air-ick

Howard,Is this happening at all your airports?The reason I ask is because I was having the same issues (actually, I still do but to a lesser extent) a year ago with a previous computer build and FSX installation. I, too, initially thought EZdok might be the culprit (maybe it still is in combination with others) but here's what was happening to me.It only seemed to happen when I was flying in Orbx scenery, mostly, 1S2 (Darrington) although I did notice it at a few others in that area. I love the challenge of taking of and landing on 28 and making a tight left-hand pattern being careful to avoid the rocks. I was doing this over and over again and getting that bounce as I was rolling out after each landing. Sometimes I would actually stop the AC, park the brakes and then just bounce up and down a few times.What I noticed was that this bounce was occurring just as the ground textures were refreshing, at least that's what I thought was going on. I played around with the mesh resolution setting moving the slider from 5cm to 10cm and the problem stopped. When I went back to 5cm it started again.It was such a unique problem happening at only a few Orbx airports that I didn't think much about it after that. It may not be the same situation your experiencing but before you spend too much time troubleshooting EZCA, move those sliders around first and see if that changes anything. I'd be curious.

+1This reason I picked this review over all the others to comment on is that, unlike many of the others, this one is targeted toward individuals "outside" of the flight sim community where I believe the future of flight simming lies. I totally agree with Ian Twombly's assessment that Flight is a "fantastic inspirational tool" but I just don't think that's going to be enough to move Flight forward. If we can't draw new people into this community does anyone seriously think MS is going to continue to support Flight or flight simming as a whole? If Flight fails is MS is going to say, well we tried, but lets go ahead and start working on FS11 for that small but fiercely loyal flight sim community?I just think that the larger this community gets the easier it will be to affect change with regards to Flight and the greater the chances are of turning it into something that everyone, even the skeptics, can enjoy.

Phil,It sounds like you're already doing alot of what EZdok can do it's just that when EZdok is set up properly (and that's the key), it makes what you're already doing a lot easier.Like so many others, I love the program but only because I was able to fight through that initial blast of confusion. The first time I bought the program I fussed with it for a couple of days and then returned it for a refund. But like you I kept hearing about how much it adds to the experience and I tried it again, this time spending more time in the manual and really making an effort to get it to work correctly.Having said that, I won't go so far as to say that you would be happier with EZdok, especially if you find yourself in the group where EZdok just doesn't seem to work right on your system. After I made those videos I kind of opened myself up to becoming a psuedo-tech support person and I know that even with all the videos and manuals and forum posts some people just never got it to work well. There are still some issues in the current version but since we have no idea when to expect the update, we have to learn to work around them.I'll say this, though. If you are reasonably confident that you have good backups of all your aircraft.cfg files and can go back to your default camera system if EZdok doesn't work out for you, then I would give it a try. You know you can return it if it doesn't work out. You never know, it may add just that extra bit of realism that you didn't know you were missing and now can't live without.

As I read through these replies I can see that the perspective from which each of us approach Flight (or any other sim, for that matter) is clearly different, to say the least. I get the fact that the flight dynamics aren't up to the same standard as FSX yet and that many people feel that this is a fundamental and important aspect of any flight sim. But I just don't think it should be summarily dismissed as a useful tool for real-world flight training as long as it's used in areas where it does excel.For the VFR-only people, I'm on your side, I really am. I would love to see the flying characteristics improved, better crash detection, damage modeling, etc. But right now it can be a useful tool for those interested in instrument flying, be it a student or a instrument-rated pilot just looking to maintain their skills.Everyone seems to be aware of the things that Flight is still lacking in but here's a short list of a few things I think it does do well, at least with regards to instrument flying.Approaches: ILS, VOR, LOC BC (with or without DME)Holding at: VORs, Intersections, DME fixesDME ArcsBasic VOR navigationIf you want to take the "Dense Fog" ILS challenge to the next level why don't you try flying the OGG ILS 2 with a full missed approach complete with holding, because we all know that you're not going to see the runway ;-)This is the kind of thing you can do in Flight right now that doesn't require the stall/spin/stress characteristics of the aircraft to be spot on. Hopefully, all those things will come soon enough.

That's how I did it, too. Plenty of extra speed without flaps. With winds like that (around a 20kt crosswind component is what I calculated. It looked to me to be about 45 degrees off the nose at 29 kts) you'll need to keep the speed up to maintain good airflow over the control surfaces. The headwind component is also around 20 kts so keeping the speed up above normal will not affect your landing distance too much. I also flattened out the approach more than usual to maintain a more constant power setting.

