My complaint is that it does not achieve its real top speed at all... or its aerobatic qualities The P-51 is the same. About 250 MPH in level flight and full throttle is the best you can get. I almost seems like flying the same plan as the P-51.Brian

Thanks Brian, I have been curious about the differences between the two planes in the game. Yours is the first post comparing the two planes out of hundreds of posts on the topic.Yay for relevant information! :)

Yea, not getting it. I won't buy any plane they make and can't take the time to put a cockpit in. The game/sim, whatever they are calling it is lacking enough as it is.

So, facts are as you stated, that is clear for all.The question is, why does MS keep on ignoring us ?I have an answer but I am curious to listen to the devil's advocate ones

That is a great question. At least some acknowledgement would be nice. I understand they do not want to spoil things for the future, but at least let us know our voices are being heard. I think the Journey to Alaska pack will be a huge indication of where the series is heading, it will be the first proper addition to the game. With all the weather variables, larger area to fly in, off-airport runways, they have the chance to add some very cool and interesting things that the community has requested. Only time will tell, I suppose.

I am also with the no cockpit folks. No cockpit, no buy. I just can't do it. By way of comparison, in Dirt 3 (another GFWL) title you get a fully modelered car inside and out for 160 MS points. I know there are no click points but still that is pretty cheap.

My complaint is that it does not achieve its real top speed at all... or its aerobatic qualities The P-51 is the same. About 250 MPH in level flight and full throttle is the best you can get. I almost seems like flying the same plan as the P-51.Brian

What altitude are you operating at in each aircraft when performing your comparison?These aircraft achieve their best performance at very different altitudes. The Zero will perform best at somewhere around 15,000 feet, whereas the P51 will do do its best at close to 30,000 feet. In addition, the performance speeds are frequently quoted as true airspeed. the reading on your airspeed indicator does not indicate how fast you are actually moving through the air.250ias approx 310tas at 15k and 400tas at 30k.The zero will get less performance as it climbs higher than 15k, so the difference in performance will be huge.At low altitudes, I'm fairly confident that the mustang is still faster, but not by as large a margin. the climb rate of the two is fairly close at sea level iirc. In air combat having the altitude advantage is of massive importance.

I did not purchase because an aircraft without cockpit is useless to me as I don't fly from 3rd person perspective.Also I wouldn't mind them releasing cockpitless aircraft for cheaper price if the full thing was offered at the same time.I am disappointed that this cockpitless aircraft was the only new DLC offered at this time.

I'd never buy it. I have got all the other DLC with the exception of the P-51 and I really like that content, but for me it is a case of 'no cockpit, no sale', simple as that, even if it was only one MS credit point to buy it.At least when I bought the CS Triple Seven for FSX I could sling a replacement VC in it, but with Flight, that's not an option, we are in their hands in this regard. But we can still make our feelings known, thus a lost sale is my vote of no confidence in the policy to make things which are bereft of a driving seat. So in giving it a score, like the Allies did when they came up with a code name for it, I too will call it a Zero, and that's a shame, because it is actually a handsome aeroplane which they appear to have done a fairly decent job of modeling, and an historically significant one too, which is something that would normally gain my interest.Al

I won't purchase neither because of the lack of VC, I wouldn't even get it as a freeware. A long time ago, when there were very few addons for Flight Simulator and when only 2D panels existed, I did download freeware planes when I couldn't get some particular model I wanted to try with one. These planes belong to the 90s though, not 2012, and certainly not as payware DLC.

It seems the rest of the world does not share simmer concerns. In multiplayer, I am finding groups of zeros and Mustangs facing off to "bomb" pearl harbor, play tag and etc.It seems the zero has some traction.

It seems the rest of the world does not share simmer concerns. In multiplayer, I am finding groups of zeros and Mustangs facing off to "bomb" pearl harbor, play tag and etc.It seems the zero has some traction.

Devon; We, non geopolitical risk assessment expert mortals knew this was coming.I’m not even a US citizen and it p…….s me!Kids Playing Kamikaze over the Arizona.

It seems the rest of the world does not share simmer concerns. In multiplayer, I am finding groups of zeros and Mustangs facing off to "bomb" pearl harbor, play tag and etc.It seems the zero has some traction.

Just one word to describe my sentiment...

It seems the rest of the world does not share simmer concerns. In multiplayer, I am finding groups of zeros and Mustangs facing off to "bomb" pearl harbor, play tag and etc.It seems the zero has some traction.

Of course some users are going to buy it: 1.) It is new . . . it is the ONLY new DLC released since Flight's initial DLC was released on the day Flight was released . . . a month ago (2/29).2.) It is not expensive3.) Some users don't mind flying in exterior view only.What we don't know (and MS is included in the "we"), is how well the Basic Zero would have sold if a Deluxe Zero had been released at the same time (or any other new DLC).And, based on the number of current Flight users (or people who downloaded Flight), what percentage have bought the Basic Zero so far? If this is a small percentage, then apparently "the rest of the world" does indeed share our concerns (and are not interested in a non-cockpit aircraft DLC for Flight).

"Kids Playing Kamikaze over the Arizona."Sums it up, Fail.

The question is, why does MS keep on ignoring us ?I have an answer but I am curious to listen to the devil's advocate ones

Mark, you have to realize that it takes many months of lead time before any DLC is ready for release. Even if MSGS were inclined to "listen to us" it would be at least six months or longer before anything would be ready for sale!Wishing is != Instant GratificationWhat we are seeing now is stuff that was ready a year ago or more. Should MSGS simply not release what's already completed and make everyone wait until next year?

Mark, you have to realize that it takes many months of lead time before any DLC is ready for release.

I sincerely don't think that a team of 40 expert people really needs many months to develop a Zero (or similar) without cockpit (and guns, and sophisticated damage model). I can understand if they need that time for a complex plane, with 3D cockpit and all the working subsystems, but not for this kind of oversimplified thing.A.