Flight Game or Sim?

[HiFlyer 9,413]

And that's why you get a broad range of people to look at the Sim. Enthusiasts can spot one class of faults, and gamers might spot other faults that would not even be an issue to an enthusiast. Working together, the different markets can work out acceptable solutions.I just wish that some of that patience and understanding that we are all told to apply for other ongoing simulation products was in affect, here.

[HighFlyer82 0]

99% game, 1% sim

[HiFlyer 9,413]

FSX has an entire Learning Center and as I recall each default plane has v-speeds and other data available on the kneepad, accessible during flight.

Going into the hanger and clicking "data:" gives you much of the same information.

[Arwen 289]

I know this and you know I know this. The point was that it was missing as of two months before release and until it was pointed out to MS by people who have been using MSFS for years. Had you been part of the development team or I, I think neither of these features would have been omitted as of January.

But mixture and prop rpm adjustments were added to Flight before it was released. And BOTH of these items are flightsimulator elements, NOT game elements.So, Atilla, I'm curious. What flight simulator development team have you ever been a member of? Because, if you do not have some actual experience, how would you know what the priorities might be? What percentage of uses of Flight (or even FXS) even have pedals with toe brakes? Edited March 4, 2012 by Arwen

[Chock 17,769]

It is both a game and a sim. A game because there are challenges and goals to meet, so you can play with all that stuff and have fun, compete with others etc, and a sim because it basically simulates what an aeroplane does and how one works.Some may complain that it is (at the moment) not hard core enough for them, by not covering every aspect of what is involved with operating every type of aircraft, but in this respect it is little different conceptually from many versions of MS Flight Simulator, in that these too were sandbox-type blank canvases upon release, with the details being fleshed out later by the addition of new elements. The way those new elements are obtained and added is different with Flight of course, and how much comes with the core product is different too, but the concept of adding to a bare bones product is no different from all the preceding versions of MS Flight Simulator. Let's not forget that no version of MS Flight Simulator ever included a CDU and FMS in any of the aircraft, including ones which should have had them in the cockpit - these have always been in the form of additions, and invariably ones you have had to pay for too. The other side of the coin of course, is that unlike with all the previous MS Flight Sims, you haven't even had to get your wallet out to obtain the core product, so at this point we are all actually up on the deal in comparison to when we had to pay for versions of Flight Simulator, although I can see that coughing up for large areas of scenery could get pretty expensive, and some parts of the world might never show up.So with MS holding the keys, whether additional elements will materialise to make it enough of a simulator to satisfy the propellerheads, is another matter entirely. Finances aside, there is nothing stopping MS from plugging a super-realistic airliner into Flight, or a hyper-detailed Heathrow airport - in fact being a more modern platform than FS means it would probably be easier to do so than with FS, where developers such as PMDG have often had to jump through various programming hoops in order to get things to work within the limits of FS. Whether MS can make payware realistic airliners or additional scenery areas for Flight which will always sell enough to make it financially viable to risk doing so on a wide scale, is debatable.But even within its currently limited scope, Flight is a game and a simulator.Al

[RYR738 9]

Very good post Al !Cheers.Fred.

[HiFlyer 9,413]

And high is where I see popup. Go figure.

[n4gix 4,968]

I know this and you know I know this.

Yes, and yet the main point remains that not everyone does know this. To simply leave your statement without any correction would simply lead those others to form an erroneous conclusion.To leave disinformation without correction would be a gross disservice to other members of AVSIM.I'm confident that you are aware of this too.

[Tor 0]

@chock: I won´t repeat your post, just ask you this:Why do you expect all this from Flight, which obviously is built on the same core as FSX, and apparently a "stripped down" one too?Still have many of the issues from FSX, Autogen popping etc.

[air-ick 79]

I think anyone who ever trained in an old Frasca 121 like I did could reasonably make the case the Flight is at least a very basic, but usable, simulator.If I were still teaching instrument students I would absolutely recommend that they go out and invest the $20 it would take to get the Hawaii add-on, if for no other reason than to use it to help them start developing there scan. I was very impressed the first time I shot the ILS in "Dense Fog" and could see how I was clearly relying on my "real-life" scan to get me to the runway. I would have loved having Flight available when I was first learning to develop my scan.Now I know that the same thing can be accomplished in FSX because I done it myself. But out-of-the-box, Flight has made real progress in this regard. Of course, the old Frasca could still do more in terms of various types of approaches and simulated failures, etc. but this is a good start for Flight.If an new instrument student came to me today I could easily sit down with him or her in front of the computer and show them the basics behind instrument flying i.e. scanning technique, pitch/power control, trim usage, how the ILS becomes more sensitive the closer you get, multitasking, plus more which I could probably think of if I had more time.I hope Flight is a success because, IMHO, I think it has the potential to become much more than a game by anyone's standards.

[Bert Pieke 7,600]

99% game, 1% sim

100% game, 100% sim... just depends on what settings you select B)

[Arwen 289]

100% game, 100% sim... just depends on what settings you select B)

And how you treat and use it.

[Guest]

100% game, 100% sim...

LOL Exactly what I wanted to post!!!

[RichLP 32]

Game? Sim? I don't really care what it's called, call it a Dill Pickle if you want... I'm just enjoying having fun with it!

[g_precentralis 191]

Going into the hanger and clicking "data:" gives you much of the same information.

Thats not true at all. Hangar data really gives you nothing, while learning center in FSX with flying lessons and checkrides can teach you something. Edited March 4, 2012 by g_precentralis