AOPA's Flight Review - "Negative transfer of learning"

[Gibbage 199]

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

Crashes, stalls, and spins.First, crash detection is very forgiving in Flight. Hard landings are no problem, and you can scrape your wings down the runway all day and take off. In FSX, the sim will just STOP with a "crash" window. Just look at the video's of people landing on roofs, ships, and even the control tower. None of that would be possible in FSX. In fact, just touching a tree or building in FSX will end your flight instantly.Stalls are easier to enter in FSX. You really need to PUSH the current stock of aircraft in order to stall them. Im also not seeign any ACCELLERATED stalls in Flight (pulling too hard when moving fast would produce a stall).Spins are hard to enter, yet easy to get out of. In fact, its really difficult to STAY IN a flat spin. Flat spins are FATLE to real life pilots, and depending on the aircraft, very difficult to exit out of. In Flight, once you go hands off, it exist out of a flat spin for you. If a pilot were to practice spin exit technique in Flight, it would kill him. Flat out KILL HIM. If a real life pilot were to learn to fly a Maule or RV in Flight and go up in real life, it would kill him. Thats why Flight should NOT be used to train pilots.Then there is the small issue with damage. I took a P-51 to 30K, dove it down PAST MOCK 1, then pulled up at almost 600kts at 20G's and leveled off happily. Figure out how many things are wong with that.

[RoboRay 126]

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

High-G maneuvering beyond Vne would be would be one. I've done things in Flight that should have pulled the wings off the plane. There needs to be an (optional) aircraft damage and systems-failure model implemented.

[Faire 0]

High-G maneuvering beyond Vne would be would be one. I've done things in Flight that should have pulled the wings off the plane. There needs to be an (optional) aircraft damage and systems-failure model implemented.

Yeah, I see that one. The same with extremely hard landings, or touching the ground / water with wings.

[Gibbage 199]

Overall, doing the things you do in Flight will get you killed in real life. THATS why its not a pilot training aid, and thats why many people rightfully call it a game, but there is still a lot of simulation elements in Flight. P.S. Cute avatar.

[sibtiger 0]

First, crash detection is very forgiving in Flight. Hard landings are no problem, and you can scrape your wings down the runway all day and take off. In FSX, the sim will just STOP with a "crash" window. Just look at the video's of people landing on roofs, ships, and even the control tower. None of that would be possible in FSX. In fact, just touching a tree or building in FSX will end your flight instantly.

I agree, they ought to come up with a cumulative damage and stress damage modeling. But I think damage modeling in FSX is a bit too harsh in the sense that scratching your wing on a building at 1knot results in a crash rather than a damaged wing.

[Oracle427 45]

Then there is the small issue with damage. I took a P-51 to 30K, dove it down PAST MOCK 1

Are you mocking me? Yes, the damage modeling or complete lack thereof is an issue.For all the improvements that have been made in the area of slow flight and mushing, something went way off the mark with stalls either at low airspeed or accelerated.The initial mush and buffeting feels great, good cues, sink rate looks good. But then the ailerons remain too effective, and the elevator has way too much effectiveness at keeping the nose up even with no power. Finally, there is no "departure" from flight into a stall, the worst you get seems to be a really bad mush which is the best "new" feature in Flight.Ditto on the spins. At least we can enter a "spin" with a lot of effort, but I wish the aircraft would stabilize in that state. Countless times, I've tried to enter a spin in base to final to test things out and I can't do it without trying to perform a hammerhead first.If they can fine tune the stall/spin it would be awesome.---Also another gripe is in the Stearman aerobatics mission where Malia says a spin occurs when one wing is stalled. She apparently failed that question on her written exam! :Nerd:

[OzWhitey 3,353]

That's my point, dragging the airplane with a mouse it's almost the same, you do have the throtle in the gamepad, but can anyone here tell me that the throtle in Flight feels like the real one? do you really need the instruments to fly in flight? or could you just spot the plane with no cockpit and just fly?, the answer is yes. And the instrumentation is very basic, for that I'll pick the FSX with the add ons, Flight is very basic at this time, thats the MS idea, so it can be flown by anyone without any trouble. this is turning wrong, I'm not here to conplain about Flight or to defend FSX, i enjoy both of them, but for me Flight at this time it's just a game like Battlefield or Top Gun, far, very far from a flight simulator, but nice.

I think it's wrong to fly Flight with a mouse and then criticise it as being 'just a game like Battlefield'.Same as the original reviewer shouldn't be commenting on realism or potential for training if he hasn't flown the Maule and the rv-6.If want to fly Flight with a mouse then feel free - I think it's great the feature was included, as it significantly increases the target audience.But before anyone makes any comment with regards to Flight's realism, negative or positive, it's got to be based on interacting with the simulator with a joystick/yoke and pedals.

[OzWhitey 3,353]

Overall, doing the things you do in Flight will get you killed in real life. THATS why its not a pilot training aid, and thats why many people rightfully call it a game, but there is still a lot of simulation elements in Flight. P.S. Cute avatar.

I think it's useful to know the limitations of any platform you're considering usuing in training. Lack of consequences for overstressing the aircraft is one.Would you agree, though, that when flying in the envelope the flight modeling is quite good?Btw, one problem with flight is that the missions often encourage you to fly in dangerous ways - which perhaps is why Flight is so often written off as 'just a game'. Would be cool if ms had an option to 'turn off missions that require you to fly in ways that would definitely result in death and/or loss of licence!'

