grrrrr.... why a lot of people can't differentiate "than" and "then" ?

 

Rocks and glass houses...

grrrrr.... why a lot of people can't differentiate "than" and "then" ?

 

I can't do it... it's just TOO easy...

For the last decade, PC-based civil flight simulation has seemingly had the goal of removing the fun from flying to focus ever more strongly on the work of flying. It's become simulations of operating airplanes, rather than simulations of flying them. And the community has had little growth, in large part because of that.

The problem, of course, is that in order to make a simulator less "work" and more "fun", you have to gut the simulator aspects of it and end up with a product that is, in fact, less fun for the simulator enthusiast crowd which should have been Flight's core market. As one fellow put it months ago when Flight was announced: "It's a slap in the face for sim enthusiasts, and to everyone else it still looks like a flight sim." By abandoning their core market and misunderstanding their target market (a market which, frankly, doesn't exist), they lacked the foundation on which to build a successful product.

 

At least the hardcore enthusiast crowd is in good hands with X-Plane.

I have to laugh when I read people talking about this clearing the way for FS11. The MS management would have to have a lobotomy in order to go ahead with another Flight Sim, after the trashing they got regarding Flight from the community. MS flight sims are history, period.

 

Flight was never created for this community. They went for the first time sim flyer / online gaming crowd. They misjudged the market and didn't find their audience. They already judged the hardcore market as not large enough to get the profits they need so (thats why they made Flight!) Microsoft has left the simming market. A shame because they made magnificent simulators (FS9, FS-X) but it will be interesting to see what it will do to the hobby. There are plenty of sims (free, commercial, corporate) and we still have a vibrant add-on community. There will be new sims and new add-ons in this post Microsoft era.

Many times I heard real life GA pilots say Flight came closer to the feeling of flying then any other sim ever. That right there to me is enough to qualify it as a sim. Sure it had some game elements to it, but last I checked, no "game" ever had a clickable cockpit. The things that Flight did simulate on an aircraft was far more complex then FSX (default).

 

Its very core was one of a pure flight sim. Sadly, that pure flight sim was wrapped in a candy coating that doomed it.

 

There's more to simulating flight then the feel of it. There are glider sims that feel amazingly real as well.

 

Aside from the obvious missing simulation elements, I think it also suffered greatly because of the limited and dead world. That and the DLC system was a slap in the face to the previous fans of the series. It was doomed from the beginning because they basically told the old fanbase to screw off while they tried to build a new one.

 

At least the hardcore enthusiast crowd is in good hands with X-Plane.

 

Depends on if Laminar decides to stop being stubborn and fill in all the large holes in his product instead of being so set on blazing his own path. He could dominate the market if he'd take the good from FSX and mix it with the new features of XP10. Instead he continues to be a niche provider because too much is missing and it concerns me he and his team aren't focusing on some of the obvious omissions and unworkable current features (I'm looking at you AI system) or won't even admit they are problems.

There's more to simulating flight then the feel of it.

 

There certainly is. But that's the most critical element, unless the user is primarily interested in the procedures of flight.

Flight was never created for this community.

 

And that's precisely why it failed.

There certainly is. But that's the most critical element, unless the user is primarily interested in the procedures of flight.

 

I'd struggle to say it's even the most important. There are many elements that have to work side by side that are important. A flight simulator is not made by whether the flight model simulates a certain bump heading down the glideslope or not. It's the entire package creating a sense of realism and a suspension of disbelief.

 

And that realism doesn't have to be overbearing either. It's not hard to fly a Cessna or a Cub. It's not hard to navigate an ATC menu. It's not hard to look out the window at AI aircraft. It's not hard to be able to fly wherever you want. Having an environment that feels alive and real without limits, from the interaction with that world to the scenery that makes it up, is as important as whether the flight model is dead on or not.

 

Flight may of simulated the feel of flight well, but that was never it's problem.

And that realism doesn't have to be overbearing either. <snip> It's not hard to navigate an ATC menu.

 

Ah, the irony.

 

Hook

There certainly is. But that's the most critical element, unless the user is primarily interested in the procedures of flight.

 

The feeling of flight is made up of many pieces, including the need to master the airplane and the environment. Procedures are part of it, to ensure a safe flight. It is also true for sailing, or racing. Being able to enter a pattern properly while other airplanes faster and slower are flying the same pattern gives you the "feeling of flight". Would you like a F1 car race game where your car is the only one in the track? The car model can be the best ever made, the driving "experience" could be the best, but you would miss something anyway. Where's the challenge of outperform the other? Where's the challenge of a sudden and unexpected change of weather that forces you to change tyres? Where's the challenge to win without breaking the rules, otherwise you get penalties? Where's the challenge of preparing a car for each track needs? Racing, sailing, flying is much more than simply holding a wheel or stick, and a gas lever. Part of the challenge is planning, mastering the vehicle and environment, interacting with other people and "return home alive", even if it is a simulator. Remove a lot of those features, and you get a much duller game,

The feeling of flight is made up of many pieces, including the need to master the airplane and the environment. Procedures are part of it, to ensure a safe flight.

