Interesting you mention Catalina. My very first plane flight ever in the 60's (as an 11 year old passenger) was to Catalina Island. The landing/ takeoff in the Ocean was probably what gave me the aviation bug- though a year after I took my first flight one of the planes hit a wave wrong killing a number of people..Put the whole company out of business.. Glad it still inspired me.An Icon in the ocean of Hawaii-don't think so-but it does make a fun game. . As long as most realize that.

Remember fsx had rubbish spin modelling, Flight's is an improvement,Overstress would be very easy to model - hope it gets added.As for the 'realistic missions' option - Flight's actually got plenty of realistic missions, the landing chellenges would mostly fall into this category, as would many of the transport/passenger missions.It's really the flying through rings and collecting gold coins that are 1. Not based on any real world occurence whatsoever and 2. Impossible to whilst flying a ga plane in a manner resembling normal flight.These missions are part of the reason for the negative initial reaction of many 'serious' simmers - 'it's just an arcade game' etc. A simple option in settings to remove the 'arcade' portions would render this arguement moot. It would also help the casual gamer who's trying to learn about aviation.T'was just a spur of the moment idea, but at the moment Flight is not scoring a lot of points with aviation industry reviewers and I kind of understand that it's hard to be taken seriously when your program encourages participants to do things that would likely be fatal in real life.

Well I am astonished about the missions in flight- not because they are there- but because there were more in FSX ( all free) that included IMHO even more challenges and there were hundreds one could get for free ( I even did one available at the Avsim lib that included a scenic narrated tour along with re multi engine techniques and an unexpected emergency). So Am wondering why the missions which seemed to be largely ignored in FSX are suddenly such a rage in flight - especially since many need additional purchase to unlock, Am I missing something?

Not really missing anything Geofa, I think it's more a case of people waking up to the fact that the missions in flight sims are actually fun. Of course those of us old enough to remember the programmed 'Adventures' you used to get in Flight Simulator, will remember that they were quite a lucrative thing for developers back in those times, with tons of them available, both payware and freeware too.Missions was the updated version of Adventures of course, and I've always thought that FSX missions were a sorely under-used feature. Two add-ons I've reviewed for Avsim do make good use of them, these being Wilco's Aviation and Mission, for their PIC 737 which makes use of the feature to train you on how to fly the 737 in a really cool way and then throws a series of ever tougher challenging flights at you, and Aerosoft's African Airstrip Adventures, which is something that anyone who likes the missions in Flight really ought to try, because it is actually a lot better than the missions in Flight, in that it adds a completely open-ended continuous career into FSX; one where you fly GA aircraft over some very nice custom terrain to earn rewards - sound familiar? - yup, that one is quite evidently what MS were looking at when they dreamt up what was going into Flight.This is not to say that Flight is old hat, but if people want what Flight offers, combined with the realism which FSX offers too, then they should be aware that there is stuff out there which does that.Al

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.

not really, when i was instructing, the fnpt 2 fully authorized certified simulator you could pull as many gs as you wanted and you wont break anything. and it wont spin properly.flight training aids are for learning the procedures and normal maneuvers, not pulling stupid g or spins

Regarding spin/stall characteristics, low speed flying, FLIGHT is certainly better than FSX, more realistic than XPlane, ELITE, ASA On-Top, the ALSIM and FRASCA fnpt2s I've used. Flight Gear, with properly designed aircraft using the JSBSim base FM can do a better job than either of the above mentioned sims (including FLIGHT IMHO). I don't know about AeroflyFS - I do not own it, although I would like to, but have to save for FLIGHT's DLCs... :-)Ron Freimuth (anyone around remembers Ron? I'm sure some do...) explained me some years ago why JSBSim had quite interesting features in it's FM allowing for much better stall/post-stall simulation.Back to FLIGHT, yes I miss "Damage Model" and I believe the high-speed stall behaviour is more related to it being truncated from the FM than FLIGHT's air data not being able to simulate accelerated stalls, just as FSX did at least...Of course I also believe it is all there, just as rudder and aileron trim were and it took some time for us to discover. They're certainly hidden but ready to be used.The improvements to FSX are considerable in the FM area. "Flying" FLIGHT aircraft feels so much more RL! They also FINALLY solved that irritating bug that plagged the Turn&Slip indicator's ball... The physics of the ball were very messed up in MSFS previous versions. It feels right now. Great!There isn't yet a glider available for FLIGHT. Preferably one I have flown in RL so that I can compare... But, some RL gliders are a PITA to enter spin, and most maintain aileron authority all the way during a deep stall!!! And flat stalls are sometimes used as a technique in soaring !!!! Sideslips are dangerous??? I should have died long ago then :-). BTW: Condor and SilentWings, the only too soaring simulators presently available and used do a great job at simulating gliding/soaring. Their FMs are good, wetaher models too... I wish FLIGHT could have an improved wind and thermal model comapred to FSX. Until now I was unable o test using slope winds/udrafts to support my flight near mountains with proper wind direction/intensity because the included aircraft are not meant to, but turbulence and sink in the lee sides are there!Sorry, but I couldn't resist posting here a link to one of many movies available at Youtube for Condor, the soaring simulator... Having this in FLIGHT would be... a DREAM!!!!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlnOZGCo0rkMaybe the Alaska DLC brings us some glider to fly. I miss FU3's Stemme!!! There is one at the airfield I fly from here in Portugal - the more I see it flying the more I dream of a Stemme fro FLIGHT :-)

