Do like me... don't even care to open any such files... forget about the past! Enjoy MS FLIGHT... :-)

"Is Flight Just a Stepping Stone?" No. Flight is the future of flight simming. We are in on the beginning of the process. It is easy to sit back and say that "if this" or "if that" Flight would be better, but in time those of us who stay with it will see that Microsoft had a good workable plan and stuck to it. Flight is Flight and will NEVER be FS11. Those who are waiting for FS11, get used to disappointment. Those who see the value of superior graphics, superior flight models, superior atmosphere and a superior flight experience, just keep enjoying Flight. Don't worry about what is coming next, just pick & choose what you want when it comes along. Memories are very short, but when FSX was released, there were no 3rd party add-ons. It took time to make them and get them to market and there were lots of problems with 3 versions of the sim and the SDK kicking around. The forums were full of people complaining about how few new aircraft there were so nothing has changed. Those of you who don't like what Flight is... go find something else. Come on back in a couple of years when you finally see what you are missing.

"Is Flight Just a Stepping Stone?" No. Flight is the future of flight simming.

 

Whow! That's exactly how I see it, and that way, I feel perfectly OK and rewarded each time I load this sim :-)

I think X-plane will be the future for flight simulation, Flight isn't meant yet to be a complete simulator featuring jetliners, fighters etc, however Flight does offer some great fun when I'm bored with FSX.

I think X-plane will be the future for flight simulation, Flight isn't meant yet to be a complete simulator featuring jetliners, fighters etc, however Flight does offer some great fun when I'm bored with FSX.

 

Sorry, but just I do not compare MS FLIGHT to any version of MSFS, I can't compare it to Xplane either, or DCS, or Flight Unlimited (more in the line of that sim/game imho), etc....

 

FLIGHT is MS FLIGHT :-) The strategy used by MS to make it available is new, and I confess I like the way it's being driven, although I can perfectly undestand those who don't... Probably my biggest advantage is that I am not comparing MS FLIGHT to anything else - it's unique, and that doesn't mean I am not capable of comparing some of it's features, specially those that concern me as a typical flight simulation hardcore simmer, but all I do is enjoying what I have so far, of course looking forward for the upcoming releases, and whishing a very bright future to the concept as a whole.

The basics of aviation seemed to get lost in MSFS over the last few editions, leading to some "hard core simmers" today that simply don't know how to operate or navigate an aircraft that lacks advanced automated systems.

 

Sure, put them in a jetliner with a GPS-linked AFCS, and they can set it up to fly them to anywhere in the world and autoland via ILS. But toss them out over the ocean just beyond sight of land with nothing but a VOR or ADF receiver and a sectional chart, and they are lost. Give them some dense fog and an ILS frequency, and they don't know what to do without an autopilot to fly the approach for them.

Wrong, very wrong!!

I love flying jetliners, to be specific LVD 767, and I believe you are wrong, ILS is not the only approach you can and have to perform while flying jetliners, try MROC RWY25 visual approach for instance, track a backcourse, use the TIO VOR R247 to find the rwy.

All the instruments are needed, and to be honest, landing the jetliners with autopilots, and flying it all the times with autopilot on, is just like watching a video, I better go and look for a nice video on the web. sure autopilot is helpful, specially on long haul trips, or when your wife calls you, but if you call yourself a hardcore simmer, you will fly VFR and IFR.

Last but not less important, Previous MS simulators like MS9 and FSX all came with flight school tutorials, on how to VOR navigate.

"Is Flight Just a Stepping Stone?" No. Flight is the future of flight simming. We are in on the beginning of the process. It is easy to sit back and say that "if this" or "if that" Flight would be better, but in time those of us who stay with it will see that Microsoft had a good workable plan and stuck to it. Flight is Flight and will NEVER be FS11. Those who are waiting for FS11, get used to disappointment. Those who see the value of superior graphics, superior flight models, superior atmosphere and a superior flight experience, just keep enjoying Flight. Don't worry about what is coming next, just pick & choose what you want when it comes along. Memories are very short, but when FSX was released, there were no 3rd party add-ons. It took time to make them and get them to market and there were lots of problems with 3 versions of the sim and the SDK kicking around. The forums were full of people complaining about how few new aircraft there were so nothing has changed. Those of you who don't like what Flight is... go find something else. Come on back in a couple of years when you finally see what you are missing.

