So. The Flight people believe AOPA, the premier leader in aviation, doesn't know what they are doing or talking about? Believe me WE/THEY do! Flight was not and cannot be a hobby. It can be a game, fun for many but it just doesn't pocess the tools and contents to become a hobby.

So. The Flight people believe AOPA, the premier leader in aviation, doesn't know what they are doing or talking about? Believe me WE/THEY do! Flight was not and cannot be a hobby. It can be a game, fun for many but it just doesn't pocess the tools and contents to become a hobby.

I suspect that either the Federation Aeronautique Internationale, or possibly NASA, are 'the premier leader in aviation', not the AOPA, and where PC-based flight sims are concerned, it is probably worth pointing out that actually Avsim is 'the premier leader'. But that aside, nobody is really saying that they do not know what they are talking about, what most people are saying is that clearly there are things which you could show a student pilot by using Flight, i.e. stuff such as: 'if you move the stick like this, the control surfaces move this way', and 'you control height with throttle, and speed with pitch'. Flight is perfectly capable of being used to explain stuff like that, since it has basic three-axis controls, a throttle and trim.Sure it cannot be used as an ATC trainer, nor for hugely complex procedural stuff (yet), which is in fact all the AOPA guy was saying, but the fundamental aspects of operating an aeroplane are well within its demonstration capabilities. I train people for a living, and I'd be more than happy to use Flight to explain the fundamentals of how an aeroplane flies to someone who was new to the concept, because I think it'd be a great aid to doing so, certainly no worse than FS. That kind of thing used to be taught perfectly well on a Link trainer, and a Link trainer makes MS Flight look like the Starship Enterprise in comparison.Al

So. The Flight people believe AOPA, the premier leader in aviation, doesn't know what they are doing or talking about? Believe me WE/THEY do! Flight was not and cannot be a hobby. It can be a game, fun for many but it just doesn't pocess the tools and contents to become a hobby.

OK, you win, it's a game not a hobby... now I shall go spend several hours having fun with my game.

"Negative transfer of learning"You can do it on any software if you aren't following the proper procedures. Basically it's up to you not up to software (get some FAA manuals and stick to what they say, take proper lessons 1st).

Flight was not and cannot be a hobby. It can be a game, fun for many but it just doesn't pocess the tools and contents to become a hobby.

Wow - I thought playing games WAS a hobby for me! Thanks for correcting me.

So. The Flight people believe AOPA, the premier leader in aviation, doesn't know what they are doing or talking about? Believe me WE/THEY do! Flight was not and cannot be a hobby. It can be a game, fun for many but it just doesn't pocess the tools and contents to become a hobby.

Relax man. Particular game is not a hobby (well at least not for me, I am not religious). My hobby is flying (planes/helis) and I fly them on different software. Every single one of them has pros and cons.in MS F VFR flying is a joy...

So. The Flight people believe AOPA, the premier leader in aviation, doesn't know what they are doing or talking about? Believe me WE/THEY do! Flight was not and cannot be a hobby. It can be a game, fun for many but it just doesn't pocess the tools and contents to become a hobby.

I have been a member of AOPA since 1986 and have the utmost respect for the organization and everything they do and I'm not exactly sure where anyone in this thread so far has said that they (AOPA) do not know what they're doing or talking about. Just because I or someone else disagrees with some (not all) of what this gentleman says doesn't mean that I/we have no respect for AOPA. Just about any flight simulator (even ones far more sophisticated than this) have the potential to create a "negative transfer of learning," not just Flight, so I still find that comment somewhat disingenuous.If Flight can't be a hobby for you then great. And I agree that in its present state it doesn't possess all of the tools and contents necessary to replace FSX and all of the third-party content that's taken YEARS to develop but I think it is a good foundation from which to build on which is really the main point I'm trying to make.I still love FSX and everything it has brought to, not just the flight simming community, but the aviation community as a whole. I will continue to support it and its developers as long as they continue to produce useful and engaging products for the community. But I guess I'm also part of the "Flight people" because I see tremendous potential in the program and want to see it succeed.

I am guessing (and hoping) that the MS plan is to slowly introduce more complexity, in the game generally, and in the aircraft. Gradually offering more complex navigation, weather, ATC and aircraft/systems.This gives new folks, that might have found FSX a little daunting to start out with, a chance to be introduced to the basics, and to the fun of flying without a big investment in learning (and hardware). By the time the next feature is introduced they will be comfortable enough with what has come before to be ready for the new challenge.Thats my hope anyway. In the mean time, those like me that prefer more of a full featured sim, can stick with FSX. Actually, Flight reintroduced me to the joys of flying VFR in FSX.