Hi Folks

Aerosoft's African Airstrip Adventures, which is something that anyone who likes the missions in Flight really ought to try,because it is actually a lot better than the missions in Flight,in that it adds a completely open-ended continuous career into FSX;one where you fly GA aircraft over some very nice custom terrain to earn rewards -sound familiar? - yup,that one is quite evidently what MS were looking atwhen they dreamt up what was going into Flight.

And OrbX invented Landclass. :LMAO:Sorry about that,but your timeline is distinctly revisionist. :biggrin:Otherwise fully agree with your general Missions sentiments,and AAA is great,but it could have been so much better.ATBPaul

Also think that while improved, the spin characteristics are not sufficiently modeled to be usefull for training. Same for any other sim by the way.A spin is a very complex movement including changing lift with laminar and turbulent airflow, propwash and airscrew gyroscopic effect if you have a large propeler. Aircraft structure will create its own gyroscopic effect because of rotation around the vertical axis.No simulator that i tried modelise well the spin entry with the plane flipping on the back in a fraction of a second when you apply full rudder to finish stalling one of the wing. None simulate very well the acceleration of rotation when the spin develop until an equilibrium is reached.Flight has a better FM than previous version but we have to recognize that its not perfect if we push to the edge of the envelope. Same for FSX even with good add-on. Take the A2A spitfire for a ride and let it climb until your pilot pass out due to lack of oxygen. This fighter (in principle with some instability if you want agility in dogfight) will start a repetitive pattern of diving then nose up in a gentle turn without problem. No spiral or anything deadly happen.Dammage indication would be good but in RL training, there is no indication either beside the fact that you can ear and observe your wings teae-off. In training, VNE effect is not something you want to experience. You just avoid it. An aural warning from a virtual instructor will be closer to real life flying.

Fully agree with you!FlightGear, and the improved JSBSim with it's 2nd order derivates does a great job when fed with good RW data. Yasim is very limited.If you didn't I should recommend trying FG2.6 :-) and a few good add-on aircraft using JSBSimBTW: Check Outerra using JSBSim!!!

Also think that while improved, the spin characteristics are not sufficiently modeled to be usefull for training. Same for any other sim by the way.A spin is a very complex movement including changing lift with laminar and turbulent airflow, propwash and airscrew gyroscopic effect if you have a large propeler. Aircraft structure will create its own gyroscopic effect because of rotation around the vertical axis.No simulator that i tried modelise well the spin entry with the plane flipping on the back in a fraction of a second when you apply full rudder to finish stalling one of the wing. None simulate very well the acceleration of rotation when the spin develop until an equilibrium is reached.Flight has a better FM than previous version but we have to recognize that its not perfect if we push to the edge of the envelope.Same for FSX even with good add-on. Take the A2A spitfire for a ride and let it climb until your pilot pass out due to lack of oxygen. This fighter (in principle with some instability if you want agility in dogfight) will start a repetitive pattern of diving then nose up in a gentle turn without problem. No spiral or anything deadly happen.Dammage indication would be good but in RL training, there is no indication either beside the fact that you can ear and observe your wings teae-off. In training, VNE effect is not something you want to experience. You just avoid it. An aural warning from a virtual instructor will be closer to real life flying.

