If I want to fly a P-51 or a Zero I would just load up IL2 Sturmovik 1946. I get virtual cockpits, extremely realistic flight modeling, carrier ops and best of all I can actually dogfight these planes. The modding community for IL2 is excellent and the game still receives official patches. Why on earth would they do this with a civil aviation simulator? Maybe if this were to be released later this would make sense. I think their priority should have been more civilian aircraft with VC's. When I want to fly old WW2 fighters I fly IL2, when I want to shoot an ILS approach in crap weather I use FSX. Why can't MS figure this out?

I just bought it... what a waste of money. Even the flight model seems simplified despite I am playing it without any assistance.I have no idea how the P-51 performs but the Zero is just a good looking plane.I had to use the HUD since there is no VC.

Kids Playing Kamikaze over the Arizona.

:Thinking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUgF056Sil0

Why on earth would they do this with a civil aviation simulator

I sincerely don't think that a team of 40 expert people

40 experts in 3d modeling?

I had to use the HUD since there is no VC.

From the screenshot in your post I can see they modeled the cockpit in the external model. I am no expert but would it had been really that much more difficult to make a VC? Considering that the cockpit in the screenie actually looks pretty good.

:Thinking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUgF056Sil0

What is the name of the game you are quoting: Battlestations isnt it? MS Flight is/was supposed to be a civilian flying game, unless MSGS changed their minds.But then they missied to add just a couple trivial features, like: Guns, bombs, and destructible scenery.

:Thinking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUgF056Sil0

40 experts in 3d modeling?

Thanks for taking what I said out of context. If you read the rest of my post I said their priority should have been civilian aircraft. It would have made sense if we already had 20 or 30 aircraft already out. Again if I want to fly a Zero I'll do it in IL2. This is 2012 give me a VC. I can understand if you don't like flying from the VC. If they made one at least all of us would have had a choice on what view we wanted.

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.

There are about 50 on the team but only 4 or 5 people working on planes.

Battle-stations can be seen as a historical reenactment in game form, which puts it in a different context and category than flight in regards to zeros to me. Flight could probably have done itself a favor by including some missions with commentary that put the plane in its historical context to the area. But that would have probably have required a cockpit...........Putting that aside, I am more concerned that much older games like this continue to look better than this modern Microsoft effort. Better clouds, better rendition of Hawaii (Flight looks waaayyyy too much like the now dated FSX) Better overall textures, Better smoke effects.....Heck battle stations pacific is released through Square Enix fer' crying out loud. The Final Fantasy guys Rolf-stomp the creators of FSX, artistically?I am getting the impression that FLIGHT is being done an a miserly budget, and I wonder if they have the time, manpower or inclination to continually improve already released areas like Orbx does with its constant refinements/updates as time goes on.

Intermittently playing and typing...... Double post, srry

Ok, I am surrounded by zeros, and mustangs, I might have to get one. :LMAO:

Uninteresting. No VC and I already own IL-2 which gives me a better Zero complete with multiplayer. Plus what's really needed is an aircraft which can handle the missions which are too heavy for the Maule.

40 experts in 3d modeling?

Not, expert (I suppose) in the variuos aspects of a modern flight simulator development. And as someone underlined in another thread, an external 3D model of a famous airplane nowadays is easily available also in any 3D model bank site, so surely it doesn't require many months to be realized.A.

There are about 50 on the team but only 4 or 5 people working on planes.

So I am curious to know how the resource allocation is managed there.There are much smaller studios (e.g. for Rise of Flight) that are able to produce many aircraft with exquisite details, cockpit, flight and damage model, plus good maps and missions.It's strange than 50 people with MS behind can only give us simplified external models and very small region where flying, don't you think?By the way, it further doesn't seem that many of the team are working in advertsing or public relations, at least considering the results so far.A.

What is the name of the game you are quoting: Battlestations isnt it?MS Flight is/was supposed to be a civilian flying game, unless MSGS changed their minds.

As quoted it was a response to "Kids Playing Kamikaze over the Arizona.". Why is one (no guns/bombs/death) worse than the other (guns/bombs/death)?

Thanks for taking what I said out of context.

You said "Why on earth would they do this with a civil aviation simulator?" I gave a possible answer

Not, expert (I suppose) in the variuos aspects of a modern flight simulator development. And as someone underlined in another thread, an external 3D model of a famous airplane nowadays is easily available also in any 3D model bank site, so surely it doesn't require many months to be realized.A.

You may well be right, I would guess it depends on how they make the planes and how many different hands it has to go through. Beta testers could you maybe try and get the devs to put up some "making of" vids, would be good to see how they go about getting a plane in to the game from scratch.

There are much smaller studios (e.g. for Rise of Flight) that are able to produce many aircraft with exquisite details, cockpit, flight and damage model, plus good maps and missions.

Alaska DLC = 600,000mi² / rise of flight map = 48,262mi² (rounded down to 262) might be a reason, I don't know.

Kabronicus, on 29 March 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:What is the name of the game you are quoting: Battlestations isnt it?MS Flight is/was supposed to be a civilian flying game, unless MSGS changed their minds.

As quoted it was a response to "Kids Playing Kamikaze over the Arizona.". Why is one (no guns/bombs/death) worse than the other (guns/bombs/death)?

Rather simple: On the war game you are quoting, you are attacking Perl Harbor, meaning you are simulating the attack and the Arizona is still afloat.On Flight, a civil flying game, kids playing kamikaze are attacking the Arizona memorial, meaning the Arizona has been sunk.It’s not better or worst. It is different.

Rather simple:On the war game you are quoting, you are attacking Perl Harbor, meaning you are simulating the attack and the Arizona is still afloat. On Flight, a civil flying game, kids playing kamikaze are attacking the Arizona memorial, meaning the Arizona has been sunk. It’s not better or worst. It is different.

That's just kids being kids, plus some people just don't like america and would probably fly in to the WTC if they could. We have german planes flying at airshows in england and people go see them. I hope they keep the historical planes coming, more to look at out the cockpit/from the ground, plus fun to mess around with when flying in the RV.