I haven't bought the Flight "RV6"...........because I do have the Bay Tower model for FSX. Something just tells me, it won't be as good, because the Bay Tower RV7 really IS good!L.Adamson

L.AdamsonI don’t have an RV-6A FSX model, so I can’t compare.In Flight, the RV-6A is included in the Rest of Hawaii DLC. (no choice)I recommend you get that DLC, the other islands have great scenery and if you are into missions it will add plenty.Of course, it's your choice.

I have been a MSFS user right from the days of Bruce Artwicks ATP, I think it was.I do fly FSX but keep being drawn back to MS Flight, as it's so good, (IMO).Another plus for Flight, I recently found was, I usually fly at 1920x1080 on my LG 42", I set it to 1280x720 and set it to 3D mode. Now that was a WOW! moment,the cockpit looks so good I will have a hard time going back to full res.So yes, I have chosen Flight and will eagerly await Alaska and hope the price is right.Jak

I haven't bought the Flight "RV6"...........because I do have the Bay Tower model for FSX. Something just tells me, it won't be as good, because the Bay Tower RV7 really IS good!L.Adamson

Oh, come on now, we all would love to hear from a true subject-matter expert how "correct" the Flight RV-6 performs. Do we need to take up a collection or something to buy you the expansion pack? I'll chip in a dollar. :Peace:

Rise of Flight also gives one the better sensation of simulated flight...great lighting and terrain and it runs fairly well at lower settings on lower spec machinesgranted the planes are "old timey" wood and fabric kites - but the GUI the campaigns, the career mode etc are excellentand if you want to you can dogfight and drop the occasional bombletI still have Flight on my HD and I still plan to use it and I will likely acquire the Alaska addon when it comes along - but I am disappointed in the Zero and Mustang and some of the otherissues that we all have discussed

Jak; Welcome to the forums.Enjoy. IMO, That is a good sized screen!

I also noticed the checklist speeds were too low. I am already proud that I finished all those landing challenges. One silver, one bronze... the rest I simply finished...

I think once you get to know the Maule, landings will become an easy part :) Maule is such a forgiving aircraft, so to speak. The saying that a key to a successful landing is a great approach is 100% true, but with Maule, you can even afford to screw up on the approach and still manage to land it safely and smoothly. I found a video of my Maule landing challenge 3, so you can take a look and see how i landed. I am sure you will learn to "feel" the aircraft very fast and once you do, landings will be smooth :D

Cheers

If it's the latter, it only serves to fuel the rumor mill, that then evolves into some type of gospel being preached by those not happy with what Flight is.

And your rose-tinted shades fuel the opposite. Zero sum game.

Their decisions will be swayed by marketing results and not by what some people think or feel.

You make long assumptions on the rationality the "market" is acting under in the case of software like Flight. The "invisible hand" moving this leaderboard market is ALSO asking on what people think and feel. If you think markets are separated from human affect, then I'm not sure we're talking about the same markets.

When most users are asking for more simulator in Fight, one of the main items in nearly every list is AI traffic (along with ATC, ATIS, a Plight Planner, Damage Modeling, and Real World Weather). I still don't believe that Flight will succeed as a game, but that it can succeed as a simulator. That is my opinion. And only time will tell if my opinion is correct or not (along with whether or not MS does want Flight to be more of a simulator).

But from the numerous posts in this forum, it seems lots of people are using and enjoying FLIGHT with out the above mentioned missing items. I think some people are starting to accept FLIGHT for what it is and ignoring what it is not...FSX11. In my opinion it is a game/simulator hybrid and that is not going to change (based on the JH interview). I also think it can succeed in this form. That said, I hope they add some or all of the missing items, it would make a good game/sim better. They also have to keep the DLC affordable. If they were smart they would even throw a freebie out there periodically, maybe tied to experience points, achievements, etc.It probably will never have the complexity of FSX and that is okay with me. It is fun!! Plus I still have FSX with all its addons.-ed

Not too many games/sims manage to capture the feeling of flying, and I guess this is what Flight succeeds at. It feels real to fly, it looks good and the atmosphere is top-notch. I have PPL-A myself, and this is the closest I can get to experiencing some good GA action on my computer. Now, if only Alaska could be released soon :Peace:oh, and a working ATIS wouldn't hurt.

FLIGHT is the closest to my RL experience of "being there" that I can find in any simulator I have tried so far, and the very easy interface, in all of it's aspects, is really a step forward from former versions of the MSFS franchise...If only I had a glider in FLIGHT and some weather themes to fly it.....

If only I had a glider in FLIGHT

jcomm, if you have not taken a look at AEROFLY FS, you may want to. Only covers Switzerland but has two gliders included.Can't attest to the accuracy of the glider flight model.http://www.aeroflyfs.com/index.php/en/-ed

Thx ecg, a friend bought it and I expect to give it a try one of these days :-)For soaring simulation I use manily Condor, and sometimes SilentWings - both very good!!! ;-)

jcomm, if you have not taken a look at AEROFLY FS, you may want to. Only covers Switzerland but has two gliders included.Can't attest to the accuracy of the glider flight model.http://www.aeroflyfs.com/index.php/en/-ed

I think most of us are trying to do something better, we are convinced that someone finnally will hear to us and we'll have influence in the future of this project.Because I feel that Flight, now, is a project, something that can grow in multiple directions. When I write in some of this threads is because I actually like and enjoy Flight, I like the big step made in realism, flight dinamic, and graphics. And, because I love all these things, I can not understand that anothers, already established years ago, like ATC, autopilot, Track IR support, an all this staff, are not present now.I do not forget that Flight is free, so we "have no right" to complain. Why do we complain, so? Because many of us should pay for a Flight with the achievements of previous versions. Why this divorce between 'hardcore' and 'softcore' sim fan? I am sure MS could give anyone that anyone needs. Is that because FS has been sold to Lockheed Martin? Has MS signed any sale agreement that avoid it to introduce an autopilot in a simulated plane, because it is too sophisticated?Maybe many of us, who love Flight, would like to have an answer to these questions, maybe we deserve to know what is the future of this wonderful product. And we think that, writting and writting again our preferences and wishes, we are contributing to design this future. I therefore think that our criticism is fairly constructive. I think that the present and free state of Flight is someting like a market test from MS. Our answers to this test will determine the future of the project. So, we must talk now.Best wishes,FFdC (Oviedo, Spain)