I am contimually amazed at the REASONS some members here use to justify their bashing of Flight. Folks...think about it.1. THIS website is called avSIM...which I take to mean it deals with flight SIMULATION.2. The MS Flight website is called "Microsoft/GAMES/Flight"3. NOWHERE on the Microsoft Flight webpage that I can find is the word "simulator", "simulation", or "simmer" used to describe the product, and particularly I don't find any reference to Flight being for the "flight SIMULATOR enthusiast".So if you consider yourself a flight "SIMMER", you are barking up the wrong and misguided tree in criticizing what Flight has or has not in comparison to ANY PREVIOUS Microsoft flight "simulation" product.I honestly wonder why AVSIM even has a forum about it. Does the AVSIM staff actually believe Flight is a SIMULATOR in it's current state as compared to previous version of MS flight simulators? Are they hoping that maybe in the future it may EVOLVE into that? Hmmm...now there's a thought. But...if they don't think it will ever evolve into a "simulator", then this flight simulation site has begun to serve flight "games" too.

You should bear in mind that I do not speak for Avsim on this matter, but here is my own take on what you offer:The problem with flight simmers being up in arms, is one of Microsoft's own making, the initial PR about Flight, i.e. the 'webisodes' and launch statements about Flight, which included an interview in PC Pilot magazine amongst other things, were all very much putting over the impression that it was a reinvention of the Flight Simulator franchise that would also embrace new users more easily. Not everyone was convinced, but nevertheless, that is the message MS were putting out. There were many 'don't worry, we haven't forgotten the simmers' comments issued and they have of course also now done an interview with Avsim, one where the message is somewhat changed.Although some people are annoyed about how the final product is, and some people just irrationally dislike MS, I don't object to them attempting to make flight simming more accessible at all, I think that's a very good thing indeed and I applaud it. But the fact remains that for a very long period of time when Flight was en route, MS courted flight simmers, they sent a questionnaire out to us (it was posted on Avsim), drew beta testers for Flight from the simmer crowd, quizzed companies such as PMDG when throwing ideas around etc. All this pointed to a simulation core product, and if there is any confusion, then I think it is born of Microsoft, rather than Avsim and its members. If they had been quizzing Bioware rather than PMDG, it would have been more apparent what the intent was.Al

Wait, we cant have it both ways. Some guys do scenery, Some guys do planes. Square miles covered does not explain bad planes. Or are we really saying ROF has more and better plane designers.........?If so, shame on Microsoft.

Depends on how they are making the game, compare arma to bf3 how can bf3 look so good and arma so bad :Thinking:Hell lets compare battleground europe to cod

The problem with flight simmers being up in arms, is one of Microsoft's own making, the initial PR about Flight, i.e. the 'webisodes' and launch statements about Flight, which included an interview in PC Pilot magazine amongst other things, were all very much putting over the impression that it was a reinvention of the Flight Simulator franchise that would also embrace new users more easily....then I think it is born of Microsoft, rather than Avsim and its members. If they had been quizzing Bioware rather than PMDG, it would have been more apparent what the intent was.

I agree, that has been one of the worst launch strategy in the history of PC gaming.A.

Ok I think I can tackle this. How can a 50 person team not produce much content. Just breakdown the divisions of the team....

Hey, that really seems a good work place! Do you know if are they still recruiting? Eventually I could make the assistant to Klappy the Clown.A.

I agree, that has been one of the worst launch strategy in the history of PC gaming.

Don't play many pc games? Elemental: War of Magic was the worst launch strat.

I agree, that has been one of the worst launch strategy in the history of PC gaming.

Nah... Could you imagine "EA Flight" ???

Depends on how they are making the game, compare arma to bf3 how can bf3 look so good and arma so bad :Thinking:

Your comparison is strange. BF3 is more arcade than Arma, but it relies more on graphics. Flight is more arcade than ROF, but....ehm, on what does it relies? :Thinking:A.

Don't play many pc games? Elemental: War of Magic was the worst launch strat.

Ehm, not, sincerely, despite my efforts, I have never been able to like RPG games and the likes.A.

Your comparison is strange. BF3 is more arcade than Arma, but it relies more on graphics. Flight is more arcade than ROF, but....ehm, on what does it relies? :Thinking:A.

arma - wide open world / bf3 - closed worldflight wide open world / ROF - closed world

Okay, so if anyone does have the Zero, how is the flight model?For reference, an A6M should become less easy to roll when traveling at anything over about 220 knots owing to stick forces on the ailerons, and it should roll to the left quicker than it rolls to the right under all flight regimes, but especially at high speed owing to gyroscopic precession and the aforementioned stick forces. The engine should cut out temporarily under negative G since it has a float carb like early Merlins. It should start falling apart at about 370 knots if you dive it (the VNE is 356 knots), flat out it should make it up to about 290 knots at somewhere around 15,000 feet and it shouldn't be able to get much above 33,000 feet. It should climb at about 3,000 fpm, maybe a little more. It should spin fairly easily with weight quite far back owing to the short nose and guns mounted in the cockpit area.Off you go to flight test it... Banzai!For those interested in history, and for those getting 'bounced' by Zeros in MS Flight, the correct way to evade one, was to nose over under neg G, then dive to over 200 knots and then roll hard right ninety degrees and pull the stick back as far as you dare. Tally Ho!Al

Ehm, not, sincerely, despite my efforts, I have never been able to like RPG games and the likes.

