I have been back to fsx from time to time: and immediately returned to flight. For me its very simple. After years of being used to the way FSX does things, I have seen a faster, newer, more graphically intense alternative, and FSX simply no longer "does it" for me anymore. I love flights multiplayer and the community that is slowly being born around it. I love flights fun and welcoming nature.

 

In FSX I was accustomed to getting in a plane, flying somewhere, looking at the scenery, landing and going straight into a tweaking session. The tweaking was nearly as important as the flying, and rather than exploring the technical aspects of flight, I was exploring the technical innards of the FSX cfg and the data and file structure of the sim. (gimbaled roof tiles, anyone?)

 

Even with the best Orbx scenery, the age of fsx was readily apparent and it was easy to see how people were distracting themselves from that by buying scenery after scenery and plane after plane to bring some edge of novelty and newness to an enterprise that was otherwise slowly going dead in the water. For me Flight changed all that, partially because I accepted it for what it was, and not for what I hoped it would be.

 

FSX is not in my mind while playing flight, and I dont see it as a neutered FSX that causes me to be angry at what could have been. I see flight as something fresh and new with its own destiny; Its own path and future. Microsoft could yet betray that future in a fit of greed, but in the meanwhile I have chosen to be a participant in that future and to be along for flights new ride, and sink or swim, I will try (when I can) to contribute to the evolution of this new sim while not thinking about how it could be more like FSX, but by thinking of logical ways for it to grow in its own way and time.

 

Yes, there are other alternatives out there, and I will almost certainly give them a try as well, but if they offer only the technical greyness of the checklist rather than the fun of a community and the ability to speak to that inner child that calls me to flight, then they will be also-rans for my purposes, and I will happily soar with the "dumbed down" sim for the unwashed console masses until that nearly inevitable day arrives when it becomes time to turn out the lights on the final grim grey civilian sims.

The thing I love about Flight is that I don't have to spend ages on planning a flight. And by that I mean deciding where to fly from and to, and which plane and livery to fly it.

 

LOL You can't blame that on FSX. I've spend the last years in FSX flying in small area's with about 2 planes a year.

 

I'm rather monogamic though, so, I am really becoming fully dedicated to FLIGHT, even in detriment of CONDOR ....

 

Me too. There is only one reality in real life and so I like to have online one virtual reality too... I don't like swithing between similar games or sims.

 

Long post

 

You took the words right out of my mouth! I totally agree with everything you have said, well, apart from the multiplayer part because I haven't flown mp yet. And I am also not interested in the alternatives. MS Flight is perfect for my kind of flying and I am looking forward to everything that will be added in the future!!!

 

Flight amazes me everyday still:

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/369490-short-flight-practicing-approach/

I use Flight for a quick tour and collect some caches and FSX if I'm in it for real sim flying. I enjoy both but depends on how much time I have.

Interestingly the much improved flight dynamics in FLIGHT (compared to FSX and apparently P3D) made me use FLIGHT a lot...initially.

I bought the RV and the Maule but nevertheless it became very boring very quick.

 

I read this all the time, but what do you base this on? This is what I see. The Maule cruising speed is too fast! While on initial glance it appears it fly's at the same cruise speed as stated in the performance specs (141Kt's) If you look close you'll see these specs are based on TAS not IAS, so the correct cruising speed shown on it's gauge which displays IAS speed, should be lower. As for the example below at 4000ft a 141kt TAS calculates to about 130.6kt IAS. Which is about what you get with the Maule in FSX at the same power settings.

 

http://forum.avsim.n...t/#entry2330284

 

As for the RV-6A, the one in flight doesn't appear to model torque or P-Factor. Notice in the below video even with a heavy crosswind, there is absolutely no heading deviation after 5 minutes of level flight. Obviously there should be t least some deviation especially with a crosswind. Larry Admanson which is a real world RV-6A owner also confirms, the Vans is a hands on aircraft, and should have some movement. (and yes all stability aids in the options were turned off.)

 

Why?

 

If there is no wind shift, I see no problem with the aircraft mantaining it's attitude/bank/yaw ??? Regarding the p-factor, you probably know it is negligible on such an aircraft, even during takeoff climb, while torque and slipstream should be noticeable, at least when adjusting power regarding torque, and when climbing at high power regarding slipstream...

 

 

 

 

As for the RV-6A, the one in flight doesn't appear to model torque or P-Factor. Notice in the below video even with a heavy crosswind, there is absolutely no heading deviation after 5 minutes of level flight. Obviously there should be t least some deviation especially with a crosswind. Larry Admanson which is a real world RV-6A owner also confirms, the Vans is a hands on aircraft, and should have some movement. (and yes all stability aids in the options were turned off.)