 

 

So Am wondering why the missions which seemed to be largely ignored in FSX are suddenly such a rage in flight - especially since many need additional purchase to unlock, Am I missing something?

A very good observation and really the answer is quite simple. They tried to do with FSX, to some extent but not as large an extent as they did with Flight, to release a flight simulator that targeted a wider audience, and bring in more customers from the market out there that they currently did not have - capture a bigger piece of the pie so to speak - the average gamer, and the bigger thing , retain that larger piece of the pie. I remember quite well, when the press releases were coming out for FSX , the outcry of the current " hard core flight simmers" at the time, flying their beloved FS9. Really very similar, to the outcry from the same group of FSX users today, we heard prior to the release of Flight - the closing of this forum around Feb 16th is a good example of that." How dare they release FSX as an arcade game?" " What is MS thinking, they are abandoning their loyal faithful long term customers?". " I will never buy FSX, why should I - if I want an arcade game I will buy a console- looks like FS9 will be the last serious flight sim by MS". " FSX is going to have all these missions, and that will be the focus, rather than actually being a flight simulator".And I could go on and on. I mean this sentiment was rampant. Similar in many respects, to the outcry we have heard prior to the release of Flight, and currrently as well. That sentiment died down fairly quickly after the release of FSX - not so with Flight, because with Flight - they have created and modeled the program, to have a much better chance of capturing more of the aforementioned market, than FSX did. But the sentiment died down quickly with FSX, and turned to " how the heck do I get decent frame rates with FSX".The reason FSX did not - all the serious flight simulator characteristics that were in FS9 and previous versions, remained very prominitely in FSX. So all the experienced MSFS users, did not really give the missions a chance. Some " like myself", never even bothered to try any of the missions, or explore them to see what it was about. I have logged several hundred hours in FSX, since the day it was released to the public, and continue to do so - well to be truthfull, I am on a little break from FSX while I am enjoying Flight. But with all the hours I have in FSX, I don't think I have tried any of the missions, maybe I did one - maybe, can't really remember.And for new users to the MSFS world that picked up FSX - well it was just too overwhelming. Way too overwhelming. The few new users that were very interested in flight simming, probably tried a few missions from the start, then took the time to read up in the learning center, go through the flight lessons - maybe even seached out the internet and found web forums such as this to ask questions and learn on, stuck with it and eventually become hard core flight simmers, many of whom are probably on these forums today. The previously experienced flight simmers, eventually migrated over and stuck with FSX, especially with all the addons that were becoming available to them. There are still a few stragglers hanging in with FS9, I suspect these are for the most part because they have already spent a bunch of money on addons for it, and don't have machines yet powerful enough to give good performance in FSX.But I will guarantee you, the newcommers to the MSFS franchise - the vast majority of them that started with FSX - eventually shelved the product and never bothered to try it again. It would be interesting if those numbers could be crunched and published, but I would bet that number would be an extremely high percentage. And that is where FSX failed, it was just way too complex and overwhelming for a new user. And the perfomance problems realized out the chute, certainly did not help matters for the new folks to MSFS. Especially the ones that did not take the time to search out forums such as this, ask questions, and drill down to learn more. The learning center was pretty good, but to a new user no way were they going to be able to learn all they need to know, with it alone.MS by developing Flight the way they have, is hoping this go around, to change that and retain much more of the newcommers to the MSFS franchise , and to build their customer base for that franchise going forward. Without growth, it will die.Think about it gang - 3 years ago the Aces team was disbandoned, the lights turned out and the doors shut. That very well could have been the end of the MSFS franchise , and frankly many thought it was at that time.Somewhere somehow, someone convinced the appropriate people at MS , to give this franchise another shot. Obviously by doing so, they had to come up with something radically different , to do what FSX failed to do - capture - AND retain more of the market. And with this strategy, they believe they have the right groundwork to so so. And that groundwork brings us Flight. If nothing else, they have succeeded in bringing something to market, that is NOT so overwhelming, and seems to be attracting some of that market they are hoping to capture. Remains to be seen, if this strategy is successful by retaining these same customers. With the ecosystem such as it is, they should be able to find out fairly quickly, just judging by the success of each DLC release. I think it has a good start. I do wonder how much time MS will give the franchise to succeed in what it has set out to accomplish? 6 months, a year, 3 years, more? My guess would be at the minimum 2 years, MS certainly has the financial ability to support Flight while it remains in the red, I hope they will be patient with it, especially with the global economy being what it is.So while many previous MSFS customers may be dissappointed, we really all should pull together and root for the the success of Flight, even if in it's current incarnation it is not for you. If it is not successful, the franchise may very well not be given that other chance, like it got with Flight, and those lights may remain off and door locked forever...and the hopes of getting something more like FS11 will end completely, at least getting it from MS.So even for those that are dissappointed, even greatly dissappointed , that are bitter and opinionated - some of which we have seen examples in here - think about this - while you may not like it, it IS a new sim in the MSFS franchise, one which at one point we had not much hope for. Think about this, when you blast MS for what they did - even you, need to support the effort if you truly want to see something more like FS11. The core base is certainly there to build upon, the technology is certainly there - want to see that developed on and eventually get to you the product you hope for? Flght has to succeed first - for it if fails, I don't think they are going to go back and think " Man, we should have stuck with the full simulator and now that is what we need to do, create a whole new full simulator more like FSX", no this user in his humble opinion, thinks if it fails, then the fat lady will have sung...

