardless of the performance of the hardware it was running on.

HelloMaybe on your system, certainly never on mine, smooth as silk and never had the Sim crash unless by a buggy 3rd party product.

[Geofa 108]

I don't know why some people consider FLIGHT not a simulator. The flight (and ground) dynamics have been definitely improved over FSX and FINALLY the engine/prop sound is correct.Contrary to x-plane I can take off in a GA plane in a 10kts crosswind :wink:I have to admit that I also spent MUCH more time than initially planned on the first day with FLIGHT.Impression after the first day is that even in its initial stage it looks sounds feels and perfoms like a slighty improved FSX equipped with high quality add-ons.

I am surprised Bernte. I put "stormy" weather in, trimmed the plane, and then watched it fly for 10 minutes by itself without any user intervention. I wish Xplane had more stability, but this is the other extreme. The flying on rails analogy also seems appropriate too-and the roll axis reminds me of native xplane's.