As you can see, Gold is definitely possible.I will tell you that I did this going into the wind and without exceeding any A/C limitations and although my method was a bit unorthodox, it definitely mirrored RW technique.I don't want to spoil it for anyone yet, just show it is possible so I won't say anymore for now.

I have been a member of AOPA since 1986 and have the utmost respect for the organization and everything they do and I'm not exactly sure where anyone in this thread so far has said that they (AOPA) do not know what they're doing or talking about. Just because I or someone else disagrees with some (not all) of what this gentleman says doesn't mean that I/we have no respect for AOPA. Just about any flight simulator (even ones far more sophisticated than this) have the potential to create a "negative transfer of learning," not just Flight, so I still find that comment somewhat disingenuous.If Flight can't be a hobby for you then great. And I agree that in its present state it doesn't possess all of the tools and contents necessary to replace FSX and all of the third-party content that's taken YEARS to develop but I think it is a good foundation from which to build on which is really the main point I'm trying to make.I still love FSX and everything it has brought to, not just the flight simming community, but the aviation community as a whole. I will continue to support it and its developers as long as they continue to produce useful and engaging products for the community. But I guess I'm also part of the "Flight people" because I see tremendous potential in the program and want to see it succeed.

Well, without giving it much thought, I just picked out what I thought was one of the more significant quotes from the review since I had not heard anyone else mention this yet. But I can see how my title could imply that that was the only point of this review and that wasn't my intention. If there's a way to change the title I would drop the quote.

You know, I'd also agree that it is a fair review of Flight even though it sounds to me that he has already dismissed it as a tool for any kind a basic flight training. In its present state I would wholeheartedly agree that Flight has a long way to go before it replaces FSX as a serious tool for training. But I think that it has the potential to turn into a very useful tool in any young pilot's arsenal of training aids, assuming that MS has the desire to make it so.I have no way of knowing whether this reviewer spent any time in the RV-6, but if he didn't I think he missed out on where the real potential for Flight exists. Unfortunately, I think that some people who subscribe to Flight Training magazine or are looking for information about learning to fly may come across this video and not even bother trying out Flight.I agree with the general consensus that much more is needed to make Flight a viable flight training product. The ball's in Microsoft's court. I would love to see some sort of "IFR" DLC whereby those who want to use Flight in such a way could, while others can just go and weave around balloons if that's all they want to do. I really think Flight can be both products at the same time.

Here's what the editor of AOPA's Flight Training magazine thinks of Flight:http://www.aopa.org/...U4a4ZUcNA-U1LY-Personally, I don't agree. I think Flight can be used, within reason, to introduce basic and advanced concepts of both VFR and IFR flying.

I tried DXtory, which did help smooth out the frame rate, but found that I liked Bandicam better.YMMV, but Bandicam will do the same thing by limiting the frame rate to whatever you choose.It's just one more option. In any case, either of these programs worked better for me than FPS_limiterthat I've been using with FSX.http://www.bandicam.com/

I would also agree that this is a great addon. Like Paul J said, the sounds are great and it's a perfect "low and slow" airplane. I do not know of any tutorials for the KLN 90A, per se, but the documents that are referenced in the Islander's documentation worked well enough for me to at least get started. The "Abbreviated Operation Manual" may be all that you need to get you going.

I think anyone who ever trained in an old Frasca 121 like I did could reasonably make the case the Flight is at least a very basic, but usable, simulator.If I were still teaching instrument students I would absolutely recommend that they go out and invest the $20 it would take to get the Hawaii add-on, if for no other reason than to use it to help them start developing there scan. I was very impressed the first time I shot the ILS in "Dense Fog" and could see how I was clearly relying on my "real-life" scan to get me to the runway. I would have loved having Flight available when I was first learning to develop my scan.Now I know that the same thing can be accomplished in FSX because I done it myself. But out-of-the-box, Flight has made real progress in this regard. Of course, the old Frasca could still do more in terms of various types of approaches and simulated failures, etc. but this is a good start for Flight.If an new instrument student came to me today I could easily sit down with him or her in front of the computer and show them the basics behind instrument flying i.e. scanning technique, pitch/power control, trim usage, how the ILS becomes more sensitive the closer you get, multitasking, plus more which I could probably think of if I had more time.I hope Flight is a success because, IMHO, I think it has the potential to become much more than a game by anyone's standards.

Yes, it was a nice approach and touchdown but, IMHO, maybe just a tad longer than it should be. If you want to nit pick, the perfect approach and landing would probably have him touching down about 1000' sooner.

Wow, the seats in the GOL interior look much more "cushy" to me than AA's. Thanks for the pics.