 

Larry Admanson which is a real world RV-6A owner also confirms, the Vans is a hands on aircraft.

 

He also said it was a "feet on the floor" aircraft, which means the torque and p-factors aren't that significant.

 

That crosswind is a *smooth* crosswind, which won't affect your plane's heading, but will affect the "course made good" over the ground. You'll find that this effect is modelled. Not a problem with the flight model, but a problem with the atmosphere model. Actually, I'm glad to have some smooth air to fly in when I want. Use another weather theme or fly at a higher altitude and see if you get the same effect.

 

The cruise speed on the Maule has been over-analyzed to death, and usually incorrectly. My flight computer shows a different TAS, for example. Standard conditions (but probably 14C at sea level according to the engine temperature gauges before starting the engine), 4000 feet should give an air temperature of 6C, see what that shows for TAS on your flight computer.

 

Is the Maule too fast? Maybe. But it's not that much too fast, and I really don't mind.

 

Hook

The reason the ''game'' works as well as it does is because, put quite simply, it doesn't measure up to what FSX is and what capabilities are there. You really can't compare the two of them together, they are far away from one another in terms of what they ''deliver''. If FS only loaded Hawaii and two planes when you started it up, I am sure it would run much better as well. When you load up Hawaii in FSX, there is quite a bit more to it than what Flight is offering atm.

 

They both have thier good and bad, but for now FSX is it for me. We'll see what they do with flight over time.

You really can't compare the two of them together, they are far away from one another in terms of what they ''deliver''.

 

I agree and I often wonder when I see folks that do try to compare them. Two very different products that do very different things, and both can be a lot of fun in their own right. Flight is not for everyone, and FSX is not for everyone - but there are some, that can and do enjoy both.

Why would a cross wind lead to a heading change? I can tell that a cross wind component would generate drift left or right, but why would it make a plane turn?

 

Turbulence and gusts could upset a plane and lead to a heading change but a nice steady crosswind...?

He also said it was a "feet on the floor" aircraft, which means the torque and p-factors aren't that significant.

 

He did that is not how I read it! I'm not saying there should be a big shift, but the plane should deviate a little, especially with no aileron or rudder trim. used.

 

BTW I spelled his name wrong again! It should be Adamson! Sorry Larry!!!

 

http://forum.avsim.n...y/#entry2284409

He also said the plane wasn't all that stable in normal flight, but that's not much of a problem in really smooth air. I was a lot more interested in propeller and torque effects when I read it originally, and I'm still a bit surprised at it.

 

Hook

And this is one of the problems for me. No matter how careful the designer, no matter how many months and years taken to finish a product, no matter how much experience the designer has, soon after release of a finished plane somebody is going to pronounce some aspect of it faulty/unrealistic/lacking.

 

Except in rare cases where extenuating circumstances enjoin the community to give a release some slack, people will continually come forward with new issues, forcing the designers(s) to at least promise a fix (even if one never arrives)

 

If the issue is common enough, a fix is not only requested, but required, and all is well. But in the flight sim universe, frequently it is a case that unprecedented levels of realism are requested without a commiserate willingness to pay the overhead necessary to support such requests. Designers go out of business or at the very least become quite, quite touchy.

 

Again, the hobby fly's up its own navel into a world of increasing minutia and disappears. (Ten years of unrelenting effort and people are still all over the map on Xplanes flight model) :Monkey:

 

I expect some minimum levels of fidelity of the planes in flight, but unless I am willing to pay the money to support it (which I currently am not) I will not be asking for flight models so exacting that they rival a commercial simulator in every detail, most especially since expert pilots often themselves bring contradictory impressions of a given models fidelity to the table.

 

A little over a month after release, I find fights planes for the most part just as good or better those those of FSX, and more than on par with other up and coming sims we are currently being asked to give courteous slack to.

No matter how careful the designer, no matter how many months and years taken to finish a product, no matter how much experience the designer has, soon after release of a finished plane somebody is going to pronounce some aspect of it faulty/unrealistic/lacking.

 

It's Murphy's Law: A major bug will be discovered five minutes after the product irretrievably ships.

 

Hook

Forunately, in Flight nothing is irretrievably shipped. :-) I'm rather relying on that for the Maule A/P and the engine temps for the lot (and OAT for that matter).

 

Mike

He also said it was a "feet on the floor" aircraft, which means the torque and p-factors aren't that significant.

 

They are very significant on the ground roll and climbout. A lot more right rudder is required, than a Cessna 172, or Piper Archer. Especially with my short tailed six. The last sixes used a longer counter balanced tail. I like the looks of the shorter one.