Oh my God, another opinion...

[hhhhhhh 0]

...but I just couldn´t resist. I´m newcomer to Avsim forums and found my way here after searching some forum with discussion of MS Flight. Some sensible discussion that is, ´cause comments about the game on the forums of some other sims (Cliffs of Dover, DCS, X-Plane...) don´t seem very reasonable. Basic story goes like this: "Dodging balloons! W00t! Hated it, uninstalled within 10 minutes!!! Screw you M$!!!". I just can´t understand this childish, narrowminded (on a second thought, scratch that; children are, after all more open minded than us adults) hate that is raging on forums. Why? Because there really seems to be no reason for it. Flight really is a good game. And a sim, even at it´s present state.Comparisons run wild on other forums, so the following shouldn´t upset anybody. I just wanted to list some features that I think Flight does better, or at least on par with some other sims. This might be comparing oranges to apples, but I think Flight hasn´t got fair treatment almost anywhere.1. PerformanceThis is without a doubt the single best thing in Flight at it´s present state. No tweaking required. Even my old rig (core2duo 2,9Mhz, Radeon 4890)is able to run it steady 50 FPS with everything on HIGH and, what is most important, all the time. Regardelss of the amount of objects on the screen. Regardless of the weather conditions. Flight is the most fluid experience of all the sims I´ve played.Sure you can run FSX, or DCS-series (which I love), or X-plane, or Cliffs of Dover @ 60 FPS at some places, but not constantly, at least not with almost maximum graphical settings (on some of those games even on minimum settings there might be performance gaps).Of course those sims mentioned have a lot of other things going on that require CPU-power and tank the performance, but that´s not the point. The point is: Flight doesn´t try to bite more than it is able to chew. It´s supposed to give you the sensation of flying an aeroplane, and it delivers that. This is of course a matter of taste, but I personally prefer good graphical performance over some techincal detalis, especially in the sim that only concentrates on flying (not aerial battle combined to ground war and then some...). And speaking of techincal details:2. Flight modelI´m not a real world pilot so I don´t have a slightest clue how, for example real RV-6 or Stearman handles (or A-10 for that matter), but I really don´t see how Flights flightmodel is inferior when compared to, for example aformentioned sims. On the contrary, I think the flightmodel is in many ways more responsive and dynamic than FSXs. I think that many of the critical voices have just tried ICON in the game and, what is most depressing; with all the flying aids on. No wonder it feels like a slot car.3. Sheer fun and challengeDodging balloons felt like Nintendo Wii, but I´m glad I was able to push myself past that. Challenges, especially those that come with Adventure pack are really what their name suggests, and also serious fun. Finding airport with the navaids in thick fog and storm was one of the greatest experiences ever deliverd to me by a sim. It was so immersive, and good graphical performance played big part on it. I seriously doubt that Flights missions and challenges would be boring piece-of-cake forgettables even to some of the more serious FSX-pilots, if they just would give them a fair try.I´m not saying Flight is perfect. I´m not saying it´s DLC pricing is actually cheap, but I don´t feel cheated or ripped off after buying Hawaii-pack. It has already given me 20€ worth of fun and I´ve just scratched the surface of it. What is most pleasing, is that since I´ve downloaded the game I´ve been able to just fly everytime I start the game. I don´t wan´t to spend countless of days, or months or even years tweaking, and waiting some messiah patch to fix some performance or other issues (Cliffs of Dover, anyone?). I want a functional produt, even if it was somewhat limited and I might have to buy some more content afterwards. As long as it delivers entertainment and reasonable bang for the buck I´m happy.And Flight does that. At least for me. I still enjoy my A-10 though. Just wished it would run as nicely as Flight does.I wish everyone could just give Flight credit & critique it deserves and do the same to their beloved other sims too.

