F4U Corsair is on Marketplace

[watermouse 0]

I know they did a huge Xbox push so my guess is that it is easier to fly cockpit-less planes on Xbox with the controllers? That is my only assumption of why they would continue with this non-building of cockpits. There is a huge outcry for them on there main flight page(well, until they disabled all comments) and also on their FB page and multiple forums directed towards flight.

 

Who knows....Im out for this plane, but in for Alaska.

 

Also I really hope if they are too strapped or to lazy to build cockpits, please allow 3rd party devs to contribute.

 

Good day to you all!

[1mikel151 71]

Rats! was so hoping there might be a small chance it would have a VC. Oh well, back to something else till the next DLC.

[Air1 136]

It's just a shame that MS is offering these nicely detailed, high preforming aircraft with no VC. It just seems to me to be such a waste. I did buckle and get the P-51 and the P-40 but I do really hate flying with the HUD, to me it is very distracting. They could be so much more. I will be watching the F4U comments with limited interest as I do not really want another AC with no VC.

 

Steve A

[jcomm 5,920]

I'll skip this one too, saving for Alaska now....

 

Of the three warbirds I have, I almost never flew the p-40, just a few times the p-51 (mainly for aerocache hunting, namely the

High Flying Glider) and the Zero is certainly the one I used the most, yet my record lists the Maule as the aircraft I have logged more hours in

:-)

 

To be honest, military aircraft are not my main interest, so, there is really no point in buying it...

[FrankFasi 0]

What do y'all think the next scenery package will be, pacific northwest?

 

Papua New Guinea

 

A re-creation of Pearl Harbor would not include an F4U Corsair, as it wasn't in service at that time. (someone correct me if I'm wrong)

[EastCoastGuy 0]

Papua New Guinea

 

A re-creation of Pearl Harbor would not include an F4U Corsair, as it wasn't in service at that time. (someone correct me if I'm wrong)

 

True, but then neither was the P-51 at the time. They both served in the Pacific later.

[FrankFasi 0]

Here's an interesting link regarding Pearl Harbor aircraft:

 

http://www.ww2pacific.com/aaf41.html

[va6pc 0]

It's just a shame that MS is offering these nicely detailed, high preforming aircraft with no VC. It just seems to me to be such a waste. I did buckle and get the P-51 and the P-40 but I do really hate flying with the HUD, to me it is very distracting. They could be so much more. I will be watching the F4U comments with limited interest as I do not really want another AC with no VC.

 

Steve A

 

Oh well , the hovering triangle does look cute on my screen :LMAO:

[steve howlett 137]

I'm not for one second suggesting that the Avsim forums represent the overriding majority of Flight users, but my post was in response to the broader question posed in a preceding post of whether Flight will become 'FS11', and where that question is concerned that is more where the Avsim demographic sits.

 

I was also addressing the potential for its longevity; I think most people know that the thrill of whizzing around in cockpitless warbirds amongst casual users, is not something which is likely to appeal in the long term when stuff like Janes recent lightweight combat sim (also with a chase view) will let you do that and drop bombs and shoot at stuff. It won't take too long for casual users for whom this has appeal, to realise that if the systems depth is not there, then there is little to choose between a Spitfire V and bf109F, and even less when they have no weaponry.

 

Al

 

as usual spot on al.

for me i lived in hope that over time this would at least become more than just a short hop flight sim.I'm not a serious simmer by any means.and if it can't hold my interest for more than a short period then something is very wrong with it.

people could say that i don't really matter in the bigger scheme of things,MS doesn't need me or people like me.I happen to think they do.

the last time i used flight it lasted five minutes.i became quickly bored with just poodling along,yes it looks very nice and i have tried to remain positive,it just bores me now.which is a real shame as i was one of the people saying give it a chance!.

also part of the issue for me is the length of time they take to release any DLC( not this cockpitless aircraft drivel)but scenery areas.

it just doesn't seem to be moving forward,

also good point why use warbirds in flight.you want warbirds go buy IL2.now they are warbirds with guns and bombs and cockpits.

