I'm going to assume that what you're looking for is not a flight simulator, but a procedure simulator.

In Flight I wasn't looking for that at all - I expected to have fun, but had none. That doesn't mean that others can't have fun with Flight and enjoy it. All it means is that I didn't and some reviewers didn't. Nothing strange about it really. Different strokes for different folks.

Well, not everyone wants something suited to flight training - I already have my license :). WHen I play flight sims, I do it to experience things I can't do in real life, like bush flying, hairy landings and flying around the mountains of Hawaii :).

Me neither, and that wasn't my point. My point is that FSX and Flight are apple and oranges. Nothing bad or good about it. They're just very different and are tailored towards different kinds of users.

Hook what is the flight lacking? What kind of procedures do you mean exactly?

Thanks for answer, I certainly udnderstand that graphics might not be very important for some people. But I still do not understand why is Flight unrealistic and not usable for pilot training from your perspective? I thought that accurate flight model would be important...

Graphics are extremely important to me, and Flight isn't very good compared to state of the art games, although in some areas Flight has some nice improvemnts over FSX.To find out why Flight isn't suitable for real world flight I'd seek out a flying school or local flying club that run a simulator and talk to a qualified instructor about it. But we're straying off topic. It would make a good discussion in a separate thread. I'm sure there are some qualified flying instructors hanging around who can elaborate on the subject.

I'd like to know the answer to that as well, because I can run through the general flows I would use in a C172 I'm these unfamiliar aircraft. FSX doesn't model every piece of equipment either, so I can't use my checklist. It still doesn't diminish the quality of the sim.Aside from not bring able to check the operation of the autopilot, servo trim, RAIM and automated weather, what else are you looking for? A C 172?I am able to interact with the instruments the same way in flight. I know the field elevation, so I still check the altimeter. I can still tune the radios (and use them!)Try the 6A checkout mission and tell me that isn't fairly close to what the real steps would be for an engine start.FSX does not require one to do these things any more than flight does. So if one has the discipline to run through their flows and checklists they still can. The panel switches and knobs are all there waiting to be clicked.To the best of my knowledge FSX is not approved to log time without significant investment inn hardware and add ons. A flight school could use it to help train their students, but I do not believe that time can be logged as anything other than ground time.

.

Edited March 16, 201214 yr by simmerhead

Not a bad review, I agree with some of the points made. But I think giving it a 5/10 is a bit generous.

unfortunately, i have to agree with Simmerhead and the IGN review. Flight fails badly in trying to attract casual gamers.no "pilot" career mode with some story background or unexpected flight events - fspassengers, airhauler, fscaptain, fseconomy would have been good inspiration...no life in the scenery - no ground personnel, no plane spotters, no passengers, no traffic, no ai - nothingpoor graphics - for current gamesand it does not support my MS sidewinder ff2, so i can't enjoy it as well :-(Regards,Heiko

When you say that it fails to attract casual gamers do you base it on your feelings or other information?Have you completed more then 10 challenges?

unfortunately, is true.

I do not say it is not true, I only want to know the source ;) Because my "feeling" is that this game is as prepared to lure casual simmers (as me) as it ever was. I can be wrong, but I would like to know whether your opinions are based on feelings too, or on broader information.

What a casual gamer is and what he likes is anyone's best guess really, and Microsoft will probably never go public with the numbers.

Thanks for the answer! Maybe it would be better to say "I think" then "it fails", it is a tad clearer.

and it does not support my MS sidewinder ff2, so i can't enjoy it as well :-(

Yeah unfortunately MS no longer provides support for the hardware they used to sell such as this. I have an older MS Sidewinder FFB wheel/pedal setup that I really liked, that I can no longer run in Win 7 64 bit...

of course, it is my personal opinion. i tried for years to attract some of my friends for the passion of flight simulation. Some of them are gamers and also interested in aviation.None of them had a clue how to deal with free flight. What should i do now? where should i start? where do i have to fly to? What Wheather, what time? which plane is good for me?-> So you start with the great fsx built-in training school (for the interested ones in technics) or some nice missions (for those who want to understand quick why it is fun).i think the missions in FSX were a start, but not enough to attract them on the long run. No story, no briefing, no consequences or career path...-> So they fly 2-3 missions, but as there was no progress they lost interest.it is a big hurdle to become an addicted flight simmer - i think it is the key goal for flight to catch that market and even flight made a lot of the adressed issues better that fsx, it still fails (at the moment) to clear that path...

I do not say it is not true, I only want to know the source ;) Because my "feeling" is that this game is as prepared to lure casual simmers (as me) as it ever was. I can be wrong, but I would like to know whether your opinions are based on feelings too, or on broader information.

It was my case, deeply involved in simulation but found another hobby (if there is no crash a much better one regarding my health) but flight attracted me, indeed is perfect for those leisure moments like waiting for the wife.