Well, I found the DCS World is the most similar with Flight, in every single way: Business model is same, you have DCS World and one aircraft for free, and then you can buy addons in DCS store. So, for everyone think that there is no similar product to MS Flight and that there is no sims to play, give DCS World try. Yea, there are no aerocatches, its basically a combat sim, but at least its complete engine with atmosphere, atc, AI. You can buy P-51 just like you bought MS FLight one, with one difference, there is cockpit (actually, very good one).

Nevada terrain will be released soon, so there will be 2 nice sceneries just like in MS Flight.

You get Su-25T for free and you can buy A-10c, K-50 black shark helicopter (yes, there is helicopter in DCS, I didnt see one in Flight), P-51D.

 

Eagle dynamics opened DCS world for 3rd party devs so MiG-21, BAE HAwk, F-15E, F14D are in development.

I beg you please tell me which tweaks you are using

PM'd you

So where do we go from here? As I see it there is only one way forward. Short version: Developers need to unite and make FS11. Unless that happens I'm afraid the flight sim candle will burn out.

 

Nope. That candle is still burning brightly over at Laminar Research.

It's bullcrap to say that FSX doesn't model flight well in GA aircraft as a broad statement.

 

There are tons of GA add on aircraft that are excellent representations. Go fly the RealAir Lancair and tell me it doesn't model flight well.

 

And as far as performance goes, unless your computer is a dinosaur it takes about 10 minutes to set up FSX for good performance.

 

Tried them. Still get nothing like the smoothness and stability Flight gives. And judging by this post that's most people's experience.

 

If it were most people's experience the FSX addon market wouldn't be booming.

The biggest problem is that when people say FSX runs great or crap they don't say what settings they use. In Flight you only had a FEW options. In FSX you got a LOAD of options and you can even edit the cfg to tweak the options even further. I have FSX running pretty well now, better then ever before (thanks mainly to Word Not Allowed's guide) but 1. it takes some time and 2. I have only 10% GA and cars and nothing more... Some people aren't satisfied until they can run with 100% AI. Well, that may explain the difference in performance.

 

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.

It's bullcrap to say that FSX doesn't model flight well in GA aircraft as a broad statement.

 

There are tons of GA add on aircraft that are excellent representations. Go fly the RealAir Lancair and tell me it doesn't model flight well.

 

I think it is fair (if not 100% accurate) as a broad statement, when the vast majority of them don't.

 

But in any case, I don't think anyone is saying FSX can't do it... just that in general it doesn't do it.

 

That said, I'm extremely interested to learn about FSX aircraft that do have realistic flight models. The RealAir Lancair is at the top of the list, in the recent reading I've been doing, and I do intend to try it out soon. I'm actually looking forward to digging out my old copy of FSX and installing some modern high-end payware, as my previous disappointing experiences primarily revolved around freeware of uneven quality.

 

I guess it's time to find out if the old adage "you get what you pay for" is true.

I think it is fair (if not 100% accurate) as a broad statement, when the vast majority of them don't.

 

But in any case, I don't think anyone is saying FSX can't do it... just that in general it doesn't do it.

 

That said, I'm extremely interested to learn about FSX aircraft that do have realistic flight models. The RealAir Lancair is at the top of the list, in the recent reading I've been doing, and I do intend to try it out soon. I'm actually looking forward to digging out my old copy of FSX and installing some modern high-end payware, as my previous disappointing experiences primarily revolved around freeware of uneven quality.

 

I guess it's time to find out if the old adage "you get what you pay for" is true.

 

Eh, the vast majority of default planes in any sim don't have great flight models so I get the criticism but it's not FSX's alone. XP10's default planes are just bad. FSX's are too stable for the most part. Does anyone think the flight model on Flight's warbirds were realistic or the default plane? Generic comes to mind.

 

Yeah, there DLC planes were very well done (flight model wise) but you had to pay for them just like you'd pay for FSX add ons so it's a wash.

 

The 3rd party incarnations in FSX, and there are a ton of them besides the RealAir (check out Carenado and A2A's stuff for GA, literally dozens of GA and military props), are excellent.

 

And if you are a heavy flyer, the future is bright in FSX for that kind of stuff.

 

3rd party developers in XP10 have done some great stuff as well. Carenado is leading the way there.

I guess it's time to find out if the old adage "you get what you pay for" is true.

 

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 said, I'm extremely interested to learn about FSX aircraft that do have realistic flight models.