 

In few years Flight might be dead anyway. Also I have seen more superior flight model in many advanced third party addons for FSX, such as Milviz B55. It is just same old FS flight model with some tweaks.

 

And just because Flight is made by Microsoft does not mean that it is future of flight simulation as there is competitors such as X plane. Flight lacks too much at the moment to be used for simulating for example complete general aviation flight beetween some Hawaiian islands, especially proper ATC is one major thing needed for that, and Flight does not support IVAO or any other similar third party addons with human ATC.

 

Yes FSX did miss a lot of things before third party made them, but this time there is no third party to make these things of course and small Flight team will be never capable to do all that.

 

Yes exactly Flight will never be FS11. But also I highly believe that new FS is what most of simulator crowd wants, and that's why future of flight simulation will be X plane.

 

Flight will probably stay like it is, mix of simulation and simple flying game. If they implement ATC and third party support it could be good general aviation simulator, but I highly doubt that as they seem to think that they make better money by selling these DLC aircrafts and sceneries (later partially just copied from FSX) themselves.

 

Those who want to follow real procedures and do things like they are done in real life most likely are going to miss nothing. Personally I wish Flight to be success as it might at best case bring some people to more interesting simulation world of FSX and X plane and that way grow the community for these great simulators. But I can't imagine game mostly based on graphics from 6 year old game sustaining itself through years by just adding DLCs same way as some role playing games do...

 

It just doesn't work that way with this game genre.

Wrong, very wrong!!

 

Well, I'm verifiably not wrong. My comments were in reference to specific individuals who identified themselves as "serious simmers" and made posts supporting those statements right here.

 

It's all there if you care to go back through the history of this forum.

 

I do agree with everything else you said, though. However, not everyone bothered to learn how to do all that. In the absence of a reason to take the more challenging road, most people will take the easier route. Not that there's really anything wrong with that, as we're all just having fun here with sims. But still...

 

Flight simply doesn't currently offer the easy route. And I don't see anything really wrong with that either, as we're all just having fun here with sims.

 

Welcome to AVSIM, by the way.

 

The mistake some of you guys are making is the idea that THE flightsim/game of the future HAS to be a 'complete' sim... What you are saying is 'The flight sim of the future can only be a sim as we know it now'. But maybe Flight in its current state (with just added planes and scenery) WILL be the future of flightgames... simply because there may be more people that like this game then those other 'complete' sims. Don't get me wrong, I don't say this is the case right now or that it will be the case in the future but simply presuming 'the flight sim of the future' HAS to be a complete one is very prejudiced (if that's the right word). Saying Flight can never be the flight sim of the future because it focuses on GA is a bit narrowminded.

 

About the idea that Flight may lead people to the 'more interesting' other sims ("as it might at best case bring some people to more interesting simulation world of FSX and X plane"): that's your opinion and certainly not mine. It's a very arrogant thing to say too btw. I have flown in FSX since the day it was released. I've been flying in games/sims since the eighties. A week or so ago I completely uninstalled FSX... Why? Simple: I like Flight more. That's a very personal and very subjective choice, I know. But you won't hear me saying FSX is crap and certainly not that Flight is the better game: it's simply a different game. SImple as that.

I've never tried X-Plane, so I won't comment on how it plays, or operates.

 

I will say this, in my estimation, apparently MS made the decision that the user base of FSX was not sufficient to sustain a viable product in the long term... and X-Plane is a small subset of this user base, and sadly, doomed inevitably to niche status. I think few people outside of the FS forum communities have ever even heard of X-plane, and that needs to change dramatically for it to ultimately succeed as a viable, long-term solution.

Hmm, from what I have seen Flight at least at the moment does not seem to have very big user base either. MS just like all other company can make bad decision sometimes, and seems like they are making one with their newest Windows version at least, turning its UI to something similar to one in todays mobile phones.

