First we need to get the tools in shape, then we can see about new aircraft.  I dont have a lot of time, so I would need to make sure that if I were to model an aircraft like the 172, it would be financially viable.  It takes months of work to build even a simple aircraft like the 172.  Im doing the Seabee for free because its already made its money in FSX =) 

 

Yes autopilot, GPS, and a working ADF would be wonderful in that Cessna 172 Stone and Kevin are going to work on next ^_^, but we will be happy with what they can do for us now and hope and support their efforts in the future.

 

Moe

I was just poking a little fun at ya, I realize you guys are swamped and I do appreciate your efforts. Yea a 172 would be my airplane of choice but I don't mean to really pressure you guys to do one. Keep doing what your doing. It is truly giving us MS Flight fans inspiration and hope for the future.

 

Thanks again for your ongoing hard work.

 

Moe

Curiosity got the better of me, and finally tried it for the first time. Pretty nice scenery overall, and the sim runs silky smooth. But it ends there and I got bored quickly. My FSX water and clouds look better. The cockpit was less than appealing in quality but im sure could be brushed up. 

Overall, arcade like comes to mind very quickly. Its too bad, because im sure there would be alot of potential if they took FSX foundation and features and used it on this engine. If there was an open SDK for opportunities to add aircraft and improve textures and different sceneries this might have been our go to sim. What a shame. 

Im just wondering what about the cockpit was less then appealing?  What cockpit?  This is a personal question, since I modeled almost all of them myself.  I dont want to steer this away from the current topic, so please reply via PM.  Just looking for some feedback.

 

 

 

Curiosity got the better of me, and finally tried it for the first time. Pretty nice scenery overall, and the sim runs silky smooth. But it ends there and I got bored quickly. My FSX water and clouds look better. The cockpit was less than appealing in quality but im sure could be brushed up. 

Overall, arcade like comes to mind very quickly. Its too bad, because im sure there would be alot of potential if they took FSX foundation and features and used it on this engine. If there was an open SDK for opportunities to add aircraft and improve textures and different sceneries this might have been our go to sim. What a shame. 

Cockpits in MS FLIGHT are one of the strongest points of this sim. Everything about them is really good!

 

In the Maule you even get a more sophisticated fuel system simulation than in the FSX Maule - forget about turning on those aux tanks fuel pumps and you're in for a down ride...

 

The aerodynamic effects of opening a door in flight, and not just the sound effects, are modeled too. Where do you have this in FSX?

 

Finally, there is simply NO FSX aircraft that comes close to the quality of the flight dynamics available for instance for the Maule, the Stearman and probably also the Carbon Cub.

 

Ah! Forget about the cockpitless ones

 

I am looking forward to try the SeaBee 

 

P.S.: MVGibbage  - Please consider starting development for the other platform of the future - X-Plane10!!!!  Your SeaBee would certainly be welcomed there too!!!!!

My FSX water and clouds look better.

Water: yes (w/DX10)

 

Clouds: no way!! Unless you used the Fair Weather theme, the weather depiction in Flight blows FSX out of the water. Especially when you fly through clouds.

Cockpits in MS FLIGHT are one of the strongest points of this sim. Everything about them is really good!

 

In the Maule you even get a more sophisticated fuel system simulation than in the FSX Maule - forget about turning on those aux tanks fuel pumps and you're in for a down ride...

 

The aerodynamic effects of opening a door in flight, and not just the sound effects, are modeled too. Where do you have this in FSX?

 

Finally, there is simply NO FSX aircraft that comes close to the quality of the flight dynamics available for instance for the Maule, the Stearman and probably also the Carbon Cub.

 

Ah! Forget about the cockpitless ones

 

I am looking forward to try the SeaBee 

 

P.S.: MVGibbage  - Please consider starting development for the other platform of the future - X-Plane10!!!!  Your SeaBee would certainly be welcomed there too!!!!!

Good summation. Open the door in FSX ..what happens...NOTHING!  The cockpit in the Flight Maule is better than FSX by far..only thing missing is the AP connection. I really hate the dead sound of landing in FSX because of that I hardly fly anything but the jetliners .

Yes I know you can update the sound in FSX by BUYING another addon ..more $$$$.

Curiosity got the better of me, and finally tried it for the first time. Pretty nice scenery overall, and the sim runs silky smooth. But it ends there and I got bored quickly. My FSX water and clouds look better. The cockpit was less than appealing in quality but im sure could be brushed up.

Overall, arcade like comes to mind very quickly. Its too bad, because im sure there would be alot of potential if they took FSX foundation and features and used it on this engine. If there was an open SDK for opportunities to add aircraft and improve textures and different sceneries this might have been our go to sim. What a shame.

I have to wonder if you have tried any aircraft past the silly beginning balloon chase? Do you have all of Hawaii and Alaska? The Maule, RV-6A and the Carbon Cub all have great instrumentation for there intended roles. Even the Stearman and the Icon are a joy to fly. It does help to be a GA guy I suppose. Over a year and flying every day, I have yet to be bored. The only reason I have gone back to FSX once in a while is to fly the Seabee I just bought while waiting to check out the FLIGHT version. I have never had a sim that runs so smoothly "out of the box" with no expensive add-ons needed.

I only could fly the A5 and Im not disputing the FDE. I actually think the flight dynamics is quite good even feels great, and the external model is also quite good. The cockpit however seems dull to me. But then again in all fairness looking back at my comments, Im used to flying PMDG and airliners. When I do fly GA on occasion its alot more sophisticated than the A5 which just looks like a car interior to me than an aircraft cockpit. But that is the reality of the real A5.

 

I say it again. This platform foundation looks to have tremendous potential with its silky smoothness, but the execution of flight of having to buy every single little thing is a blow considering what FSX included. Granted it was 80$ but by the time you would buy all that was included in FSX for flight, you would probably be well over $80.

If there was only a way to allow 3PD addons like PMDG and world scenery, we might all be flying flight right now. 

Wow. I am shocked that an airliner fan who runs PMDG is not happy with the GA aircraft from Flight :rolleyes:. Dude you need to compare apples to oranges not apples to trees. I think if you look at the RV6a, Deluxe Carbon cub or the Maule M7 to similar aircraft in FSX you will be impressed with what the developers did with flight. True some FSX cockpits are real good from some makers like A2A PMDG and so on but seriously don't come down on Flight until you tried all it has to offer. I know I also have XPlane, FS9, FSX, P3D, Aerofly FS, Flight Gear before I made my mind up. Now lets get back on topic about how awsome this sim is.

 

Moe

Yeah, I always wondered why they didn't put an inertial navigation system into the Icon. Makes it really so ... well ... dull :rolleyes:

Im just wondering what about the cockpit was less then appealing? What cockpit? This is a personal question, since I modeled almost all of them myself. I dont want to steer this away from the current topic, so please reply via PM. Just looking for some feedback.

 

 

MVGibbage there s nothing wrong with the cockpits in flight ..... AT ALL :-)....