Dominique_K

They generally are powerful machines, meaning a thrust to weight/aerodynamics ratio which makes them interesting to handle at takeoff and approach/landing. I use them for short cruise flights.

Looks good to me. Everything thar moves on the ground below gives a sense of depth to the simulation when flying in the 6/7k feet. Trains were long overdue. Hoping for some steam locos too 🚂😄 !

I miss having an easy access to charts but never went with Navigraph that I find too expensive for my particular use of the sim. The new product is certainly more attractive in this regard.

https://www.spitfires.com/post/ale-delivery-spitfires Hey Flyingiron, you might do this in the next Spit' iteration, adding a couple of casks below the wings !

24 h is all that I need to fly everywhere in the world with the proper live weather at the time I fly.

I am for duplication when it brings something better. For instance the P51. I am no fan of AH and I long for A2A bringing me back Glamorous Gal. I am glad there are two Porter, the MV being better than the MSFS default.

Good to once again see that MSFS jumpstarted a developer vocation. I hope he could make some partnership with knowledgeable guys on the engine and FDE sides. The artistry looks certainly top notch. I went to refresh my memory about the bird and learned that it was also a bush plane ! Good to know… https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2002/april/pilot/ford-tri-motor-5-at

Hmmm... Should I ? OK... There are indeed two schools of simmers : those are never satiated by what is on the market and always willing yet another model and those happy with a few good more refined models. I don't know what you call a simsnob - I don't even want to know as I may be part of this crowd 😋 (snob moi ?) - but I know that If this hobby has high quality simulations today it is because a lot of us have for 40 years been pushing hard and loudly developers to do their best. Not river counters but simmers willing to find in a simcraft some of the idiosyncrasies of the real thing. Perfection is not of this world but a good approximation which goes beyond being screenshot fodder. There are the softcore and hardcore simmers. I'd call myself a midcore 😄.When I buy an aircraft known to be a groundlooper b*tch, I want her to ... groundloop.I want some quality and time to enjoy my purchases. A simcraft is not like a tissue paper you discard after a couple of sneezes. And politely saying it on a forum, is not moaning. I would call it market feedback 😉

there was a rumor some 5 years ago, on the DCS forum, of some joint work with Orbx. Never went thru I suppose.

MS had three iterations of a Combat Flight Simulator 20-odd years ago. I dont remember whether it was the same engine than their civil sim though. I went with the competition then. Microprose and Jane’s 😉.

I love flying warbirds, old and new, but operational weapons have no place in MSFS. It is not a question of morality (your word) at all, I am not a pacifist, far from it, I am a pragmatic. Adding a military dimension to MSFS would necessitate a huge investment in programming : ballistics, air and ground damage modelling, adversarial AI, combat avionics, campaign scenarios etc, Quite a heavy job . I’d prefer Asobo not to lose focus on seasons, a more sophisticated ATC , air dynamics etc 😉. So much still to do . PS and water masks 😂

I said it before, I say it again. They should close shop and have the team play the sim 8 hours a day for a whole week. Most of the bugs and UI unfriendliness would be gone… WT was not acquired by MS if I am not mistaken. They are a subcontractor to Microsoft like Asobo is.

None 😁. I would prohibit them to buy anybody. I believe in the competition of the little guys.

An original project to be sure !