I myself had notice a few players/pilots that i met after release and helped get familiar with the intruments over on multiplayer sessions how they are now enjoing the Maule or RV6 and the first plane they got was the mustang and now they dont even touch it anymore. so the idea its working i think .

 

My hat is off to you for that, your helping them like that is awesome and just what the flight sim community needs more of!

Way to go!

My hat is off to you for that, your helping them like that is awesome and just what the flight sim community needs more of!

Way to go!

dburne i got my instructor certificate during my early days of training and to be honest i really dont think i used as much as i should back in the days .

I'm somewhat encouraged actually by recent aerocache tips referencing VORs and bearings from landmarks.

i am just saying that if it ends up being just more of the same for too long i.e. more GA aircraft, more areas to fly in, more aerocaches, more missions, then I for one will be dissapointed. The game needs to be fleshed out to include other aspects of simulation e.g. AI traffic, ATC etc. Maybe in time it will. But I suspect this will depend upon whether the developers judge that there is sufficient need for this extra complexity to make the development economically viable.

Heck, at this point I'd settle for more GA planes... it would be better than yet another cockpit-less old warbird.

 

Maybe they will stop at three? Please?

If it wasn't ever going to be anything more than a fun game, why bother putting VORs and ILS in?

 

New users gotta walk before they can run.

 

Hook

 

Maybe the Flight team's focus has changed from sim to warbird eye candy toy? Thats the way it's looking to me.

Touchy lot aren't you. As I saw it Arwen called it as she saw it and that is her prerogative. Same as she always did before "Flight" was released. I don't see why she should have to answer to anyone.

I don't see why she should have to answer to anyone.

 

Possibly because moderators are held to higher standards.

 

Hook

Hey if you want to buy an R/C aircraft in Flight go ahead, I certainly will not be, If i wanted a good R/C game I would buy AeroFly FS which looks a whole lot better overall and has tons more content than Flight.

The problem is we do not know where Flight is going as the developers do not share any of their plans or aspirations with us.

 

As I have said before, to me, Flight appears to be going through an identity crisis.

 

Not sure where it will end up - or how much it will cost to find out.

The problem is we do not know where Flight is going as the developers do not share any of their plans or aspirations with us.

 

That's the problem indeed. I wouldn't mind yet another warbird without a cockpit if I KNEW that something really good was coming soon. But I don't know that. I know Alaska will be coming but when...? I don't know. And I also don't know how the game will evolve as a sim.

 

I've got high hopes for Flight but MS is only doing things that crushes my hopes, so it seems. It's the uncertainty and the imho wrong signals that MS is sending out that gives me a bad feeling about the future of Flight... while I REALLY want it to succeed because I can't go back to FSX for GA anymore after experiencing Flight.

 

I am playing Flight less and less not because I don't like it anymore but because I am afraid I won't like it anymore before Alaska is released...

The problem is we do not know where Flight is going as the developers do not share any of their plans or aspirations with us.

 

100% agree. Enough with the guess the airplane game, what do they think I am, a 15 year old.

 

100% agree. Enough with the guess the airplane game, what do they think I am, a 15 year old.

 

Yes... Yes they do.

I am playing Flight less and less not because I don't like it anymore but because I am afraid I won't like it anymore before Alaska is released...

 

I am actually back into Flight again, after abondoning it for FS9 (still a very, very good sim). I finally resolved a serious graphics issue I had with Flight, using a frame rate limiter tool which I found via a post on the FSX forum and can now play the game OK.

 

But yes, I know what you mean, Hawaii is starting to get tedious and there are other things to do. I find it quite incredible that we are being treated like the proverbial donkey chasing the carrot.

Possibly because moderators are held to higher standards.

Hook

 

And just how have I lowered my standards by being honest? Being a moderator doesn't meet that I no longer have any opinions, or that I should never express my views here. If you all want moderators who never express any emotions or passion, then perhaps Tom needs to replace me with a bot.

 

How does writing that I agree with what another poster wrote equate with lower standards. All that I was agreeing with was the direction of this Flight forum, as far as the majority of posts are concerned. When Flight was first released, the majority of posts were mostly about the flightsim aspects, but now they are mostly about the gaming aspects. I am both a gamer and a flightsimmer, but I have always stated that I felt that Flight has great potential . . . but only if more emphasis is placed on the simulator aspects, and less is placed on the gaming aspects. That has not changed since my first day as a beta tester.

 

If that is never going to happen, and Flight is never going to be much more than a flying game (simplified flightsim), then I will eventually stop using Flight and resign as moderator on this forum. But that has not happen yet . . . an I am still supporting Flight, and still have some hope that it may mature into a more comprehensive flightsim. If that doesn't happen, I will likely end up moving on to P3D.