That may be, however, maybe it is time for a few of these hard core Flight defenders to start reading the words as written and not reading between the lines and inventing thoughts.

 

Perhaps they would if you would refrain from referring to them as those "hard core Flight defenders."

 

There is not a single "hard core Flight defender" in here that I am aware of, and I think I watch this forum at least as closely as the staff. We all acknowledge that Flight has it's shortcomings. We are also aware that there are many who will refuse to even consider that Flight has any virtues.

 

Regardless of your intent, your comments rang a quite similar refrain to the sneering and harassment and trolling that has gone on for months.

 

You can't expect people that have been dumped on day in and day out, for months, simply for enjoying Flight, to not get a little tired of it. As I said, please consider that if your posts are worded in such a way that they can be easily misinterpreted, your words may well be misinterpreted.

 

They are not the only ones getting unduly defensive.

RoboRay,

 

I appreciate you taking the time to properly introduce me to the MS Flight forum but, you may also be a little to close to some of these posters. I personally think this is the most rude forum that we have, well, maybe on par with the PMDG Forum. No one seems willing to help anyone else, practically all the posters are on edge and easily set off.

 

Heck, if anyone thinks MS Flight is great as is, they must be from Mars.

 

Try this Mini review of Flight and let me know how you feel about my writing. It was posted a couple of months ago. You can forget the part about Perfect Flight, I already know from your posts how you feel about their 'saved games'. I actually got a letter from the MS Flight team complimenting me on the nice, balanced overview of their product. (They even gave me some complimentary purchase points that was used to buy Alaska)

 

http://forum.avsim.n...-and-landi-r213

 

I really don't know how to describe the 'in-house, forum protectors of MS Flight' that would be more descriptive than 'hard core MS Flight Protectors', but I am open to suggestions.

 

I have been avoiding Flight for the last couple of months while I was waiting for Alaska and the new real aircraft. I guess I'm outta here for another period of time while the house gets in order.

 

I have to go change my avsim signature box as I can surely find something better to put in it than a Flight logo.

 

Ray

Ray.....love the signature image!! Very funny!

 

As for Flight vs FSX.......why are we doing default Flight vs default FSX???

 

That makes no sense....nobody in there right mind on this website has default FSX. Besides I want to compare what I am currently using with what I can get in Flight. As is stands, other than improved lighting effects, the answer is nothing.

The point is really that there are some great default aeroplanes in Flight which even FSX payware ones cannot match, and the Stearman is a case in point. You can buy the Golden Age Simulations Stearman (20 quid or so), but the default (FREE) Stearman in Fight is all over it like a cheap suit in pretty much every way imaginable: looks' flight model; sounds, you name it.

 

Al

I personally think this is the most rude forum that we have

 

Some people have a fortress mentality. And there is a reason they got way. Nobody chose to simply be rude to you. But people who get a lot of rocks thrown at them tend to pick up rocks of their own when they see somebody else reach down to the ground.

 

No one seems willing to help anyone else

 

You clearly don't follow this forum on a regular basis. I can't even begin to speculate on how you reached that conclusion. Please reference these threads where people didn't want to help somebody.

 

if anyone thinks MS Flight is great as is, they must be from Mars.

 

Who said it's 'great as is'?

 

There are a lot of gaping holes in the Flight experience, indeed. Flight doesn't do much, but what little it does do it does well.

 

If you want to fly long-haul jets on a pre-programmed route and watch it autoland when it arrives, obviously Flight isn't going to be for you, possibly ever.

 

If you want to fly anything bigger than a dinky single-prop on moderate range flights across various parts of the world, Flight may have some interest to you someday. Maybe. It may not, at least not for a long time.

 

But if you actually like going low and slow, with simple radio navigation, and you aren't real picky about where you are doing it (unless you are really into Hawaii and Alaska), Flight actually offers a pretty good experience.