I have to disagree Barnstormer...Have you ever used ELITE? Idid, as well as ASA On Top... Do these two simulators offer better instrumwents for IFR proficiency? There is just one functionality I can name - Map with flight analysis and placement of the aircraft at proper places for training pourposes. FLIGHT doesn't offer it (yet...)ELITE has a much more sophisticated FM that ASA, both are approved as BATDs when propper hardware is used. In FLIGHT I can feel the physics light-years better than in any of those sims... Yes I do not have a GPS (yet...) but then again, when practising IFR for your tests, do you use it?I belive THE FUTURE OF FLIGHT is SO BRIGHT I've GOT TO WARE SHADES!!!!! (someone sung....)... :-)In a year, I strongly hope to see an even more STRONG/PERFECT(well... almost...)/FULLY FEATURED FLIGHT!

So. The Flight people believe AOPA, the premier leader in aviation, doesn't know what they are doing or talking about? Believe me WE/THEY do! Flight was not and cannot be a hobby. It can be a game, fun for many but it just doesn't pocess the tools and contents to become a hobby.

The mousewheel method has made this piece of cake. I stuggled, too, until I read about using the mousewheel.

Thanks for that hint. I knew there had to be a better way. Guess I should do more reading. Cheers.

Well, good review if it is just the base Flight whitout add-on airplane. If there at least one add-on plane, then the remark about the impossibility of learning VOR intercept is obviously not valid anymore.You can still use Flight to learn the basic principle of checklist, take-off, circuits, landing, side slip, stalling, dead reckoning navigation. VOR can be added with an add-on. Not bad at all for twenty buck of investment.But FSX or Flight will never be substitute for real lessons and a lot of people will never goes anyway further than VFR flying.

In my opinion its a game which can be really fun, but its not for training and most probably will never be. I mean, its not supposed to ever become new FS, its different kind of game. Surely Flight can be used to learn some of the basic about VFR flying, but if I want to learn about planes systems and how they work Flight is not for that. FSX with proper addons is.Just to me whole idea about Flight maturing to something more complex and closer to reality with planes that actually have complex systems sounds very unlikely. You just do not go and release simple game, and then change that same game to a simulator which would fully feature like PMDG quality planes.

You just do not go and release simple game, and then change that same game to a simulator which would fully feature like PMDG quality planes.

I can list you any number of FS add-ons that have done exactly that, and not just on the more recent iterations of FS either. Providing there is a basic architecture in there to allow connection and a developers kit - and even when there isn't on occasion - developers have still pulled it of via XML and such. Remember EFIS 98? it introduced the FMC to Flight Simulator and made airliner flights vastly more realistic, and that was years ago. Improved, vastly more capable ATC for FS has come in the shape of Multi Crew Experience, Radar Contact and before those, Pro Flight. VOX ATC let you actually talk to ATC. Flight Keeper adds an ACARs and moving map to FS. PMDG's NG adds a collimated HGS to airliners. Reality XP adds all kinds of complex Avionics, as do ISG. Weapon for FSX adds missiles rockets and guns to FS. Air Hauler adds gaming capabilities to FSX and FS9 and allows all kinds of cool stuff, even index-linking it to the stock market for fuel prices, as indeed does African Airstrip Adventures. Airshow Pilot adds an entire online aerobatic league and compatition capabilities to FSX. Some recent FS aeroplanes have maintenance sub programs and the ability to do walk arounds. You can even have ground crew walking about the apron in FSX now via add-ons. REX and Active Sky give you real world weather. Aviation and Mission put a training pilot in your PIC 737 with you.None of these things were in FSX when it arrived. The list of things that have been added to the base capabilities of Flight Simulator's bare bones is only limited by imagination and the labours of inventive developers.In short, there has always been the ability to soup up Microsoft's flight simulator efforts in order to make them more realistic, and more so than ever now, when Flight is geared towards adding DLC with the process now actually built into the interface. All that stuff will come.Al

I agree 100% with the review. I dont think Flight at its current state should be used as a real life training device. Its just not there yet. Im sure you can practice catching VOR's and do some ILS, but anything else would negate those benifits. Its a little too forgiving as a SIM since its more on the friendly game side of things. This can (and hopefully will) change in the future as its customers demand more advancement and realism. Calling it an insperational tool is right in line with the MS team's goal. Any real pilot will have fun in Flight, thats for sure, but he will train in XP or FSX. I hope that Flight gets more people to want to fly in real life or upgrade to more realistic sims in the long run. MS better expand with its customer base to keep them interested.d

I agree 100% with the review. I dont think Flight at its current state should be used as a real life training device. Its just not there yet. Im sure you can practice catching VOR's and do some ILS, but anything else would negate those benifits. Its a little too forgiving as a SIM since its more on the friendly game side of things. This can (and hopefully will) change in the future as its customers demand more advancement and realism. Calling it an insperational tool is right in line with the MS team's goal. Any real pilot will have fun in Flight, thats for sure, but he will train in XP or FSX. I hope that Flight gets more people to want to fly in real life or upgrade to more realistic sims in the long run. MS better expand with its customer base to keep them interested.d

Could you point to some areas where Flight is more forgiving then FSX? I am a rookie and still not getting this one ;)