When Flight! users step up to FSX they need to take these things into account, it is a whole world simulation there is a lot more being simulated in the background, realtime weather, Ai (ground and air) timezones, atmospheric temperatures ect.

 

This depends somewhat on what your definition of "step up" is :-)

 

Seriously. Me, what do I care about cars moving on the roads, if this means less detail of the environment and significantly worse FPS? I admit the world in Flight looks deserted, but I could not care less. I'm not playing a road traffic simulator!

 

Same for many other FSX features that were absent from Flight. The ATC interaction gets repetitive after 20 minutes, and don't even get me started on the loss of immersion when you have to press the numbers on the keyboard. (If it had voice recognition and you could actually talk to the ATC, it's be another thing entirely.)

 

Real-time weather - nice, but only if you want to fly in the same weather that you see outside your window. To me, the power of a simulated environment is that I can choose the weather, and the time, and the place. I have enough of real-time weather whenever I walk outside, thank you :)

 

The whole world and 20k+ airports - fine, if only they did not all look the same. I am not particularly interested in flying over my home country (Poland), because to me, the sim is more about seeing the sights of the world I will likely not see in person. But when I did fly over Poland in FSX, there is not a single landmark to be seen. Generic terrain from the mountains in the south to the sea in the north. When I am told by some FSX fans that this is somehow better than the limited area of Hawaii in pretty much unprecedented detail and realism, I don't take that seriously, to say the least. (I guess if you live in Hawaii, then Flight may have been more on the mundane side for you, in which case you have my condolences with envy mixed in.)

 

Plenty of aircraft models - sure, no contest, but personally I'd rather have Flight with its limited (and growing) collection of planes but a much superior flight model.

 

Not to say that FSX had no advantages over Flight - I did miss the GPS and the AP and I did want somewhat faster aircraft, just so that I could see more of Flight's wondrous environment per unit of time.

 

But to me, FSX is not a step UP from Flight; it's quite the opposite. I may be MS's mythical "target audience" for Flight that supposedly does not exist. Except for the sad cockpitless aircraft, I am / was their target audience. I am over 40 and before Flight I had never spent 200 hours in a single game. Or bought an expensive controller just so that I could get more fun out of playing. Maybe I'm the odd weirdo this way, don't know. But FSX... not a step up, sorry! :)

FSX does not simulate real flight, period. If you accept that fact, then FSX is a nice game that looks pretty and does alot of things.

FSX does not simulate real flight, period. If you accept that fact, then FSX is a nice game that looks pretty and does alot of things.

 

Even lvlD sim does not simulate real flight.

Bobsk8, that depends on what you call 'real flight'. No, FSX will not teach you all you need to know about stick and rudder skills(although I just began the pattern work phase of my RL PPL training, and it definitely was easier thanks to FSX). No, the default aircraft won't teach you much of anything(although the default C172 isn't bad).

 

However:

 

FSX will teach you to use navaids. With RXP it will teach you to use a real GPS. If you've got GEX and UTX, you can navigate by the ground with it.

 

With PMDG, and Level D, you can accurately simulate the operations of an airliner.

 

FSX is a simulation.

That is exactly my point, there is always something not quite right about even the payware models, that make you realize that the feeling you get when trying to fly it is not the way an aircraft behaves, unless the RA is totally out of rig. FSX was a slight improvement on FS9, but nothing to write home about. So many people fly only in aircraft like 767s and 737s in FSX, and they have no idea how a real passenger jet feels to fly either. I flew the Level D 767 for a couple of years as well as the PMDG, and when I climbed into the $20 million CAE sim at Delta, it was nothing like the experience in FS. The procedures were similar and the Flight Director, auto pilot, PIP display, ect, but I hand flew that 767 on some take offs and traffic patterns and landings, and it was so different from the FS experience, it was like comparing playing a racing game on an X-Box to being in a NASCAR race car going 180 mph. And lets face it, most of the people that fly FS, don't fly GA aircraft, they fly jets. So when they talk about it being realistic, they don't have a clue. A friend of mine is a pilot for Delta and when he tried my Level D a few years ago, he played with it for a few minutes and just shook his head and said " Well, at least you like it..and winked".

 

And yes, I think there was a concerted effort by many people that visited this forum to torpedo any chance of success that Flight might have. They figured that if flight failed, then MS would start working on FS11. Well , that ain't gonna happen. What MS learned of this fiasco, is that the flight sim market isn't worth getting involved with anymore. They aren't going to go around that block again, they would have to be crazy to even consider it. If Lockheed Martin were smart, they should offer to buy what is left with Flight, cause at least the Flight model behaves like a real plane, and it's not buggy and doesn't crash. They are interested in selling training sims for would be pilots, so they are not focused on all the FS eye candy and bells and whistles that they got when they purchased FSX. They could probably add some stuff into Flight, it would fly well, and they could even sell it to simmers that were interested in a good flight model rather than seeing AI people run around on the ramp, as your taking off.

 

And why do you think Flight better representS RL flight than FSX or any other sim.

 

Fact is that MS Flight! cannot replicate RL flight dynamic nothing better than FSX. Maybe its better but still there is no connection between RL flying and playing MS Fight!

autogen at normal

 

NORMAL!? Hell, no wonder you're getting good frame rates. I can get 20 consistently with Extremely Dense most of the time, and have seen 30 a lot when I raised the frame rate that high. That performance is going to drop if I'm flying low over a city or dense forest, but I can accept that. I seldom see the frame rate drop much below 15.

