Please check your screen for something obstructing your view! Or... maybe some problem with your graphics card???

 

Hope you find your way across it and be able to really enjoy FLIGHT's exceptional graphics, physics and gameplay!

 

Surely you're joking? To suggest Flight's graphics are exceptional is insanity. As a modern game/sim they're pretty awful.

 

+1 indeed. If someone calls Flight awful then he probably didn't really check it out.

 

Did I say Flight was awful?

 

Edit: Why on earth does my post count keep resetting to 0?

We can't go backwards.... We can't have a 6 core CPU and a GPU that can render amazing sceneries and then you play a plane without a cockpit.

You can try to convince yourself that everything is ok, but it's not.

 

In my opinion you touched an important point, but I would go a bit further.

I think of MS Flight as an interesting social/marketing experiment (and probably for MS is the same).

At first you, me and many other people who love technology and flight simulation, would think that "we can't go backwards". Well, I am starting to think that we could be wrong.

Sure, we had 30 years of continuous development, with flight simulators progressing toward a higher level of complexity, the ATC, the whole world covered, a lot of different genres of aircraft, the lessons by Machado and so on. We could think that the trend was quite linear, and expecting still more sophistication, photorealism, artificial intelligence and other goodies.

 

Instead, some events changed the course, quite strongly indeed. A very partial list is:

- the big financial crisis of 2008, that by the way is not really finished (here in Italy know this very well).

- the huge success of Facebook, Iphone, Android, Ipad and similar, with the explosion of the casual gaming (AB, Zynga...)

 

Seeing all that, MS reacted in a sort of "mechanical" way. They dissolved the glorious ACES team and sold the code, so loosing a huge (and historically important) asset. Then they decided to use the basic idea of "flying" just to enter in the apparently rich world of the DLC and casual gaming.

 

None of us really knows how well Flight is going financially, but by reading the comments here (and also on the new Steam forum) I think that if it will have success will be as a "casual" and cheap platform, not surely for its simulation capabilities. And, if this happens, we actually were wrong in thinking that we can't go backward.

Obviously we will need another platform, hoping that someone will resist to the temptation to reduce all to some sort of Flightville.

 

A.

Well, maybe you're right, but then again I don't play many games. I only play ELITE v8.3, Condor, Vehicle Simulator, Aerowinx PS1, and used to play MSFS and XPlane. Last time I played Xplane when trying version X, I came back running to FLIGHT... In a flightsim game, I don't look for details that aren't really important for the physics o flight, sensation/perspective, proper weather simulation for VFR/IFR-IMC, etc... FLIGHT has it all really GOOD!

 

Of course this is my oppinion...

 

Surely you're joking? To suggest Flight's graphics are exceptional is insanity. As a modern game/sim they're pretty awful.

And to fill in the gap for missing ATC I just listen to ATClive.net. Bring on ALASKA! yay!

 

 

 

or switch on your TV Set !! !!

Well, maybe you're right, but then again I don't play many games. I only play ELITE v8.3, Condor, Vehicle Simulator, PS1, and used to play MSFS and XPlane. Last time I played Xplane when trying version X, I came back running to FLIGHT... In a flightsim game, I don't look for details that aren't really important for the physics o flight, sensation/perspective, proper weather simulation for VFR/IFR-IMC, etc... FLIGHT has it all really GOOD!

 

Of course this is my oppinion...

 

I'd absolutely understand that if the 'V' in 'VFR' didn't stand for................

 

I'm not saying they're not better than the default FSX, because clearly they are. Clearly though it would be stupid to hold it to anywhere near that standard.

Once you start playing the game instead of just playing with it, you'll find out that the graphics are a lot better than they need to be. This is true of almost any game.

 

I'm usually too busy flying to take much note of the graphics. If I notice them at all, it's to think, "Hey, this looks pretty good." The graphics only need to be better than FSX, they don't need to be totally state of the art for a first person shooter.

 

There are places where I think Flight could do better, but that's generally personal opinion, and some people will prefer the way it is. Except for the fair weather clouds. I haven't heard anyone praising them. :)

 

Hook

I for one can enjoy both Flight and FSX. They both have strengths and weaknesses. BTW ... my four and half year old grandson flew Flight with me yesterday. I controlled the power and he controlled the elevator and ailerons. He took off from the runway and flew around without crashing. Really loved the smile on his face. That was on my office computer with a wingman controller. Tonight he sat on my lap as we flew FSX in ORBX PNW on my flight sim computer with CH Products controllers and Saitek panels. He wanted to flip all the switches on the Saitek panels so it was interesting to say the least with the gear going up an down. lights going on and off, avionics going on and off, autopilot going on and off. Pure joy! He is already part of a new generation getting into computerized flying. Call them (i.e., Flight or FSX) a sim or a game ... I don't care as long as they are fun for both of us. When he is not here I can get serious with either Flight or FSX and enjoy myself as well. I think we need to loosen up and begin to enjoy these products. This for me is a hobby not a job. The products are not perfect but they offer so much. We should celebrate that we live in a time when we have this technology in our homes.