What are we gaining by moving from Flight to FSX?

[RoboRay 126]

Remember that topic in which we talked about autogen and that I said the popup in FSX wasn't bad at all and that I found it even better then in Flight? So apparently that was due to Orbx indeed.

 

Quite possibly. I expected ORBX scenery to hit the performance harder than GEX/UTX, not lighten the load.

 

- RXP GNS 530: compare THAT to the Icon GPS...!

- Plan-G flightplanner

 

I'm still debating the RXP GPS... because I also like Plan-G. If the GNS 530 could load .PLN files created by Plan-G, I'd jump right in, but it can't.

 

On the other hand, Plan-G itself is looking less desirable going forward, since the new versions are losing their terrain-map.

 

Still undecided...

 

And I am also considerng getting Air Hauler as a Job board replacement

 

I am also, but will want to find a better plane for cargo-hauling first. The Aerosoft Beaver X sounds like a possibility.

 

All in all I found out that there FSX offers me FAR more then Flight did (see the other topic to see what I liked in Flight). In case you wonder why the heck I completely went for Flight then: well, that mainly was for the promise Flight held... It could have been great... but as it is now FSX is my favorite sim by far... (and it still kinda hurts having to say that...).

 

I feel the same way. I could tolerate the shortcomings of Flight for what great potential it offered in the future but, with no future the shortcomings become intolerable.

 

Still, if I want to hop around bits of Alaska in a good rendition of a Carbon Cub or revisit a very good representation of the Hawaii I know and love so well from my time there, Flight will remain an option.

[LHookins 3,102]

want to find a better plane for cargo-hauling first.

 

The Grumman Goose, the way I have it set up, will carry 8 passengers with 30 pounds of baggage each, or 1600 pounds cargo (in the passenger compartment) for over 455 miles (50% fuel, 170 gallons, with an additional 45 minute fuel reserve). That's with empty weight of 5423 and a max weight of 8250, so if you prefer different weights, adjust accordingly. It's not an inexpensive aircraft to fly though.

 

Hook

[Guest]

I'm still debating the RXP GPS... because I also like Plan-G. If the GNS 530 could load .PLN files created by Plan-G, I'd jump right in, but it can't.

 

On the other hand, Plan-G itself is looking less desirable going forward, since the new versions are losing their terrain-map.

 

Concerning using plans with the RXP: http://forum.avsim.n...he-rxp-gns-530/ The RXP can't load FSX plans but you can still use them!

 

And Plan-G v2 will still work when v3 is released: I don't really expect Google to lock Plan-G users from using Google Maps.

[newthog 0]

Helicopters. I do love flying helicopters. Even the default ones in FSX. But the Dodosim 206 Jetranger is much nicer

 

THIS^

 

If there had been a helicopter released for Flight, it would still be the only sim I was flying! Can't say that I was thrilled with Alaska in Flight, when I compared it to Hawaii...when I fire up Flight, it's still Hawaii and the Stearman for me. But about a month ago I reinstalled FS9 because I was tired of waiting for a helicopter...and the day before Flight's team closure was announced, I downloaded FSX to fly helicopters. So while there are many other options we gain with FSX, this reason is what causes me to fly it instead of Flight.

[styckx 1,869]

The one important thing missing from this.. Take away FSX and its known issues that are easily fixable by getting the initial `tweak frenzy' out of the way.

 

What you are gaining is developers who have the time, patience, heart, commitment and dedication to the hobby to develop some of the best quality addons with some of the best support PERIOD.. There are plenty of here today, gone yesterday developers but the well known names, the names that constantly pop up on the various flight sim stores and in random conversation are that way for a reason. Hell, I've watched Rob from RealAir constantly jump on AVSIM and address nearly every issue and concern people have had with the Lancair Legacy and this isn't even an official support forum for his product..

[nbz 4]

Many points were already mentioned - I would add the ease of modifying / tweaking things.

 

Want the cockpit viewpoint a bit higher? A louder fuel pump sound? Finer trim settings? Not satisfied with the turn radius of a plane, or want to exchange a gauge for another?

 

All easily done with FSX, rather difficult to do with Flight.

[DarkstarF16 72]

I never left FSX - just stopped using it due to the large commitment in time I personally made to Flight.

 

What I have learned, is that I still have a lot to learn about FSX.

 

what do I gain? For me the answer is simple. The world, and life. I can go anywhere with real weather and ATC etc plus the world I fly in has so much life in the form of planes (no trains) and automobiles. Oh and sailing ships, here and their. I also gain flying at night in FSX because it does feel and look so real and was the biggest disappointment in flight for me.