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Hello Synti,Welcome to Avsim. I hope you stay and help us build a community here.Kind regards,

[raymar 969]

...but I just couldn´t resist. I´m newcomer to Avsim forums and found my way here after searching some forum with discussion of MS Flight. Some sensible discussion that is, ´cause comments about the game on the forums of some other sims (Cliffs of Dover, DCS, X-Plane...) don´t seem very reasonable. Basic story goes like this: "Dodging balloons! W00t! Hated it, uninstalled within 10 minutes!!! Screw you M$!!!". I just can´t understand this childish, narrowminded (on a second thought, scratch that; children are, after all more open minded than us adults) hate that is raging on forums. Why? Because there really seems to be no reason for it. Flight really is a good game. And a sim, even at it´s present state.Comparisons run wild on other forums, so the following shouldn´t upset anybody. I just wanted to list some features that I think Flight does better, or at least on par with some other sims. This might be comparing oranges to apples, but I think Flight hasn´t got fair treatment almost anywhere.1. PerformanceThis is without a doubt the single best thing in Flight at it´s present state. No tweaking required. Even my old rig (core2duo 2,9Mhz, Radeon 4890)is able to run it steady 50 FPS with everything on HIGH and, what is most important, all the time. Regardelss of the amount of objects on the screen. Regardless of the weather conditions. Flight is the most fluid experience of all the sims I´ve played.Sure you can run FSX, or DCS-series (which I love), or X-plane, or Cliffs of Dover @ 60 FPS at some places, but not constantly, at least not with almost maximum graphical settings (on some of those games even on minimum settings there might be performance gaps).Of course those sims mentioned have a lot of other things going on that require CPU-power and tank the performance, but that´s not the point. The point is: Flight doesn´t try to bite more than it is able to chew. It´s supposed to give you the sensation of flying an aeroplane, and it delivers that. This is of course a matter of taste, but I personally prefer good graphical performance over some techincal detalis, especially in the sim that only concentrates on flying (not aerial battle combined to ground war and then some...). And speaking of techincal details:2. Flight modelI´m not a real world pilot so I don´t have a slightest clue how, for example real RV-6 or Stearman handles (or A-10 for that matter), but I really don´t see how Flights flightmodel is inferior when compared to, for example aformentioned sims. On the contrary, I think the flightmodel is in many ways more responsive and dynamic than FSXs. I think that many of the critical voices have just tried ICON in the game and, what is most depressing; with all the flying aids on. No wonder it feels like a slot car.3. Sheer fun and challengeDodging balloons felt like Nintendo Wii, but I´m glad I was able to push myself past that. Challenges, especially those that come with Adventure pack are really what their name suggests, and also serious fun. Finding airport with the navaids in thick fog and storm was one of the greatest experiences ever deliverd to me by a sim. It was so immersive, and good graphical performance played big part on it. I seriously doubt that Flights missions and challenges would be boring piece-of-cake forgettables even to some of the more serious FSX-pilots, if they just would give them a fair try.I´m not saying Flight is perfect. I´m not saying it´s DLC pricing is actually cheap, but I don´t feel cheated or ripped off after buying Hawaii-pack. It has already given me 20€ worth of fun and I´ve just scratched the surface of it. What is most pleasing, is that since I´ve downloaded the game I´ve been able to just fly everytime I start the game. I don´t wan´t to spend countless of days, or months or even years tweaking, and waiting some messiah patch to fix some performance or other issues (Cliffs of Dover, anyone?). I want a functional produt, even if it was somewhat limited and I might have to buy some more content afterwards. As long as it delivers entertainment and reasonable bang for the buck I´m happy.And Flight does that. At least for me.I still enjoy my A-10 though. Just wished it would run as nicely as Flight does.I wish everyone could just give Flight credit & critique it deserves and do the same to their beloved other sims too.

Very good. Thanks for posting your thoughts. I like the well rounded and leveled headed comments.Ray

[Old_As_Dirt 160]

Thanks for a great analysis of a great simulator. I find that I agree with everything you have said. It is easy to find fault with new technology, but they have done a great job in producing a visually stimulating product.

[Kosta 122]

Hi synti,I would also like to welcome you on AVSIM, and thank you for your insight, seems like you are really enjoying it!

[Musart 2]

Ok now, I'm convinced to give it a try... I was reticent about the mandatory installed background tasks like Windows Live, .Net, etc...I read a lot of positive critics about MSF performance (I'm a long time user of FSX & XP). So it's time for me to try it.

[Javiz 104]

Very well said, Synti ! 100% agreed ( although i'm not sure what you mean with 'A-10' ... )cheers,jan

[gtrbarbarian 1]

I believe he is talking about the IRIS A-10A (military aircraft) which is an excellent recreation for FSX.

[Gibbage 199]

I'm thinking he is talking about the Dcs A-10 sim.