 

Not much to master in a J3 Cub flying out of an airport that has one takeoff or landing per hour.

 

How did you do on the landing challenges? Yes, there are procedures to master there too, but it's mostly stick and rudder.

 

Hook

Not much to master in a J3 Cub flying out of an airport that has one takeoff or landing per hour.

How did you do on the landing challenges? Yes, there are procedures to master there too, but it's mostly stick and rudder.

 

Many people learnt to fly in much more crowded environments - and don't fly Cubs only. When you're close to cities, big airports amd other restricted areas it's not only "stick and rudder" anymore - since the beginning. One of my "simulation friends" is a real ATC controller in a medium-sized airport. In a good evening we can have 20-25 airplanes (from Cubs to regional jets) continuosly getting in and out his simulated airport counterpart with real ATC and procedures. A lot of the fun is being able to fly properly in this situation, sometimes simulating some emergency, following procedures. And still you need a lot of proper airplane handling to mantain course, spacing, height and speed... much more than when you just fly alone and only the weather can be an issue - a weather you set and not weather that changes....

Has anyone seen a none flight sim person try Flight? I have, they were fed up with it in minutes, gameplay is too slow compared to racing games etc & although Flight is basic to most flight simmers the learning curve is too long & boring to keep their attention.

 

I agreed in principle to buying add ons as you go, after all that's what I done for years with fs95, fs9 & fsx. I also agree that Microsoft should get a bigger slice of the add on sales but come on Microsoft this approach was doomed from the outset. Flying is a specialist subject. FSX on my machine has cost me many hundreds of pounds in software alone & many thousands of pounds in hardware.

 

We needed-no need, a new flight sim built from the ground up but we need the developers there too. Most would have supported some form of licence to sell their wares I'm sure. This is a good opportunity lost & a sad day for flight simmers.

 

Has anyone seen a none flight sim person try Flight? I have, they were fed up with it in minutes, gameplay is too slow compared to racing games etc & although Flight is basic to most flight simmers the learning curve is too long & boring to keep their attention.

 

I agreed in principle to buying add ons as you go, after all that's what I done for years with fs95, fs9 & fsx. I also agree that Microsoft should get a bigger slice of the add on sales but come on Microsoft this approach was doomed from the outset. Flying is a specialist subject. FSX on my machine has cost me many hundreds of pounds in software alone & many thousands of pounds in hardware.

 

We needed-no need, a new flight sim built from the ground up but we need the developers there too. Most would have supported some form of licence to sell their wares I'm sure. This is a good opportunity lost & a sad day for flight simmers.

I keep hearing the same old, tired & elitist argument over and over again:

 

"True flight simming means being able to fly into and out of mega airports in a jumbo jet with zero visibility while interacting with scripted ATC and trying not to collide with other aircraft at the same time. This is is "true" flight simming because that's all *I* like to do, so that's all there is too it and ever should be"

 

The irony is flying the big iron is MORE like a video game than a true flight simulator because it's ALL button pressing and knob dialing. The only instance of "real" flight are takeoff and landing... And we all know most commercial aircraft can even land itself if has have to!

 

Don't get me wrong. I used to be a big iron operator myself. But as another poster on the FSX Forum said, "Takeoff, LCMD, LNAV, VNAV, Descent, ILS, Land. I'm bored to death". I couldn't agree more.

 

I've gone back to GA flying because it is quote-un-quote real flying in every sense of the word. Hands on, stick (yoke) & rudder, constant scanning of the environment, no computerized assists, etc.

 

I'm not trying to exacerbate the situation, but there IS more than one form of FLIGHT SIMULATION and just because a lot of vocal members like the heavy iron doesn't mean this is the only version of Flight Simulation there is, or has to ever be from this point on...

Mountain flying in a light aircraft such as the cub requires a pilots ability to read the terrain and predict that terrain's effect on the winds and turbulence. I have had several frightening experiences that had I followed some of the basic rules for mountain flying, I would not have encountered problems. For example it is always best to fly on the windward side of a mountain as opposed to the leaward side. If in doubt suffer the turbulence and fly in the middle of the valleys. I have yet to find a sim that emulates this. Flight comes close but does not deliver the 1000 ft downdrafts that are found predictably in some areas.