Okay RTWR Team mates,Whats your opinion of Microsoft Flight?? Shall we plan the around the Hawaii race in stearmans next year? :)I found it interesting that the entire world is in the sim (zoom out from topdown view to see it) but im assuming its just the terrain mesh and no scenery/airports/navaids/etc. I personally think if they were to open up the entire world and allow 3rd party access then we might have a good sim.. It flies well, I get excellent frame rates and it looks good. While yes there is a game aspect to it, there is free flight so if the entire world was open and they allowed 3rd party access then we can get it running really well. I guess this will all depend on whether or not Microsoft decides to change their policy on the content through live.We should keep an eye on it and maybe, just maybe, it might be the next sim.BTW, I like the aerocache hunt, the one up at the observatory was hard to get in the stearman at 13,000+ feet ASL.Good times.. :)

I like it and have already uninstalled FSX and trashed all add-ons. Nah, just kidding. I'm keeping it until I've finished my Stratocruiser world tour. :wink:Still, always up for a bit of low altitude idiocy. :(

I quite liked flying in Flight, the flight model and planes felt as good or better than most FSX planes I have. Graphics and stuff where nice as well, scenery was obviously quite a bit better than defult FSX, but I guess that's mostly because the area is so much smaller! The general scenery stuff such as autogen and ground textures (especially on the sides of hills and mountains) look a lot better as well, so that's nice.I very much liked the Stearman landing challenges, those airstrips where a lot of fun! Small sloped runways lined with trees == :dance:I think the only real problems are that it is not possible to fly anywhere other than Hawaii as of now (and Alaska in a few months), and that 3rd party devs can't develop addons. Even if they where to just port over the default FSX scenery I would be happy, since right now it's just too limited. That, and a few more planes (could very well be DLC as far as I'm concerned), and it would be a pretty nice sim. Though I think it still wouldn't be able to replace FSX until an SDK is out and add-on developers are able to create more content for it.It will probably be a very good addition to FSX in the meantime, and I certainly am looking forward to see what is in the Alaska DLC. I didn't get the Hawaii DLC since I'm not really that interested in flying around in Hawaii, it's a bit small for me, though the screenshots of that RV6 looks nice...Instead I actually bought the Orbx Australia scenery and the Carenado C337, and I'm currently doing a low and slow tour around Australia with FS Economy (gamey! :( ).

The Hawaii DLC is worth getting I think, even if it's just for the RV6. It's a very nice plane to fly and the price isn't bad considering what some third party FSX devs charge for worse models.

Instead I actually bought the Orbx Australia scenery and the Carenado C337, and I'm currently doing a low and slow tour around Australia with FS Economy (gamey! :( ).

I guess you already have but if not download the fantastic OzX addons for Aus . It really enhances the bush flying :)http://aussiex.org/forum/index.php?/files/file/1825-ozx-au-complete-ozx-na-complete-ozx-libraries/

I guess you already have but if not download the fantastic OzX addons for Aus . It really enhances the bush flying :)http://aussiex.org/f...-ozx-libraries/

Thanks for the tip, will download that right away! :(

I've been happily flying the Stearman around the island for a few days now....As far as what is included in Flight is concerned: the graphics and scenery are high quality, the Stearman flies nicely, the basics are all there. The Icon's a toy, I just can't take it seriously - the most fun I've had with it was when I realised if you trim the nose down a little and don't pull back on the stick, you've got a 60mph boat.....The problems come with what's not included - too numerous to mention and covered many times over in the forums. What we just don't know is what Microsoft's plans are. We're a long way from something we can use in the same way as we use FSX/FS9, and we don't know if that day is ever going to come. I haven't gone for any of the DLC yet but Alaska might get tempting - depending on the price and what aircraft might be included. As Flight stands, it'll be good for bush flying.I guess it's going to be a case of "watch and wait" as to whether it is successful. I can see Flight lowering the entry barrier to flight sims though, and that can only be a good thing. Newcomers can then graduate to FSX or whatever they choose.

The Icon's a toy, I just can't take it seriously

I get so weary of hearing this "the Icon is a toy" nonsense.Let's see the nay-sayers and denigrators come up with a General Aviation design that takes over 140 deposits during a week at EAA Oshkosh.Or is able to work with prestigious automotive designers that would include Nissan's Advanced Design Group.Or be the 2nd aircraft in history... since the Icon A5 will be the first... production aircraft to be designed to and completely comply with the FAA's "full-envelope Part 23 spin-resistance standards".Or find the millions needed in investment capital to fund something of this nature to production.The Icon was meant to be an easy, fun to fly... maybe even a "jet ski of the sky" type aircraft for the LSA category. Seems it will fit that bill quite admirably.

Newcomers can then graduate to FSX or whatever they choose.