 

Also some people blaming "serious simmers" from lack of skills to operate their airplanes without all fancy automatic stuff, well, in fact real jetliners are very automated today so if one wants to completely simulate real procedures as much as possible he/she is supposed to use autopilot most of the time. And actually I don't do that myself, I like to do landings manually.

 

Also really I don't know if there will be one flight sim of the future. Airliner fliers (which I think form majority of flight simmers) will obviously go with X plane, then probably part of GA fliers go with Flight, and other part go with X plane at some point when FSX becomes seriously outdated.

 

And my post was just reply Overshoes post where he clearly stated that those who don't got with Flight but instead continue with FSX or X plane are certainly going to miss something, saying that Flight is going to be somehow superior simulator and future of whole flight simulation. In my opinion that is arrogant too as so far nobody even knows which direction Flight might take.

 

 

Anyway, in my opinion biggest problem in Flight is lack of areas at the moment. Most of flight simmers I know have some special area where they like to fly, and no matter how good scenery they can get to some areas they are not going to fly there as they simply have no interest in those areas.

 

For many area of interest is naturally their home location. I can't imagine for example GA fliers that have been flying around in here Finland suddenly leaving that behind and going to do all their flying in Alaska or Hawaii even if they look very good.

The basics of aviation seemed to get lost in MSFS over the last few editions, leading to some "hard core simmers" today that simply don't know how to operate or navigate an aircraft that lacks advanced automated systems.

 

Sure, put them in a jetliner with a GPS-linked AFCS, and they can set it up to fly them to anywhere in the world and autoland via ILS. But toss them out over the ocean just beyond sight of land with nothing but a VOR or ADF receiver and a sectional chart, and they are lost. Give them some dense fog and an ILS frequency, and they don't know what to do without an autopilot to fly the approach for them.

 

Don't say I'm exaggerating, because these are not hypothetical examples

 

Sorry, but that's like saying that Flight is not good because a subset of user will just fly cockpitless airplanes hunting aereocaches and learning nothing about real handling of an aircraft. There's nothing in both products that hinders you learning the basics - an excellent book like "Flight Simulator X for pilots - Real World Training" does a very good job teaching you the basics of flying and it uses the Cub, the 172, the Mooney and the Baron to guide you from simple VFR flights to more complex IFR ones. Unluckily here you see the limitations of Flight. No twins (yet), basic IFR capabilities, no ATC. For many pilots who are not lucky enough to fly in large areas with little traffic and controlled airspaces ATC is something to be learnt from the beginning. I live in an area among three large airports where even GA ones are so close to the large ones you have to be very careful leaving and approaching them. Frankly I almost never flown a liner in FSX, but I do like twin, turboprops and small jets. And I like to fly in a "crowded" environment under ATC control, because flying is something more than flying the plane itself, is being able to control it safely within the environment, and again unless you live in a scarcely populated area with little traffic it could be far more complex. Unless your goal is just to enjoy the scenery, play missions and collect aereocaches.

Sheesh, it's funny how multiple people go all defensive when you make an observation of fact about somebody else and they feel the need to protest that it doesn't apply to them.

 

Well, of course not. You weren't the observed ones. That doesn't make it any less of an observation of fact. Nobody is "blaming" you or "accusing" you of anything.

 

As stated again and again, it's a fact that not everyone bothers to learn the things you have, simply because they didn't need to. Of course they had the opportunity to do it before. That's never been disputed. They just chose not to.

 

And that's ok.

 

Now, some people are doing it because they do need to, as the "advanced" systems aren't there in Flight.

 

And that's ok, too. Really.

 

I'd like to have more, too. More advanced aircraft, more advanced systems, more scenery, more tasks, more of everything except cockpitless warbirds (and maybe ring-games, actually). But Flight is what it is. For now. Maybe forever, maybe not. We will see. :Thinking:

No matter how flawless the logic of an argument appears, if it is based on a false premise, the conclusion will be wrong. Most if not all of the "I hate Flight and I am not happy that some people like it crowd" start their irrational hate spew from an untenable position that they nevertheless cling to kicking and screaming when they could be enjoying FSX or one of the also-rans. I have no intention of debating those who don't like Flight. My time is worth way more than that. Believe what you will, I don't care.

Never mind....