 

Fly north out of KSEA with a lot of clouds and stay below 3000 feet and tell me what frame rates you're getting. Fly north for 10 minutes, turn around and fly south for 20, then return to KSEA.

 

I was flying with normal autogen on my 2 generation old computer with 20 fps. I didn't spring for the hottest machine available last December to fly in freakin' NORMAL.

 

The difference between Very Dense and Extremely Dense is dramatic. There are a lot of building types that don't show up in the lower setting. For example, at my home airport, there is a church that shows up in the landing replays but only in the higher setting. Lots of commercial property types aren't in the lower setting, and these give a lot of character to the scenery.

 

I've always said that I liked FSX's autogen more than Flight's. It's more varied, more colorful, the buildings all have interesting textures, and I do miss the commercial properties in Flight. I guess the reason few people complained much about the lack of variety is that they never saw it in FSX either.

 

Mad Dog: The performance hit from panning the view comes mostly from the game having to load a lot of new textures. When this happens the frame rates can drop well below 15, but usually stay around 15. And yes, I've used Bojote's config tweaks.

 

And why do you think Flight better representS RL flight than FSX or any other sim.

 

Fact is that MS Flight! cannot replicate RL flight dynamic nothing better than FSX. Maybe its better but still there is no connection between RL flying and playing MS Fight!

 

You do realize that Bobsk8 is a real life pilot, right?

 

Hook

Bobsk8, that depends on what you call 'real flight'. No, FSX will not teach you all you need to know about stick and rudder skills(although I just began the pattern work phase of my RL PPL training, and it definitely was easier thanks to FSX). No, the default aircraft won't teach you much of anything(although the default C172 isn't bad).

 

However:

 

FSX will teach you to use navaids. With RXP it will teach you to use a real GPS. If you've got GEX and UTX, you can navigate by the ground with it.

 

With PMDG, and Level D, you can accurately simulate the operations of an airliner.

 

FSX is a simulation.

 

Airline pilots today do 100% of the training on the aircraft they are going to fly in the Sim. After that they take one check ride and their next flight is with passengers.

 

Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2

If it had voice recognition and you could actually talk to the ATC, it's be another thing entirely.)

Mine does, thanks

The whole world and 20k+ airports - fine, if only they did not all look the same.

Mine don't all look the same, but then I do have pretty much every payware airport in Europe.

I am over 40 and before Flight I had never spent 200 hours in a single game. Or bought an expensive controller just so that I could get more fun out of playing.

Sounds like you are not very committed to flight simulation, its not for everyone that's for sure, nothing wrong with that.

But some of us are.

 

Flight! sounds like it was Ideal for you, just as FSX is perfect for my needs, different strokes

The biggest problem is that when people say FSX runs great or crap they don't say what settings they use.

 

Everyone has difference expectations and desire and if you don't take those into account, you are quite often talking about completely different things here... When you see my performance and settings (running great) you might find my settings crap or even my performance... It's all so subjective.

 

and get good performance and i also don't use any of the tweaks. I have most sliders cranked, autogen at normal,

 

NORMAL!? Hell, no wonder you're getting good frame rates. I can get 20 consistently with Extremely Dense most of the time, and have seen 30 a lot when I raised the frame rate that high. That performance is going to drop if I'm flying low over a city or dense forest, but I can accept that. I seldom see the frame rate drop much below 15.

 

My point exactly.

 

BTW I have FSX running at 29 constantly right now with all graphic sliders maxed apart from reflections (one notch down) and autogen (Very dense). Fps stays almost the same with Extremely dense autogen, but it somehow doesn't feel as good as Very dense does (some things can't be measured) and after flying in Flight I am used to less autogen... Anyway, fps is at 29 almost all the time: I see no dip and certainly not as far as 15...!!!

You do realize that Bobsk8 is a real life pilot, right?

 

Big deal... Many of us are RL pilots, its not like he is captain of spaceship...

We have the fastest computers in the world and yet FSX brings our computers to our knees. Having to tweak your computer constantly to achieve 25fps is horrible and doesn’t sound to appealing to me.

 

Hello

Why are you needing to tweak your machine constantly, are there fairies inside it altering things while you are not looking ?

Set it up well once then leave it alone, works much better like that.

autogen (Very dense). Fps stays almost the same with Extremely dense autogen, but it somehow doesn't feel as good as Very dense does (some things can't be measured)

 

Stutters. The game is better at 15 fps with no stutters than it is at 30 fps with stuttering. Most of the tweaks you need are to get rid of the stuttering.

 

As I recall, you could run FSX "butter smooth" at 20 fps on the machines available when it first came out if you lowered the options enough.

 

Many of us are RL pilots

 

How many hours do you have and in what aircraft?

 

Hook

FSX will remain my #1 flight simulator as long as it continues to keep my interest, provides enjoyment, and customers continue to buy my creations...

 

...and not one day beyond that point. :p0504:

 

You may find this refreshing after spending time in flight http://www.alabeo.com/index.php?accion=product&correl=78 I hope I'm allowed to post that.

 

That is very interesting looking. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

Airline pilots today do 100% of the training on the aircraft they are going to fly in the Sim. After that they take one check ride and their next flight is with passengers.

 

 

Relevance? The difference between FSX with PMDG Aircraft, AS2012 weather, and GEX/UTX graphics is mainly that an airline sim has full motion.

 

I'm also going to point out that I was at Oshkosh a couple days ago, and I had the opportunity to try a FAA approved Redbird simulator. This simulator was FAR inferior to a properly upgraded FSX install. It had stuttering frames, poor systems simulation and a bad flight model.