 

steve-0

[Gibbage 199]

For the Designers out there: Flight seems to be built using modified and partially updated FSX assets. If that is the case, would it really be that hard for them to convert the legacy cockpit aircraft as well?

 

Done correctly, it would certainly be a big bone to toss at the unhappy dedicated sim community.

 

Its a catch-22. Yes, they can convert a lot of the old aircraft from FSX, but if they didnt enhance the aircraft like the Maule, would people bash MS for just porting old aircraft? Would it be worth paying money for an aircraft that was once included in the past? Would they even be up to todays standards?

 

Also, thats just the artwork side of things. Its possible that the current engine does not support features the old engine does, this excluding spacific aircraft untill those features could be included.

 

On another note, I think the F4U model and texture was done very well. Its just a shame it does not have even a basic cockpit, or I would buy it. Same for the P-40. Im not overly thrilled about the artwork on the Zero though.

[Guest]

It's a shame those warbirds don't have a VC, but I don't care much about it, really. Up to now... I just imaged the next DLC would be a Cessna or Beechcraft or the Quest Kodiak (or whatever plane I may like) but... without a VC... now THAT would really upset me! Now I can understand why some people are really upset about those warbirds having no VC! I just don't care about warplanes at ALL: I wouldn't even buy them WITH a VC and so I didn't care too much about MS's decicisions. But when they release a plane I would love without a VC... Oh my...! The idea alone...! So all those warplane lovers out there: I can imagine your pain now...

 

Let's hope we've seen the last of those basic models.

[HiFlyer 9,358]

Its a catch-22. Yes, they can convert a lot of the old aircraft from FSX, but if they didnt enhance the aircraft like the Maule, would people bash MS for just porting old aircraft? Would it be worth paying money for an aircraft that was once included in the past? Would they even be up to todays standards?

 

Also, thats just the artwork side of things. Its possible that the current engine does not support features the old engine does, this excluding spacific aircraft untill those features could be included.

 

Well, what I meant by "done correctly" is that the aircraft would be appropriately updated. Having few clues about the process, it just seemed that having so many art assets available would have had the potential to cut quite a bit of time/effort off of the creation process.

 

If its a difficult conversion, then no, it would not make sense.

 

In the meantime, knowing that the F4U was coming..... I am having a lot of fun with Trainz 2012. I was laughing out loud yesterday as my train chugged past a small airfield out in the desert and a parked blue plane. I wondered if it had a cockpit! :LMAO:

[Mickel 42]

But when they release a plane I would love without a VC... Oh my...! The idea alone...! So all those warplane lovers out there: I can imagine your pain now...

 

I wondered what else could be done without a cockpit. I couldn't think of anything other than aerobatic types. Then I shuddered and decided best I not contemplate the idea any more. A cockpitless DC-9-30 for island hopping... I think my monitor might be taking flying lessons if that happened.

[RoboRay 126]

It's a shame those warbirds don't have a VC, but I don't care much about it, really. Up to now... I just imaged the next DLC would be a Cessna or Beechcraft or the Quest Kodiak (or whatever plane I may like) but... without a VC... now THAT would really upset me! Now I can understand why some people are really upset about those warbirds having no VC! I just don't care about warplanes at ALL: I wouldn't even buy them WITH a VC and so I didn't care too much about MS's decicisions. But when they release a plane I would love without a VC... Oh my...! The idea alone...! So all those warplane lovers out there: I can imagine your pain now...

 

"Pain" isn't sufficient is this newest case... To me, it's absolutely heartbreaking to see such a beautifully modeled Corsair, flung out as nothing more than a hollow shell.

 

[HiFlyer 9,358]

"Pain" isn't sufficient is this newest case... To me, it's absolutely heartbreaking to see such a beautifully modeled Corsair, flung out as nothing more than a hollow shell.

 

 

On the other hand, the cockpits of those old planes tend to be really complicated, with all sorts of knobs and levers and whatnot. Animating even one of those has to be a bit daunting, and one a month is maybe asking for trouble. Perhaps the relative simplicity of most modern cockpits will be easier for MS to support.