The P-40! Released At Microsoft Flight.

[AzureWX]

I think I've bounced every landing with this thing so far. P40 is definitely a challenge to fly, and the complex 3D model within the cockpit makes it a tad difficult to find a good viewpoint.

 

I think I might fire up Flight tomorrow and just do touch & go's around Dillingham for an hour or two. :Nerd:

[Yahooligan]

I know there is a lot of disdain over the no cockpit thing, but are there any FSX/FS2004 people here who ever fly with the minimized gauges (pressing W)? For the most part, even in FSX the cockpit obscures the view so much, that I usually minimize it to just the line of gauges across the bottom of my screen. I like seeing the scenery in front of me. With the improvement of scenery in FLIGHT compared to FSX, I think users would enjoy the view more than a screen full of gauges. And being a taildragger, its really difficult from the cockpit (with a cockpit) to see in front of you anyway.

[RoboRay]

I know there is a lot of disdain over the no cockpit thing, but are there any FSX/FS2004 people here who ever fly with the minimized gauges (pressing W)? For the most part, even in FSX the cockpit obscures the view so much, that I usually minimize it to just the line of gauges across the bottom of my screen. I like seeing the scenery in front of me. With the improvement of scenery in FLIGHT compared to FSX, I think users would enjoy the view more than a screen full of gauges. And being a taildragger, its really difficult from the cockpit (with a cockpit) to see in front of you anyway.

 

You know, that is actually a potentially workable solution to the entire no-VC aircraft issue... Adding a row of virtual gauges along the bottom of the screen in the "cockpit" view, and possible even anchored somehow so that if the player looks to the side the gauges slide off the other side of the screen.

 

It wouldn't require MS to go to the huge effort of creating an accurate VC model for each plane and placing all those functional switches. Just one set of standardized virtual gauges for all the basic planes. :Thinking:

 

Something like this:

 

 

It's due more to the lack of information provided by the instruments than click-able on-screen switches that I have avoided the basic planes. If implemented, virtual gauges would make me reconsider. I'd almost certainly buy one or two of the warbirds.

 

This would be a great suggestion to send to MS. Please do!

[Guest]

I think the main reason that I always fly in the VC is immersion. I have the idea I am really flying out there. Switching views doesn't even cross my mind, not even when I see something outside that I like: if I want to have a better look I would move my waypoint in the VC and that's it. If I still can't see it and really do want to see it, I would turn around and fly past whatever I want to see in a way that gives me a better view on it all. The ONLY time I suddenly think about other views if when I want to make an impressive screenshot.

 

When I switch views or (can only) fly behind the plane, the immersion is gone. It's as if I am watching someone else flying. Or a movie. I lost connection with the ingame world.

 

However, I can understand the fun of it, but it would be a different game to me. I am sort of glad the planes without VC's are warplanes because I wouldn't have bought them anyway. But it's great to see people having big fun with these fighters. I like it when a game has the possibilities to 'work' for various types of gamers: the more people using the game (no matter how), the better it is for the future of the game!

[dburne]

But it's great to see people having big fun with these fighters. I like it when a game has the possibilities to 'work' for various types of gamers: the more people using the game (no matter how), the better it is for the future of the game!

 

+1

 

The only cockpitless plane I have purchased, is the P51. I did so because I found out one can move the eyepoint back and at least get a feel of flying from within a cockpit. I have had some fun with it, namely just buzzing around , and bettering my scores in some of the hoop challenges. I will probably use it to also get a new altitude and speed record at some point. It does not see a lot of flying time by me, but is kind of nice for a diversion at times.

 

One however is enough for me, so I have no real desire to grab any of the others. But if they help bring more folks into the flight simulation world, then that is a very good thing, so long as they still continue to develop planes with cockpits as well.

[jcomm]

All of the three WWII models allow one to readjust the view in order to be "inside of the cockpit". Actualy I found that activating the photo view makes it even easier to adjust the view. The pan commands CTRL-E/Q/W/S are "more responsive".

 

I also found the flying characteristics of the three models rather different and appropriate for each one, up to the point of the easy accelerated stalls in the p51, the roll instability of the p40 and the "softness" of the Zero :-) I also find great the way the drag from assymetric gear retraction is modelled.

[RoboRay]

All of the three WWII models allow one to readjust the view in order to be "inside of the cockpit".

 

Well, sure, but the gauges don't work. 2D virtual gauges would be a relatively easy solution to implement.

[jcomm]

Today I was thinking about potential DLCs for FLIGHT. One type of DLC might be a cockpit, or possibly a collection of cockpits one could choose from to install on a given cockpitless airplane. Other DLCs might come in the form of instrument add-ons (i.e. adding a GPS of a certain kind/model, an HSI, a Mooving Map, Weather radar display etc...) one might add to some instrument panels.

[LAdamson]

Well, sure, but the gauges don't work. 2D virtual gauges would be a relatively easy solution to implement.

 

I ALWAYS used shift Z with FSX, for quick eye glance information. I'd do this, because I'll usually move the eye point back in a VC to get more peripheral vision. Then the gauges are usually too small. It's always a compromise. I figure that we need at least six monitors to see what we see in the real plane. I will also often go into spot views, just because I think that "real time" cockpit views are too limited, compared to how head and eye movement is accomplished in real life.

 

L.Adamson

[dburne]

One type of DLC might be a cockpit, or possibly a collection of cockpits one could choose from to install on a given cockpitless airplane.

 

That would certainly be nice, to have the option to add virtual cockpits to the current offering of no cockpit planes, for those that wish to have a working cockpit.

[Yahooligan]

I don't like that word "######" HA HA it sounds kinda, well....if its okay to say so, vulgar. :Secret:

[Yahooligan]

You know, that is actually a potentially workable solution to the entire no-VC aircraft issue... Adding a row of virtual gauges along the bottom of the screen in the "cockpit" view, and possible even anchored somehow so that if the player looks to the side the gauges slide off the other side of the screen.

 

It wouldn't require MS to go to the huge effort of creating an accurate VC model for each plane and placing all those functional switches. Just one set of standardized virtual gauges for all the basic planes. :Thinking:

 

Something like this:

 

 

It's due more to the lack of information provided by the instruments than click-able on-screen switches that I have avoided the basic planes. If implemented, virtual gauges would make me reconsider. I'd almost certainly buy one or two of the warbirds.

 

This would be a great suggestion to send to MS. Please do!

 

I never thought about that! It could actually be a toggle between the gauges and/or the HUD. Then, it could also work for any of the aircraft that do have cockpits as well. I don't see any reason that some elements of the old FS franchise couldn't be adopted at some level.

 

And if you think about it, the older "warbirds" didn't have much more than that in the form of instrumentation anyway.

[frankla]

I don't like that word "######" HA HA it sounds kinda, well....if its okay to say so, vulgar. :Secret:

 

While I am critical of Flight, I agree that "######" is meant to be demeaning and insulting. Lets all find a better way of saying it and agree to use it instead; Flight Enthusiast, Flight Fan.. but not ######

[dburne]

Lets all find a better way of saying it and agree to use it instead

 

I have a feeling we thankfully won't be seeing much of that type of thing anymore, most of the regulars here would never use a term like that anyway.

[Yahooligan]

How "FLIGHT crew" instead? That'd be a supporter right?