[pmanhart 176]

I've read one to many of these threads to not respond, so here it goes.1. Performance- Yes performance is better, but why? The landclass is low resolution, and the locked (modifiable in the flight.cfg though) LOD_Radius is low. You can get comparable performance over the big island in FSX.2. Flight Model- Nothing to write home about. As a recent video using a Stearman has shown, the FDE in FSX and Flight are almost identical. Without the (current) possibility of third-party developed FDEs, and the locked-down file system we are stuck with what MS wants to sell us.3. Sheer Fun and Challenge- Has anyone tried any of the available freeware or payware mission packs available for FSX, or the provided missions? No, there are not many hoops to fly through, and you don't get "Aerobatic" points when landing your plane on your roof, but there are some excellent missions out there available for FSX. I'd dare to say that many that are cheering for the "missions" and "challenges" in Flight never gave the missions in FSX a chance. Do yourself a favor and try out some of the missions already available for FSX, especially Aerosoft's African Airstrip Adventures or Flight Tales I that are fully voiced. If you don't want to pay try some of the hundreds that have been uploaded to Flightsim.com, Simviation or here at Avsim. Why pay MS for what your fellow community has already put their blood and sweat into creating?4. COST- Yes Flight is free, but what do you really get for your money when you start to pay? For more than the price of a new version of FSX Gold in US Dollars you get the Hawaiian Islands and a few planes. With FSX Gold you get a plethora of planes and the entire world. Is it pretty, no. Aren't there an endless amount of addons (payware AND freeware) that enhances the terrain, landclass, mesh and autogen already for FSX?I'm afraid that people are selling themselves short and don't see the dangers of what Flight could become. Folks need to take a step back and realize what an MS controlled third-party market would look like. There is no way, in my personal opinion, that Flight will be as openly accessible as FSX and the prior generations of FS have been.The question everyone needs to ask themselves before jumping on the bandwagon is; Do we really want to pin our hopes and dreams on less aircraft, less scenery, and less access, for much higher cost and slightly higher FPS?

[Richdre 0]

Well I am on the bandwagon because I really enjoy Flight. I don't like Microsoft at all and try to avoid their products but I think they have a winner with Flight. No one can force me to buy their add ons but I will if they offer something that I think I will enjoy.

[dokelly07 0]

The question everyone needs to ask themselves before jumping on the bandwagon is; Do we really want to pin our hopes and dreams on less aircraft, less scenery, and less access, for much higher cost and slightly higher FPS?

I am not sure that is a great way to word it. It is not a bandwagon for all, for some it is their starting point, others a side-line interest. While I see a massive difference in content with flight, I see higher quality content in flight. FSX made my home state and city look unrecognizable. And that was from 30,000 feet. Go low and slow and it was almost funny...I am pretty sure Orbx is in no rush to model Louisiana. My point is, FSX does some things great and Flight does some things great. This is MY opinion and you need not agree.Simming could have died with FSX. Well, not died, but that could have been it. Now we have Flight. New people joining Avsim daily, new pilots, new perspectives. I think it is refreshing. I will fly in both sims, while realizing Flight is what it is. It will evolve or not evolve. I cannot say which will occur. All I can say is that it is good to have something new, even if it did not fulfill my entire "wish-list." I think my previous post pretty much sums it up. See "An educators view" on the main page. I look at this from an unselfish viewpoint now, and it really makes sense to me.Cheers,Danon

[Rush1169 0]

Do we really want to pin our hopes and dreams on less aircraft, less scenery, and less access, for much higher cost and slightly higher FPS?

Yes. Sometimes less is more.

[fenixtucu 0]

Posted Today, 05:02 PMpmanhart, on 06 March 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:Do we really want to pin our hopes and dreams on less aircraft, less scenery, and less access, for much higher cost and slightly higher FPS?

Yes. Sometimes less is more.

Flight is less than FSX? absolutely... you're right! Edited March 6, 2012 by fenixtucu

[Javiz 104]

I've read one to many of these threads to not respond, so here it goes.

Don't judge a book by the cover, Philip.If you haven't flown some of the challenges like the Maule Landing at Haiku airstrip or the RV-6 ILS approach/landing at Lihue your whole dissertation becomes pretty unstable...By judging the Stearman FDE from a video it might be true that you even haven't taken the opportunity to try the free Flight demo ??...Flight simulation has a lot to do with immersion. Fly those challenges mentioned above and you'll see that regarding immersion this is something that FSX won't be able to give you. If you manage to walk away from those landings i'll look forward to your second report about Flight.. B) Cheers,Jan(avid FSX simmer, and yes i've flown many FSX missions )