So, how many of these approach or exceed the quality of either Flight or FSX (whatever tickles your fancy more)?

Rise Of Flight, all the DCS titles.

 

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?

You mean stuff like Xplane had, FS9 had, FSX had...

 

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.

Uhhh, releasing a flight sim with features we all wanted was possible prior to Flight, why was it not possible for the Flight team? Business decisions. Technically, they could have built the game we wanted, they were prevented from doing so by business managers and marketing morons. The community could have modded Flight to fix whatever it lacked, except for a business decision that it would be locked code with no 3rd party addons.

 

So no, we don't HATE flight. We hate what flight represents. A business abandoning its core demographic, by trying to branch out wider and make a quick buck while they are at it. The business decisions that led to flight being the gutted short bus riding representative of a once great series is what makes us angry.

 

Microsoft had an opportunity, and because the marketing freaks told the business managers and accountants they could make a quick cash and grab, they built Flight instead of FS11. Because of that decision, they dropped the ball. And many, myself included, are angry about it. We hate what flight represents.

How many hours do you have and in what aircraft?

Enough hours to be able to compare sim vs RL.

 

For now, just single and multi-engine props.

 

But, as I said, its not a big deal, I just chose to be professional pilot, just like some other guy chose to be nuclear physicist. The fact is almost anyone can fly, I mean, you need just two arms, two legs, to eyes, two ears, half of brain, and of course, money.

And in terms of simulation itself, FSX is not even as good as I thought. If you trim the aircraft properly, holding a stable speed, you don't even have to touch the controls at all, it will just fly in a total straight line. This is by far not realistic.

 

Oh yeah it is true, it's way to stable compared to real life. It should be bouncing from left to right, and up and down a bit more, even with almost no wind.

 

This is a real misconception, and I'd just hate to see it thought as fact. First off, a trimmed FSX plane, including defaults will not hold a straight line, as if on auto-pilot. That hasn't been the case since FS98, and that's a long time ago.

 

In little or no wind situations, there are many, many flights, in which small GA airplanes will feel like riding on glass. It gets to the point of feeling like you're not even moving.............as it's very smooth, and the ground just seems to casually drift underneath (and this is close to 200 mph, and 4000' agl). And for comparison sake, I'm talking small GA, which are not near as stable as a Cessna 172, and feel more "fighter" like with controls. My wife and I have flown hundreds of cross country hours together in RV's. She is always commenting on the "glass/seemingly non moving scenario". And I have to remind her, that some people just don't believe that smoothness can anyway be real. Now, do keep in mind, most of the smoothness is early morning. By 10:30, it can be getting knocked around to the point, to where it's tough to adjust radios. And then later in the afternoon, it can be smooth again. Or, especially in cooler winter months, it can be smooth all day long, or rough all day long. Not only that, most of our flights are over the Rocky Mtn. area of the western USA.

 

For simming.............I prefer smooth, unless I expect it from the weather. I'm not a real fan of artificial monitor shaking.........just to think I'm airborne. FSX defaults to the calmer air.

 

L.Adamson --- builder/pilot Van's RV6A 180HP, C/S prop

^Thats very true.

Uhhh, releasing a flight sim with features we all wanted was possible prior to Flight, why was it not possible for the Flight team? Business decisions. Technically, they could have built the game we wanted, they were prevented from doing so by business managers and marketing morons.

 

No, technically they could not. Flight is not FSXI, it is MS Flight 1.0. You never get all the features in version 1.0 of any product, and not because of marketing. In fact, the marketing morons you speak of are those that push developers to release unfinished, buggy features.

 

Here's what I don't get: since there already is the (much superior) FSX and the (much superior) XPlane, why all the ruckus and bad blood about Flight? Flight caters to a different audience. It caters to me, for one, with the beautiful environment and with the smooth performance. (No, I don't like the hoops either, so I just ignore them, like the planes with no cockpit.)

 

Now, bash MS for ditching Flight all you want, and I'll join you, But designing Flight was a good thing. It is the by far best, most entertaining game-ish time-waster I've ever installed.

No, technically they could not. Flight is not FSXI, it is MS Flight 1.0. You never get all the features in version 1.0 of any product, and not because of marketing. In fact, the marketing morons you speak of are those that push developers to release unfinished, buggy features.

All the features work in my 735i, and in my Dodge Chally. Likewise, other then bug fixes, most games DO give you all the features at the start. This DLC and patch release thing is a NEW phenomenon, brought about by the internet and more specifically broadband. I can pop in my copy of Jane's WW2 fighters, Fighters Anthology, 688i, Longbow 2, and they work, with all the features promised on the box and in the leadup interviews to their release. There was a time when companies had a more longterm view when it came to releasing software and games, now the release schedule of 6 months determines output, not features and actual coding. It's why so many games get pushed out before they are ready, and spend a year in patching, or more.

 

Here's what I don't get: since there already is the (much superior) FSX and the (much superior) XPlane, why all the ruckus and bad blood about Flight? Flight caters to a different audience. It caters to me, for one, with the beautiful environment and with the smooth performance. (No, I don't like the hoops either, so I just ignore them, like the planes with no cockpit.)

 

I made a big post about why there is backlash against Flight, because it was targeted at the wrong audience, because dumb decisions pushed it from being FS11 into the crappy Virtual Wings that it is.

 

Now, bash MS for ditching Flight all you want, and I'll join you, But designing Flight was a good thing. It is the by far best, most entertaining game-ish time-waster I've ever installed.

Personal opinion detected! Examining the facts, releasing Flight gave Microsoft the following:

-Bad Reviews from people in the industry

-Bad Press from the aviation community

-Angry Backlash from the more hardcore set

-A closed down development house in Vancouver

-18 months of wasted time and funding

-18+ months of maintaining servers at cost

-Loss of good developers from their house who could have made a marketable product

-Loss of support from 3rd party publishers, who as we know, are the key to keeping a product afloat past the 12 initial months of release.

-More then likely did not recoup their expenses for making the game.

-Indifference from the casual gamers the game was trying to attract.

 

So yeah, I'm not sure how designing flight was a good thing.

God. Round and round and round. has anyone been convinced of the other viewpoints utter rightness yet?

 

Really?

has anyone been convinced of the other viewpoints utter rightness yet?

 

 

Microsoft has,,, thats why they canned it

Microsoft has,,, thats why they canned it

 

That pretty succinctly sums up where this conversation has gone. :Applause:

-A closed down development house in Vancouver

 

Just for the record, the Flight team was physically located in one of the office complexes at the Microsoft Campus in Redmond, Washington.

 

The other team cut was located in Vancouver...