 

Yes, some people may have over-reacted to your comments. And yes, perhaps you could cut them a little slack. It's not like anyone else has, ever. You wouldn't be happy either if the forum for your product was treated the way the one for this product has.

No one seems willing to help anyone else, practically all the posters are on edge and easily set off.

 

I sure hope you are not thinking of me Ray... if that is the case, I need to take a "time-out".

 

Fwiw Ray... I do not see your posts as trolling... in fact, you are one of those individuals whose posts I take the time to read.

 

I personally think this is the most rude forum that we have, well, maybe on par with the PMDG Forum

 

I think there are a couple reasons for this... as a result (right / wrong or otherwise) supporters are having their time in the sun.

 

The point is really that there are some great default aeroplanes in Flight which even FSX payware ones cannot match, and the Stearman is a case in point

 

But Chock... does it not need to be this way? With no payware (or otherwise) aircraft, is not that something necessary to be a compelling reason to keep FLIGHT? Why should I purchase mediocrity?

 

-Rob

I have so little time in FSX that I can't really give a fair comparison to the flight models. I do remember on my few experiences that the planes (just default ones) felt very artificial, like they were riding on rails. I've been told that payware planes were much better.

 

To me, what Flight does to give me that sense of being in the seat of a small plane is a lot of things that combine together, reinforcing each other. And it's mostly the little things...

 

...Like the shadows that move with the sun and the attitude of the aircraft. That alone does a lot to convey a proper sense of motion, because they move the way they really would if you were maneuvering the plane. I can get a good feeling for my rate of turn and attitude, even looking off in some random direction, from the shadows moving across part of the aircraft structure. You can also see the effect of heading changes, even in unfamiliar territory, as the ground objects are lit on one side by the sun, casting shadows behind them.

 

The sounds are a big part of it. After some time in the plane, I can tell how far my flaps are extended as I slow down on approach simply by the changes in airflow sounds. I know when my RPM is correct, by the sound of the prop turning. I know when I've touched down on the runway with a bit of lateral motion from the sounds of the tires.

 

The planes simply move and respond they way I expect them to. I don't have any seat-time in any of the aircraft in Flight, so I don't know personally how accurate they are, but from the accounts I've read of real-world pilots flying the real planes, they seem pretty close. Close enough that I probably wouldn't recognize the differences, anyway. Now, if we get a C-172 (which is what most of my flight time is in) I'll be in a better position to judge.

 

Yes, FSX with the right add-ons and the right tweaking can do great things. I just don't have the time, the money, nor the perseverance to put into it. And I still don't know if I'd ever get it as good as Flight does it. Some things would be better, sure. But for the overall package and what you have to put into it, Flight does "low & slow GA" very well.

 

 

I share all your observations about Flight. Flight is the only PC sim I have been able to fly by the seat of my pants, in other words, I don't have to glance at airspeed indicators on approach, or flap setting, I can feel what the plane is doing by the way it handles. Couldn't do that in any other PC sim I have flown, and I have flown most of the, Being a pilot, when I started flying sims I wanted something to feel like an aircraft that I might be flying tomorrow, not some video game. Flight does that, and I know 2 other high time pilots that have installed Flight on their computers and have come to the same conclusion. By the way, they both love the Stearman.

I sure hope you are not thinking of me Ray... if that is the case, I need to take a "time-out".

 

Fwiw Ray... I do not see your posts as trolling... in fact, you are one of those individuals whose posts I take the time to read.

 

 

 

I think there are a couple reasons for this... as a result (right / wrong or otherwise) supporters are having their time in the sun.

 

 

 

But Chock... does it not need to be this way? With no payware (or otherwise) aircraft, is not that something necessary to be a compelling reason to keep FLIGHT? Why should I purchase mediocrity?

 

-Rob

 

No Rob,

 

It must be something to do with the parallel universe, as I tend to stop and read your posts. Maybe it is simply how great minds parallel, we are both in the gutter at the same time. Maybe I need to research that quote a little more!.

