The graphics engine is completely new???...

Yes it is new. The fact that -as Peter pointed out- that the entire graphics generation has been offloaded to the GPU is prima facie evidence that this is so.

No edition of Flight Simulator was ever intended as a flight training device (barring the commercial spin-offs that have evolved into P3D). However beneath the game structure of Flight there is a very solid flight simulation engine with which provides (as far as I with my 0 RW flying hours can tell) the most realistic flight dynamics of any MS flight simulation product so far. Some of the challenges may be arcade-like, but the actual flight model most definitely is not.

With all due respect, how can you begin to judge the quality of flight dynamics emulation if you've never flown a real airplane?

It's really a subjective matter in the final analysis. What feels "real" to one doesn't to another. What else is new?On the other hand, anyone person can certainly determine through their own subject evaluation which of several similar products feels more "real" to them...

The lighting improvements alone make Flight head and shoulders above FSX IMO.Cheersjja

It's really a subjective matter in the final analysis. What feels "real" to one doesn't to another. What else is new?On the other hand, anyone person can certainly determine through their own subject evaluation which of several similar products feels more "real" to them...

I disagree. By definition, in order for you to call something realistic, you have to have a reference point as to the real object/experience being simulated. You cannot judge the realism of the flight dynamics of a given airplane on Flight if you haven't flown the plane in real life, just like I can't judge the realism of the atmosphere re-entry on Space Shuttle Mission Simulator since I've never been to space. It's like picking a suspect out of a line up when you didn't even witness the crime. Police don't ask people to imagine what the person might have looked like.

Edited March 4, 201214 yr by Lawyer+Pilot

I disagree. By definition, in order for you to call something realistic, you have to have a reference point as to the real object/experience being simulated.

This is a topic that I've written on at some length, although not with respect to flight simulators:http://tleaves.com/2004/11/19/realism/Your mistake is in thinking two things:(1) That japascoe was actually trying to make a strong claim that Flight is literally "realistic". (The fact that he pointed out that he's never flown a plane is a clue that, no matter what words he used, this wasn't what he meant.)(2) That literal realism qua realism is unquestionably the standard a flight sim game should be striving towards.The use of the word 'simulator' trips us up here, but my point of view in a nutshell is that most customers don't actually want flight sim games that are realistic. They want flight sim games that seem realistic - which has little to do with being realistic. The phrase I use in my article is "iconic verisimilitude". The ideal "sim" game (in whatever genre) makes you feel like you are experiencing all of the good parts of engaging in that activity while quietly cutting out all of the boring and expensive and stupid parts that you don't want to do.There are people who want the boring parts. There are people who don't. There's nothing wrong with wanting whatever it is that you want. But as someone who thinks about games a lot, I think it's very important that we explicitly call out this assumption that "realism" is actually desirable (let alone possible) and, where appropriate, question it.In other words, if your standard for judging a sim is primarily on the axis of actual realism, that's fine - but I believe that many players, if they actually stopped to think about it for a few minutes, would agree that when faced with a choice between realism and fun, they'd prefer the game that set aside realism when it conflicted with fun, rather than vice-versa.

Edited March 4, 201214 yr by peterb

Wonderful article! It brought to mind any number of tangential thoughts as I read it, none of which have any bearing here so I'll simply glide past them and say thanks.

Say, does this shirt make me look fat?

That reminds me of the recent TV commercial where Lincoln is waiting on his wife to finish dressing and she asks that inevitable question......if the real Lincoln had answered, he'd likely not have hesitated one moment to reply, "Of course not dear!" while thinking soto-voce "...it's not the dress that makes you look fat..."But, your major point is valid, and resonates with my own experience. Back (mumble-mumble) decades ago, I tried so very hard to get interested in FS4 (IIRC). Since I only had a keyboard, trying was about all I could do. Take off wasn't much of a much, but actually going somewhere and then landing? Forget about it!After a few fruitless days of effort, I finally decided "this just isn't a bit of fun" and went back to Pong and Donkey Kong. At least there the keyboard made sense and I could enjoy myself! :LMAO:

This is a topic that I've written on at some length, although not with respect to flight simulators:http://tleaves.com/2004/11/19/realism/Your mistake is in thinking two things:(1) That japascoe was actually trying to make a strong claim that Flight is literally "realistic". (The fact that he pointed out that he's never flown a plane is a clue that, no matter what words he used, this wasn't what he meant.)(2) That literal realism qua realism is unquestionably the standard a flight sim game should be striving towards.The use of the word 'simulator' trips us up here, but my point of view in a nutshell is that most customers don't actually want flight sim games that are realistic. They want flight sim games that seem realistic - which has little to do with being realistic. The phrase I use in my article is "iconic verisimilitude". The ideal "sim" game (in whatever genre) makes you feel like you are experiencing all of the good parts of engaging in that activity while quietly cutting out all of the boring and expensive and stupid parts that you don't want to do.There are people who want the boring parts. There are people who don't. There's nothing wrong with wanting whatever it is that you want. But as someone who thinks about games a lot, I think it's very important that we explicitly call out this assumption that "realism" is actually desirable (let alone possible) and, where appropriate, question it.In other words, if your standard for judging a sim is primarily on the axis of actual realism, that's fine - but I believe that many players, if they actually stopped to think about it for a few minutes, would agree that when faced with a choice between realism and fun, they'd prefer the game that set aside realism when it conflicted with fun, rather than vice-versa.

Very insightful, Peter. Thank you.