I'll start this off by saying I'm glad this thing was free. I wouldn't think of installing FSX on my system expecting decent result and that holds true for Flight. Performance first and foremost blew me away with Flight tonight. I'm an FS9 guy who can't think about touching FSX with my system yet Flight runs on my system with almost all full to the right settings and blows FS9's performance away. Flight looks like Orbix on my machine, superior to FSX, and runs smoother than FS9 (go figure). Was I wrong about this title, I guess in a few areas I was...First off curiosity killed the cat in this instance. I skipped FSX because the darn thing could never run without stutters or serious framerate problems for most people. It took years for machines to get created to run the software decently. I lost all hope a flight sim could be released 'that wasn't made for future hardware'. Flight has proven the excuses we've heard for years was just that excuses. This new team has made a 'sim' (not game as I once thought) that actually runs well which for starters is huge as I was going to pass on this thinking my machine would never be able to run it.A Youtube video spelled out what Flight really is which sparked my curiosity enough to give it a shot.

Outside of performance I found well designed models who's FDE's were on par with the best we've seen from our add-on developers. Taking away that awkward XBOX directional display made the sim look more like FSX and run the way FSX should have ran when it was released on machines of that day. It's late so I'll conclude this by saying I was wrong with what I thought this sim was. Why the new development team took the approach they took makes since if their building a whole core code. I still don't like the fact third party developers where left out of the loop. I like the DLC concept which streamlines installing add-ons but MS needs to understand what made Flight Simulator great. I now have a renewed optimizum about the future of Flight Simulator if Flight is any marker of this new era. So I'll leave it with that. The gaming aspect is there in Flight but there's more to it that lets me know what FS11 could have been or could be depending on how things shake out.Kudos has to go to the development team for nothing more than just releasing something that performs and performs well. Never have I seen a version of Flight Simulator released that runs better than the last two versions. I swear on my system FS9 runs great but Flight runs better than than FS9 ever did. Outstanding job in the performance department, I hope you guys take the Flight world around the world in more ways than one and include this community. This core engine is what we've been asking for for years hands down...Since scenery areas is what's being done now the biggest thing I would love to see is the lower part of Alaska. Can you imagine the Fjords area in Flight? The missions and the whole area would be something to see in this updated engine.

Edited March 4, 201214 yr by Dillon

keep going mate ! and enjoy your game !

Nice to hear the change of sentiment, well done.Cheers,

Dillon even the performance on the beta was not bad at all , there was a good amount of bugs that got fixed but overall it was good. and it only got better after the release .

Edited March 4, 201214 yr by rtodepart

Whoever made that video is a real YABO! I mean taking off DOWN WIND? Flying upside down with chickens? He even failed to fly through the city. BTW, about Alaska. Have a look at this thread.http://forum.avsim.net/topic/364280-a-little-kept-secret/P.S. I made the video. Just wanted to say that before someone attacked me for insulting myself again...

Good on you Dillon.

I agree with you, Dillon. Flight performs way better than FSX which I bought, installed, tried and finally uninstalled because of bad framerates on my computer.Now Flight is installed on my aging PC, a Pentium 4 3,19 GHz machine with 2 GB RAM and a (not so old) GeForce 9400 GT with 1 GB of videoram and I get good framerates even with some settings set to "high".And since EULA allows, I also installed Flight on my HP notebook with a core 2 1,7 GHz cpu, 2 GB of RAM and a GeForce GO 7600 with 1 GB videoram and it runs fluently even there. So Microsoft made a good job ensuring that Flight runs on older and new machinery as well.What I would like to see in the future - Dillon might agree with me - are the Aleutian Islands.

Hi, I am new here. Just thought I would tell you about the performance on this rather old machine I have a Mac Pro 1.1 from 2007 with 4 gig of memory which I use for gaming on Windows and Music making on OSX. I bought MS FSX when it came out and it ran like a dog. Still does as far as I am concerned. I like my eye candy, and to be able to navigate by scenery rather than instruments. A lot of the times, just to get half decent graphics, it ended in a slideshow whilst looking around in the cockpit. I have upgraded my GPU 3 times and now have an Nvidia GTX 460. On flight, I have all the graphics notched up to Max, except for shadows and sharpness which are on high, playing on 1920 x 1200. I must say I am impressed with the framerate. Completely playable. Beats all other Flight sims hands down. I just wish they had started with more DLC's to buy, and hope they keep em coming fast.

