Of course I mean Maule. :Shocked:It is a scary 5:19 in the morning here, thank heavens I got this week off. And thanks for reminding me that now would be a good time to go to sleep! :Yawn:

Add me to the list of RW pilots and Flight Supporter . I was also in the beta of Flight ("Holguinerito" is my ID in the beta forums) FS95 was my first sim and later FS98 is what made me go out to the field for the first time for flight lessons till today that i flight for a living or lets say i get paid to play with big boy toys ;-). I think that from day one even in the beta forums the mayority of guys/girls where all previews users of FSX of older sims and from the get go MS got a good feedback on what we were looking for . So lets only hope that we get better with time and lets keep a positive attitude about the new software it will only help to build on better feedback in one way or the other , weather its here in Avsim in the beta forums or anywere else . YUP there is a few of us that are enjoying Flight very much.

Flew the Mustang for the first time this morning to get a couple, three awards. It's going back to be a Hangar Queen!

Of all the planes not to have a VC, this is a big disappointment to me (Ok I'm a little Bias in this matter! :lol:) I think though that even the gamers would want a cockpit in this bird!

Edited March 5, 201214 yr by tf51d

No sim not even Flight I found truly captures crosswind effects on a plane and how the plane should respond to your input, it's just Flight does it better than any other sim I've used. The models still want to move a bit like a car with rudder applied which is not how a real plane behalves. You can have great success using the rudders to keep the plane centered on the runway and the ailerons to keep the wings level. Once you land you compensate with the ailerons for the crosswind on rollout or the plane will drift off the runway, Flight captures this well (or is it that toe brake problem).

Look up Redbird simulators. Full motion sims to help simulate cross wind training. I saw one at Paine field and its quite impressive.

I see there are a few real-world RV pilots in here, so I'm just going to ask what's the correct power setting for a 3000ft cruise? In the Flight RV-6A I tend to use 21in / 2100RPM and that seems to work well.

Look up Redbird simulators. Full motion sims to help simulate cross wind training. I saw one at Paine field and its quite impressive.

I'll check it out...

Another RW pilot here that feels Flight actually largely replaces FSX in that if I want to experience the closest thing to real life GA flying than Flight is better than FSX. That, IMHO, makes it more of a sim than Flight Simulator. There, I said it.

A common comment from the "hard core" crowd seem to be that they uninstalled flight after ten minutes of flying. If they even bothered to install it in the first place. I think that attitude is quite lame. If you would uninstall their favourite sim after ten minutes, they would scream like mad Men. Flight sure has potential, heck it's really good as it is now. I really like it. And I still like fsx and xpx. Strange times. Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

I think we should give FLIGHT a good chance. Sure, it is lacking a lot of features, but its quite fun in a game itself. Not a simulator, but its fun.

Its finny when real life pilots call Flight a sim, but the desk jocks call it a game. Im going to side with the pilots on this one. I think they know a little better... :LMAO:

No matter what way you look at it, MS took a HUGE gamble on changing the basic Flight Sim format. They peeved a LOT of people off, but "hard core" and 3rd party dev's in many of there choices for Flight. I knew that would happen. The question is, did the risk pay off? That I have no idea and I dont think MS will know for a few more weeks. I have been reading a lot of post's not just here, but in a lot of forums. Here is a general "feeling" of what im seeing all over the place.Post's from "hard core" simmers typically land in the "HOW DARE YOU" category. They hate Flight, but tend to not say why, or make up things like "No VOR, ILS and the FM is bad!"

Kevin,Good observations...The fans of Flight (new and old) may also have to accept how profound the disappointment is for the "hard core." As I've posted here recently, it seems that we are going through the stages of grief. I am actually happy to let folks, new and old, enjoy Flight; I actually flew it quite a bit on Saturday night. However, there is a legacy behind Flight and the new game does represent a loss for some of us.I've got it downloaded, I paid my $20 for Hawaii, and now I'll just wait like everyone else.As some have said, let's give it some time, well okay, I will do that. I will say that the islands are modeled in a stunning fashion that is visually very believable.I think we'll learn how to live and let live. I did a PMDG 737NGX flight tonight and I am happy that I still have that. With my thousands of dollars invested in it, FSX doesn't look half-bad against Flight's visuals.C'est la Vie.P.S. I too am a "real pilot" and I am not sure what bearing that status has on opinions on Flight - as you state in your post, we all march to different beats.

Edited March 5, 201214 yr by ahuimanu

Ya. I fully understand how disappointed the hard core was. They really wanted FS11, and anything less is just un-acceptable. But they need to get over it and move on. Raging on every forum, review, and video is not going to bring them FS11, and it will only make them look like elitist jerks. We still have FSX and I see at least another solid year of add-on's, and we still have XP10. PMDG 737NGX is a simply stunning product, but im not the sort of simmer that enjoys spending 30 mins just to turn the stinkin aircraft on! I want to fly, and Flight gives me that instant satisfaction. I would NOT be a good pilot in real life. To each there own. I just take offense at how a small but very vocal group of "hard core" simmers are attacking Flight and anyone who enjoys it. Its truly childish, and I dont want to be associated with that group in any way.Im really happy though that things are calming down. The forums are a lot more enjoyable today then they were before Feb 29th, thats for sure! Also a lot more active!!!

What is 'hard core' anyway? I could post some definitions, but I don't want to ruin this topic. The only game I play (apart from some racing games a few times a year) has been FSX and now is MS Flight. Does that make me hard core? I love the 737NGX and flying with a well programmed FMC and pusging VNAV and LNAV. Does that make me hard core? (I also like autolands a LOT which is frowned upon by the hard core... Everytime you say something about autoland some hard core guy comes in uninvited and without reason only to tell you to fly the thing by hand... but hey, I like it...!) Right now I love flying GA in MS Flight more then anything... I thought that would also make me hard core, but apparently it doesn't...?Ah, well, I couldn't care less about hard core. I am having FUN with MS Flight and that's what it's all about to, really. (I really wonder what else flight simming could be about, actually...!)It's good to see real world pilots like Flight. To me their input is of more importance. Or better said, that's the only important input. I also notice hard core simmers chasing newbies away but luckily the mood is changing considerably, like here on Avsim. People come to realize that 1. MS Flight is pretty good or at least pretty promising and 2. whining about MS Flight won't get you anywhere...And yes, I also think the RV is overly twitchy. I am even beginning to fly the Icon more often because it gives me a nice ride.And btw the Bay Tower RV-7 is the best GA out there and the Flight RV-6 can't touch it imho. But I'm no real pilot... :wink:There, I managed to end this post without typing one of my definitions of what a hard core simmer is... I could hardly control my fingers but I managed to do it. I am proud of myself.

Edited March 5, 201214 yr by J van E

After some more testing with the RV-6 the twitchyness seems to have settled down, (Don't know how, it's still there but not nearly as bad.) I did find something more disturbing, unless someone can tell me this is realistic behavior? This is a video of the RV6 and the default Maule ( I wanted to use a default aircraft for this test) in relatively level flight in a 90 degree crosswind in the 20kt range. Both were flown hands off and with no earlier rudder or aileron trim. The RV6 just flies it's merry way holding a course of 161 with no sign of Xwind affects, P-Factor or Torque, Now compare that with the Maule which starts off level, but gradually slips to the port side as you would expect. I haven't tried the Stearman, or Icon yet, (I don't have the Flight Maule), I'm going to do that now. Both FSX and Flight were set to full realism settings for this test.

Looking forward for Adamson's experience with FLIGHT's RV. I find it OK, but then again, I never flew such an aircraft in RL :-|