I see Nick... so you have hit gold with every Stearman landing challenge...Or maybe you have flown the RV-6A to CATII ILS minimums (Heavy Fog) w/ one dot or less deviation at one Hawaii's airports and found it boring.If so... I can understand your disdain for FLIGHT.But if you have not accomplished challenges like the above... why then the disparagement of FLIGHT?

Rob,What's a Chief DPE?

What's a Chief DPE?

What you appointed me to do... :(

Hmmmm? I just knew I should not have asked about that. OK, my wiki acronyms search gives me:Designated Pilot Examiner"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition"

And what are your chiefs weapons that I might prepare myself to answer these charges?

But, er, I like Flight.....

I've been happily flying the Stearman around the island for a few days now....

My comment about the Icon was entirely in the context of an aircraft for Flight. No disparagement was meant towards the real world aircraft, which indeed looks ground-breaking (I had read up about it after flying it). It's just not for me as a Flight aircraft. MS got it right though; they included a very easy-to-fly aircraft for first-time flight simmers, and the Stearman for those of us who've been at it for rather longer. In their respective capacities both succeed admirably, but by personal preference I'll be doing most of my flying in the Stearman, until I shell out for something else.

Or maybe you have flown the RV-6A to CATII ILS minimums (Heavy Fog) w/ one dot or less deviation at one Hawaii's airports and found it boring.

I didn't say anything about Flight being boring or not challenging - Flight looks every bit as challenging as FSX or FS9. And with the great scenery, VFR flying is anything but boring! I had a blast last night flying in some canyons in the Stearman. The vast majority of what is currently available in Flight looks really good. And Alaska for Flight could be great! I am very keen to see what that looks like, and it will probably be my next FS-related purchase.The main frustration with Flight comes from not knowing where and how far MS are going to take this. Maybe in a few years we'll have an excellent sim that can do pretty much everything FSX or FS9 can do. The most likely reason that we don't know this is that MS themselves probably don't know - the simple reality is that they are likely to keep with it while it makes them good money. If they don't get the revenues they want they will probably drop the project (as any company would). So they don't say much in these early stages because they don't want to promise us everything and then drop it. We're in a bit of a Catch-22. As for me, as I will have limited funds for addons, I don't know whether to spend now on FS9/FSX or to keep my pennies for Flight, so I'm a bit in limbo.I hope this clarifies my thoughts a little - I am firmly a Flight supporter!

First let me say "Thanks Nick" for taking the time to respond.

My comment about the Icon was entirely in the context of an aircraft for Flight.

Ok well... let's take that context. How many aircraft in FSX could be considered the same? Anyone think they could this moment jump into a real P-51 for a hop around the patch? How about something a bit "simple" like the Stearman? As much experience as I have (which by "Pilot Standards" is really very little) I would not dream of taking up a Stearman w/o having someone in the backseat for the first couple hours.Or hop into a Beaver with floats and head off into the Blue Yonder? No real interest in killing myself learning how to do water take-offs / landings in an aircraft I (at the time) knew nothing about. But I did it with "the greatest of ease" in FSX... so that makes the Aerosoft Beaver a toy? Maybe it does...I could say the same for many FSX aircraft if not all if I wanted to take a certain attitude toward them... "a detailed, if not a bit complicated, toy". And I have not (until now) even mentioned rotorcraft.But I don't take that tack.This topic of sim planes being a toy I have only seen with respect to FLIGHT, and I see it as a disparaging remark in light of my above remarks.

I didn't say anything about Flight being boring or not challenging

No... but what you did say:

Newcomers can then graduate to FSX or whatever they choose.

I take from that FLIGHT is good for the kids... and when they get older and more mature in their flight simming, they can sit at the FS9/FSX table. I just see that as more disparagement of a decent sim.Even tho we do not know what plans the MSFT has for FLIGHT (save Alaska) that does not mean we have to abandon it now. I spent quite a few hours just on the Big Island alone (it was late in the Beta before I had all the content). I could do both... enjoy FLIGHT... enjoy FSX. I did not need to know future development plans...We all have limited funds... and if you don't know what to spend on that can be a good thing. Hang on to the cash and trying to earn some interest on it is obviously a good thing. It has taken me over two years to decide whether or not to buy a new computer. Still don't know what to do... with Intel's April release of Ivy Bridge (quad core) I hope to know... but until then I just have to accept that is the way it is... same for waiting on nVidia's release of Kepler.It is a case of wait and see... I don't see that as a problem (I can't see a "completed" globe for FLIGHT for many years if ever) my problem is I will never "graduate" from FLIGHT until Microsoft abandon's it, I get bored with it, find something better... or I find that flying job that keeps me too busy for "flying" on a computer.

I would like to assure all readers of this forum that I have no illusions that any level of proficiency with flight sim aircraft has any relevance outside of flight simming, and certainly not to real world aviation.I am not sure how Rob got to that from what I had said.Very definitely my last post on the subject of MS Flight, and probably the last time I dare to offer an opinion!!Back to happily enjoying the triumvirate of FS9, FSX and Flight! - long live all three!