Whoever made that video is a real YABO! I mean taking off DOWN WIND? Flying upside down with chickens? He even failed to fly through the city.BTW, about Alaska. Have a look at this thread.http://forum.avsim.n...le-kept-secret/P.S. I made the video. Just wanted to say that before someone attacked me for insulting myself again...

I figured you made the video and you did one hell of a job explaining this 'sim'. People need to realize Flight is unprecedented in the fact that on release day it runs better than any other Flight Simulator title before it. FS95, 98, FS2002, FS2k4 did not run this good on older hardware at the time of release, not to mention it looks outstanding. We can forget about FS2000 or FSX in this equation as those sims don't run this good on today's hardware. I have a new found hope for the franchise now because at the basic level 'Flight' needs to be a fluid experience and Flight accomplished this on day one more than any other version before it including X-Plane 10. I don't call this a game anymore because the FDE's on all the aircraft (didn't get the P51) are just as good as any top notch add-ons we could buy for FSX or FS9 and because the sim is so fluid all the aircraft run 100% better.I just hope the DLC livens the world up with dynamic traffic and offers locations like Alaska. Bush flying would be on a whole other level in Flight hands down...

Thank you, Dillon, for your comments. Glad that you are enjoying Flight. That is what it is all about. We need to hope for the future, because there is great potential there.Best regards.Luis

Hello DillonJust to offer a bit of perspective, If I turn off all of the features in FSX that do not exist in MS Flight, ATC, Ai, Road traffic ect and fly the default aircraft around an area that is mostly water I get faster frames in FSX than MS Flight.I would imagine that if you had ATC, Large Airports with lots of Ai and complex scenery areas with multiple large airports such as NY or London then Flight! may not be as smooth as what you are seeing now.You are right though it is gong to be an american bush flyers dream especially as Alaska will probably be next up.Great for those who like that sort of flying, good to load up for a quick flight! after work, but not a lot of substance there when all is said and done.I will watch with interest from the sidelines as this product progresses, if it gets global scenery coverage and is opened up to the 3PD and the freeware guys i will jump in and support it fully with my wallet.

Hi Dillon,Frankly, I am amazed, not so much at what you think of Flight, but for your integrity of character in not just grudingly admitting how good parts of it is, but freely stating where you were previously wrong in your criticism. A huge part of me wants to jump up and automatically defend my beloved FSX in your comments, but I can't, because the only reason that sim runs so well for me is because of the fortune invested and years of hard study and work to make it so. I just want to say, before this post gets buried, or this thread or you get hammered, whatever, that I am really impressed with you sir, and your clarity of judgment right now, big time.Kind regards,

Great post. I have Flight installed on a iMac which is not a gaming machine and the performance blows me away. Total fluid with most of the settings on high. I don't think much of MS and try to avoid their products as much as possible but they did a great job with this product.

Hi Dillon,Frankly, I am amazed, not so much at what you think of Flight, but for your integrity of character in not just grudingly admitting how good parts of it is, but freely stating where you were previously wrong in your criticism. A huge part of me wants to jump up and automatically defend my beloved FSX in your comments, but I can't, because the only reason that sim runs so well for me is because of the fortune invested and years of hard study and work to make it so. I just want to say, before this post gets buried, or this thread or you get hammered, whatever, that I am really impressed with you sir, and your clarity of judgment right now, big time.Kind regards,

Having seen the negativity and criticism of FSX firsthand from Dillon, I couldn't agree more, way to go ! You are probably easily impressed with the graphics since you are used to FS9, LOL.I have to agree with MadDog, will be interesting to see how performance goes once more content and features are implemented.I am loving the walk around feature, the shadows and the swaying trees, can't wait for more areas, hoping for the CaribbeanKevin, thanks for the video, it helped me in deciding to try it out.

I would d/load Flight and give it a go but for a couple of things.My preferred area of operations is Western Europe with a big emphasis on Norway and mountain flying. I have no idea if MS will develop Flight to cover this area and so there is no point in me becoming interested in the product until I can be sure of this.My other concern is that third party developers are being excluded. It is thanks to those developers that FS9 and FSX have become the what they are today. Third party developers have created competition and variety which we may not necessarily see again as any future development will be what Microsoft decides it wants.Right now I have no more idea of how Flight will develop than the next man has, so I will wait to see what happens. If development includes what I would like to have then I will support Flight; if not then I shall continue with FS9. I have nothing to lose but maybe a lot to gain. Who knows? Time will tell.David

Edited March 4, 201214 yr by vector