[Chock 17,769]

Would be cool if ms had an option to 'turn off missions that require you to fly in ways that would definitely result in death and/or loss of licence!'

That'd probably remove three quarters of the game's contents, and pretty much all of its fun LOL For example, there are many missions where you'd be insane to trust a single engine in some of the situations it puts you in if you look at the complete lack of emergency landing places within any sort of power-off gliding distance. I know I wouldn't be flying a seventy year old biplane fifty feet above a vast expanse of triple canopy trees draped over some mountains in real life.Al

[Gibbage 199]

I think it's useful to know the limitations of any platform you're considering usuing in training. Lack of consequences for overstressing the aircraft is one.Would you agree, though, that when flying in the envelope the flight modeling is quite good?Btw, one problem with flight is that the missions often encourage you to fly in dangerous ways - which perhaps is why Flight is so often written off as 'just a game'. Would be cool if ms had an option to 'turn off missions that require you to fly in ways that would definitely result in death and/or loss of licence!'

Without a doubt, Flights FM is one of the most realistic "feeling" sims I have EVER flown. FSX default FM is really bad. XP is going way too far to feel "floaty", but Flight feels spot-on. I only have about 2 hours "hands on stick" time in a real aircraft, and you really need to constantly be on the stick with these small aircraft. Same thing happens in Flight. There is no "set it and forget it" in bumpy weather. Also the cross wind will have you at the edge of your seat till you come to "full stop"! Most pilots I see post say that Flight is also the most realistic feeling sim. I think the team nailed that. The problem lies when you go out of the normal envelope. Then it just brakes down. Knowing were the edge is on there aircraft will save or kill a pilot in real life. So without that edge modeled well, Flight CANT be used as a training aid. Its just too risky.Im not saying pilots CANT learn some basic things in Flight like VOR, but I would rather Flight at its current stat, be used more as a discovery tool then a training tool. I want new hopefull pilots to learn the VERY BASICS of flying in Flight. Flight controles, throttle, mixture, prop pitch, rudder, slip, and so on. Then, if they have the bug, they can upgrade to real flying lessons at a local airfield, or try and take on a more advanced sim like XP or FSX. Flight cant stay an introducry device forever. There are only so many people out there who have an interest. One of two things will happen. A: They will play Flight and figure out flying is not for them, or B: Play Flight and want more. More realism, more aircraft, and more land. MS has two options about group B:. #1, provide them that more there customers crave, or #2, watch there customers go to other products. Its a no-brainer that if MS wants to KEEP the customers they got, they must ADVANCE in a more realistic direction or loose those customers. Its that simple. If people thing Flight is going to stay a "game" for long, they are wrong.

[air-ick 79]

As I read through these replies I can see that the perspective from which each of us approach Flight (or any other sim, for that matter) is clearly different, to say the least. I get the fact that the flight dynamics aren't up to the same standard as FSX yet and that many people feel that this is a fundamental and important aspect of any flight sim. But I just don't think it should be summarily dismissed as a useful tool for real-world flight training as long as it's used in areas where it does excel.For the VFR-only people, I'm on your side, I really am. I would love to see the flying characteristics improved, better crash detection, damage modeling, etc. But right now it can be a useful tool for those interested in instrument flying, be it a student or a instrument-rated pilot just looking to maintain their skills.Everyone seems to be aware of the things that Flight is still lacking in but here's a short list of a few things I think it does do well, at least with regards to instrument flying.Approaches: ILS, VOR, LOC BC (with or without DME)Holding at: VORs, Intersections, DME fixesDME ArcsBasic VOR navigationIf you want to take the "Dense Fog" ILS challenge to the next level why don't you try flying the OGG ILS 2 with a full missed approach complete with holding, because we all know that you're not going to see the runway ;-)This is the kind of thing you can do in Flight right now that doesn't require the stall/spin/stress characteristics of the aircraft to be spot on. Hopefully, all those things will come soon enough.

[Great Ozzie 101]

That'd probably remove three quarters of the game's contents, and pretty much all of its fun LOL

This is one of those statements where i have nothing to reply with other than: :LMAO:and :good:

[Gibbage 199]

This is the kind of thing you can do in Flight right now that doesn't require the stall/spin/stress characteristics of the aircraft to be spot on. Hopefully, all those things will come soon enough.

Very true. I also think the slip/cross wind is also a good training for pilots. From what I hear, Flight models this very well. Its one of the more dangerous things for new pilots, and if Flight can at least give them the basic skills of crabbing, and let them go through the procedures of dipping the wing into the wing, land wind main tire first, and bring those flaps up, all the better. It could save a life, or at least lower insurface rates on GA aircraft ;) Botched cross wind landings account for something like 90% of GA insurance claims!

[Geofa 108]

I agree with the review-inspiration is what it is about.By the way -would you land the icon in the ocean of Hawaii? My flying partner would never consider landing his lake amphib in lake Michigan-just saying. I remember a title from 20 years ago by Disney that had the first bonanza in it-it was great fun too-something island? I put flight in the same category-nothing wrong with having fun...

[Gibbage 199]

I would NEVER land the Icon in "open water". It does not have enough horse power to plow through waves, and at around 1200lb, would simply be tossed around like a toy. When Icon did there "sea trials" they only landed in Long Beach harbor, but from what I saw, never out in the open sea. I wouldnt take anything less then a Goose into open water! Even then, maybe a Catalina to be on the safe side ;)