 

I heard to milviz b55 had a great flight model i haven't tried it myself but i do plan to in the near future.

I have only 10% GA and cars and nothing more... Some people aren't satisfied until they can run with 100% AI. Well, that may explain the difference in performance.

 

Hello

That also goes some way to explaining the relative difference in performance between Flight! and FSX, Flight had none of those features,but a lot of Flight! users lose sight of that fact.

Then when telling the world that FSX runs badly for them complain that they can't run 100% Ai at Heathrow,

 

The fact that the LOD in Flight1 was set at a max of 3.5 with visibility (which the user had no control over) used to mask the loss of detail at distance also cut down of what was needed to be drawn on screen.

 

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.

 

They are going to have to dig in to cfg files, seek out the tuning guides and implement the fixes the community has discovered, maybe even invest in newer hardware.

If that is not for them then Flight! still works fine as does FS9, XP10 will be a no go for them also because that requires some tweaking and beefy hardware just the same as FSX.

Throughout the years complex flight simulators have always demanded good hardware, system knowledge and a willingness to learn, it is the wrong hobby for anyone wanting instant gratification.

FSX does not even come close to flying like a real aircraft. Users have tried to convince themselves that it does, but it's flying model is garbage.

 

 

Hi Bob,

 

I do believe I'll disagree. The RealAir Marchetti SF260 for FS2004 & FSX has remained one of my favorites year after year. I could come home from flying my real RV6 & launch the SF260 to replicate the flight, and feel very comfortable with it. It's only downside, is that the plane won't slow enough on final, like my real life constant speed prop does. In fact, I've never been content with the C/S prop braking effects in any sim, to this point. I also have the 3rd party Van's RV-7 for FSX, that's enjoyable, and look forward to the new RealAir Lancair. I'd like a CPU upgrade before getting that one.

 

L.Adamson

Hello

 

In my opinion, the futere of our hobby is bright with the existing platforms . Prepar3D is the one i will go for. Even games today demand's much of our computer's, so i think it's wrong to complain about that a simulator is resource demanding. I don't like to mention the word ;game in this topic, but it's just to make a poin't.

For the record: I think to use the word "game" about : FSX, PREPAR3d, X-PLANE10..... is like swearing in church

That also goes some way to explaining the relative difference in performance between Flight! and FSX, Flight had none of those features,but a lot of Flight! users lose sight of that fact.

 

Funny story: in the past I refused to fly with autogen lower then Extremely dense. I always wanted it all. However... autogen in Flight was less dense then it was in for instance PNW and I noticed that I can now live very well with autogen at Very dense... (Extremele dense does give great performance too, but somehow Very dense feels better.) And btw I was also amazed to see that the popup of autogen in Flight is far more apparent then it is in (again) PNW...! I am not a big fan of all the PNW ground textures (like underneath forests), but they do mask the autogen better then Flight does.

Xplane

Il-2

DCS A-10

DCS-Mustang

DCS KA-50

Rise of Flight

Take on Helicopters

 

So, how many of these approach or exceed the quality of either Flight or FSX (whatever tickles your fancy more)? More specifically, when you think of all the features wanted by those who hated Flight so vehemently, how many of these have all of those features? Such as, dozens of aircraft models of all kinds and configurations? The whole world and thousands of airports in (photo-)realistic detail? A flight model more true to life than Flight? ATC? Full instrument navigation? Fully functional cockpits on all planes? Air, road and sea traffic?

 

Could it be that the amount and the force of hatred Flight received was more a frustration at the state of flight simming in general? The complaints and demands were wholly unrealistic: you can hardly expect version 1.0 of any software to have all the features you'd want, past, present and future. And the realities of the market are such that you release the first build as soon as you can. Nor would your potential customers wish to wait five or ten years for a Perfection Out of the Box.

Hi Bob,

 

I do believe I'll disagree. The RealAir Marchetti SF260 for FS2004 & FSX has remained one of my favorites year after year. I could come home from flying my real RV6 & launch the SF260 to replicate the flight, and feel very comfortable with it. It's only downside, is that the plane won't slow enough on final, like my real life constant speed prop does. In fact, I've never been content with the C/S prop braking effects in any sim, to this point. I also have the 3rd party Van's RV-7 for FSX, that's enjoyable, and look forward to the new RealAir Lancair. I'd like a CPU upgrade before getting that one.

 

L.Adamson

 

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.