Lol check it out was the worst game launch ever

Chock,I don't have it but was "advising" another player of some performance stats while in MP a few evenings ago. It seems to come fairly close the the expected climb rate, stall speeds, ceiling and top speed. We were able to get it to within 40TAS IIRC. We aren't sure if Flight is simulating the density altitude of a standard day since the baro never changes. If it was slightly warmer than standard, then this descrepancy would make sense.We didn't study the Mustang's performance even though there was another player flying right alongside the Zero to contrast the performance. The Mustang couldn't match the Zero's initial climb rate at low altitude, but as expected the Zero was barely moving along in its climb while the Mustang maintained a decent climb rate at probably 60-100 kts higher airspeed.I don't believe it was easy to spine nor did we observe the turning characteristics. No idea if negative Gs starve the engine.I don't recall anyone having trouble rolling at high speeds either which is a well known design issue with that aircraft.

flight wide open world / ROF - closed world

Flight wide open world ??? :shok: Do you have a worlwide special edition? If so, please share it, I will maintain the secret, promise A.

arma - wide open world / bf3 - closed worldflight wide open world / ROF - closed world

Not even hardly. Flight is being released as a series of closed worlds, and as such, each of those worlds should be highly detailed. At least as detailed as older games such as Battle-stations or Wings of Prey. Arma planes not only have cockpits, it has many types of cockpits, many types of flying vehicles, vehicles that can be driven, individual ground combat, damage models,......... Arma kicks flights butt.As for ROF, again we have detailed damage models, cockpits, better graphics overall, much better clouds, moving vehicles etc. Yet again, Wings of Prey ROF and Arma all kick flights butt handily in the presentation department. (better, less stutter-y multiplayer, too!)Almost any modern flying game kicks flights narrow rear-end on presentation on multiple levels. (except flight dynamics, maybe)If we were not so desperate for a modern non-combat sim, we would probably not give it a third glance. Its the heritage of its predecessors, and the deep pockets of its parent company that makes us sit up and take notice.I like flight, but certainly no gamer at this stage would ever confuse it for a title with a large or even tiny budget that really shows on the screen. What we are holding out for is flights potential.

Flight wide open world

Flight in its current state is is a closed world if you compare it to fsxStill can't get ROF to run but I thought it was mission/skirmished based (closed world) in set places on the map? not free roam (open world)

(better, less stutter-y multiplayer, too!)

Dedicated host VS P2P hostThat's the problem with GFWL. Run flight on a highend line/machine and it should be fine.Look at the timeframes as well, what 5-9(?) years for ROF

Flight in its current state is is a closed world if you compare it to fsxStill can't get ROF to run but I thought it was mission/skirmished based (closed world) in set places on the map? not free roam (open world)Dedicated host VS P2P hostThat's the problem with GFWL. Run flight on a highend line/machine and it should be fine.Look at the timeframes as well, what 5-9(?) years for ROF

Rise of Flight was released in 2009 and yes its closed world. I suspect if they wanted, they could add other zones, just like Flight, but I don't think they have a round earth, which is apparently a big technical challenge. (Which makes Outerra even more impressive)Wings of Prey was released in 2010Cliffs of Dover is more recent and still has issues, but according to the developer in an interview, was designed specifically with world expansion capability's in mind. If they had big money behind them, Flight might have reason to run scared.And that's the point, of course. Flight is kind of the only game in town, unless you are an XPlane fan.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laiEl_qRu7Q

Still can't get ROF to run but I thought it was mission/skirmished based (closed world) in set places on the map? not free roam (open world)

It depends on what you intend for closed world.At present ROF has a free map based in France, and a payware in English channel (in preorder I think). You can have campaign, missions, but you are also free to fly anywhere over the map if you will.A.

And that's the point, of course. Flight is kind of the only game in town, unless you are an XPlane fan.

I think this is only partially true. Until now Flight is almost considered the only game in town thanks to the strength of the MS brand. But, considering that you don't find it in the stores (as it happened for the previous MS titles), and the quite weak effort they are making to sustain it, other competing products could be able to reach it, for example Aerofly FS.I agree with you that at present XP seems the only "big" civil sim actively developed, if we exclude the strange case of Prepar3D and its misterious EULA (shhh, it is a forbidden argument ).A.