So while many previous MSFS customers may be dissappointed, we really all should pull together and root for the the success of Flight, even if in it's current incarnation it is not for you. If it is not successful, the franchise may very well not be given that other chance, like it got with Flight, and those lights may remain off and door locked forever...and the hopes of getting something more like FS11 will end completely, at least getting it from MS.

+1This reason I picked this review over all the others to comment on is that, unlike many of the others, this one is targeted toward individuals "outside" of the flight sim community where I believe the future of flight simming lies. I totally agree with Ian Twombly's assessment that Flight is a "fantastic inspirational tool" but I just don't think that's going to be enough to move Flight forward. If we can't draw new people into this community does anyone seriously think MS is going to continue to support Flight or flight simming as a whole? If Flight fails is MS is going to say, well we tried, but lets go ahead and start working on FS11 for that small but fiercely loyal flight sim community?I just think that the larger this community gets the easier it will be to affect change with regards to Flight and the greater the chances are of turning it into something that everyone, even the skeptics, can enjoy.

I am currently taking flying lessons so I think I have a very good understanding of what flight can do for learning the basics. I think that the total realism isn't required for someone training for their private. What I find useful is that

1. I can practice with others online
2. It's easier to get into and to get going
3. It is realistic enough to help prevent myself from "unlearning" what I've already learned between lessons
4. It is perfect for practicing maneuvers. Not for the realism of the actual maneuver but for the processes that go into getting into, performing, and exiting a maneuver
5. Basic IFR and VFR

I also use FSX for practicing the actual requesites of maneuvers and realism of flying out of my airport. But I only do this when I have more time and when I have the mental capacity to do so after working 10-12 hours a day. FSX is also great for cross country practice.Ultimately if you take everything for what it is in MS Flight and pretend it's real then I agree, there will be a negative transfer of learning. If you know what's realistic and what isn't I don't think that's the case.

Interesting point of view. My PPL is far back but i remember having used fs9 During my training and i never felt it was negative. It help you practice the sequence of event. Radio communication is difficult to practice as well as ATC interraction with a software that doesnt expose you to the variety of situation in the RW. For me thats not something where FSX can help you much.

I think the trick is to practice what you learn in the real aircraft in the sim, rather than learning in the sim and then trying to apply it to the aircraft.

Interesting point of view. My PPL is far back but i remember having used fs9 During my training and i never felt it was negative. It help you practice the sequence of event. Radio communication is difficult to practice as well as ATC interraction with a software that doesnt expose you to the variety of situation in the RW. For me thats not something where FSX can help you much.

Atc - vatsim should simulate this very well. I use rc4, which also does a good job.

Many sims can provide a positive learning experience if you have the discipline to focus on practicing and reinforcing selected real-world lessons.Problems arise when the richness of the experience drowns out those lessons and we start 'flying' by the seat of our pants and cutting corners.Thats the 'negative learning' - all those bad habits that soon become ingrained and are difficult to remove.Meanwhile, found a demo of African Airstrip Adventures at http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/us/iboshop.cgi?showd,5264976410,D10987CheersKeith