 

Flight will stay because I love it for GA and nothing so far has come close to giving me the thrill of flight that flight has.

 

For my serious flying I will continue (as I have all the way through, from flights birth to its demise) to use FSX let's face it nothing has yet come close to it for 'completeness.'

 

For getting a buzz simply from flying and feeling I am, I will continue until something better comes along to use you know who!

 

 

 

 

[Arkipelago 10]

In FSX we have the PMDG 737NGX, and soon to be PMDG 777!!! :)

[RoboRay 126]

Tubeliners? Yawn. :D

[Air1 136]

Double Yawn, That is catching.

[Polar 30]

A simulator......

[LHookins 3,102]

If there had been a helicopter released for Flight, it would still be the only sim I was flying! Can't say that I was thrilled with Alaska in Flight, when I compared it to Hawaii

 

I really enjoyed getting out of Hawaii, and Alaska has interesting scenery. But to be honest, if Flight had offered everything FSX does and more, but limited us to just Alaska and Hawaii, I'd be flying something else occasionally.

 

What you are gaining is [third party] developers who have the time, patience

 

etc etc etc ad nauseum. Third party developers did not *MAKE* FSX. FSX was already quite good before the first third party addon was created. Yes, it's good that they exist, and they give us a considerable variety for those who can't make up their minds what they want to fly and some of it is very good indeed... others somewhat less so. I've got two, count 'em, TWO third party aircraft, neither of which is the 737 NGX. I've gotten every version of Active Sky (and the original Graphics X which is now bundled with it) to get real world weather (mostly to get winds aloft data which was not available in the Jeppeson real world weather download), I got CumulusX for thermals and soaring, and I just bought Accu-Feel last night. I've downloaded some freeware but don't use it, but have used parts of it in other aircraft. That's it. I don't have hundreds gigabytes of of addons that I'll never use like some people. As for scenery areas, if I wanted to fly in one area, I'd still be spending all my time in Flight. When I fly, I fly everywhere, and almost always in connecting flights. And never in airliners, and usually at 140 knots, and without time compression.

 

I never left FSX - just stopped using it due to the large commitment in time I personally made to Flight.

 

I think that's the same for most of us.

 

I did a couple of very long night flights recently in FSX. They really messed up the lighting in SP2. If you have any night screen shots from SP1, look at the stars. I remember being able to leave the brightness/gamma alone when flying at night with SP1. With SP2 starts may begin to appear at around gamma 1.8, with the effect still not quite as good with the screen much brighter.

 

And while I'm at it, I'd like to extend my personal thanks to all those third party developers whose products WILL NOT WORK with SP1, so we're stuck with the crappy lighting of SP2. Come to think of it, my FSX crashes did not start until I installed SP2, after at least a year of flying with SP1. Thanks again, guys.

 

For getting a buzz simply from flying and feeling I am, I will continue until something better comes along

 

Amen.

 

Hook

 

A simulator

 

I don't need a freakin' procedures simulator. I need a FLIGHT simulator. I've got better procedures simulators than FSX. Flgiht simulates FLIGHT better than any other program on the market. You should try it some time, you may be surprised.

 

Hook

[Air1 136]

Roger that Hook. You really need to get deep into FLIGHT to appreciate averything there is to see and I might add feel.

[RWFeldman 159]

appreciate averything there is to see and I might add feel.

 

:Yawn:

[styckx 1,869]

etc etc etc ad nauseum. Third party developers did not *MAKE* FSX. FSX was already quite good before the first third party addon was created. Yes, it's good that they exist, and they give us a considerable variety for those who can't make up their minds what they want to fly and some of it is very good indeed... others somewhat less so. I've got two, count 'em, TWO third party aircraft, neither of which is the 737 NGX. I've gotten every version of Active Sky (and the original Graphics X which is now bundled with it) to get real world weather (mostly to get winds aloft data which was not available in the Jeppeson real world weather download), I got CumulusX for thermals and soaring, and I just bought Accu-Feel last night. I've downloaded some freeware but don't use it, but have used parts of it in other aircraft. That's it. I don't have hundreds gigabytes of of addons that I'll never use like some people. As for scenery areas, if I wanted to fly in one area, I'd still be spending all my time in Flight. When I fly, I fly everywhere, and almost always in connecting flights. And never in airliners, and usually at 140 knots, and without time compression.

 

O-k