 

I guess RoboRay and you are the only two friendlles logged on today, maybe everyone else is doing some productive work elsewhere. I do have a checklist of sounds to check out in the Stearman.

 

I am thinking about going back to Oahu and mess around there for another month or so and let MS do its thing with the Alaska Wilderness. It just seems so quiet and lonely out there to me. Maybe they need some PeopleFlow or SnowFlow or MoneyFlow. I sure do miss the simple things in life, like cars on the highways and air traffic around airports and sailboats and ferries and such. I never thought I would yearn to hear ATC and that stupid repetitive remark 'N???? you are 300 feet below your assigned altitute , blah, blah, blah.

 

Anyway, no, not you. I think I may just be spoiled by the almost immediate positive responses in the other forum vs just the opposite here. Not to worry as they say, someplace.

 

I have a complex review to wrap up in July and by then maybe MS will have discovered cockpits. I sure hope so.

 

I have a review to do in August that looks like a spinoff of MS Flight but the planes have cockpits and drop bombs and have machine guns and cannons that fire bullets and do physical damage to your opponent. Lets hope that will give us something to do while MS gets their act together with Flight.

 

Ray

In Post #33 Kaboki said "I also liked that drag detail when you open the door in the air, but in real life do you really want to open the doors at 3000FT(but again Im not a pilot so maybe some do, don't know)?" Actually, there might be a reason to at least partially open the doors. In a Wide World of Flying video article, Barry Schiff, a senior airline captain and aviation safety writer, demostrated using the doors to steer a Cessna 172 simulating aircraft controls being jammed. It appeared to be very effective.

I think I may just be spoiled by the almost immediate positive responses in the other forum vs just the opposite here.

 

If you measure "willingness to help" by response time, you may want to consider the relative size of the population using the various forums.

 

I don't think anyone would take the position that Flight is attracting as wide a following as it's predecessors.

 

But I've yet to see a request for help go unanswered, at least if it is a question that somebody outside of Microsoft can answer. It may just take a few hours for somebody with the answer to log in and see it.

In Post #33 Kaboki said "I also liked that drag detail when you open the door in the air, but in real life do you really want to open the doors at 3000FT(but again Im not a pilot so maybe some do, don't know)?" Actually, there might be a reason to at least partially open the doors. In a Wide World of Flying video article, Barry Schiff, a senior airline captain and aviation safety writer, demostrated using the doors to steer a Cessna 172 simulating aircraft controls being jammed. It appeared to be very effective.

 

Ok didn't know that, It just sounded like a crazy thing too do while in the air, thanks for that info very intresting.

I was thinking more about taking up skydivers, although 3000 feet may be a bit low for them.

 

Hook

In a Wide World of Flying video article, Barry Schiff, a senior airline captain and aviation safety writer, demostrated using the doors to steer a Cessna 172 simulating aircraft controls being jammed. It appeared to be very effective.

 

I recall seeing the same thing on Mythbusters or a similar show. Truth be told, they could not get the doors open more then 3-4", but it DID steer the aircraft and they were able to line up on the runway and LAND without using aileron, and only using doors to control the bank of the aircraft.

I recall seeing the same thing on Mythbusters or a similar show. Truth be told, they could not get the doors open more then 3-4", but it DID steer the aircraft and they were able to line up on the runway and LAND without using aileron, and only using doors to control the bank of the aircraft.

 

Wow, thats pretty impressive :Shocked:

Truth be told, they could not get the doors open more then 3-4"

 

I once had a door on a Beech Bonanza pop open on me shortly after takeoff. After realizing the wings hadn't separated from the aircraft (was quite a loud "bang" when it happened)... and once gaining some altitude, I tried to push the door open to swing it close, which basically turned out to be impossible from the left seat. Even after a number of attempts to just pull it closed, I couldn't get the door close enough to engage the latch mechanism. It just stayed where it wanted to stay.