Rush1169

The P51 has a *very* fine line at high altitude between it's 'perfect' mixture and 'not quite right' mixture.

I disagree. Toe brakes will be implemented in a future update. You didn't miss a fix.

Curious: Is that ranking just applicable to those who downloaded/installed through Steam? If so, I'd think *most* play would be outside of Steam as most people probably installed it outside of Steam.

Hmmm. I use manual mixture in the P51 to climb higher and higher by listening to the engine note. Seems to work fine for me.

Ah, I see. If you're right, you're right. It seems very unlikely that in the last month they've gone from an initial product release to resignation. Planes are the 'spice of life' in a flight game and, as seems to be established, they're just pumping out a few easy-access, quick-to-develop planes they literally have on hand. If one were to strip FSX down to just what is found in Flight, it's apparent that Flight is much better at flight and it's that obvservation that makes me believe that MSFT didn't spend that much time making it so much better just to please the 'arcade gamer' crowd, as I really don't think gamers would care. If Flight really were all about cockpitless warbirds, it would seem silly to include such great weather and flight model and VORs and ILSs. . .

How do you mean?

I too play less frequently than when Flight was released. But that's true with any new game I get. Lot's of play at first, then gradually taper off. It used to be that I'd buy FS4 and play it to death, then taper off, then forget about it for long stretches. Then FS5 would come out and the cycle would repeat. I've done this pattern for a LONG time. Sadly, it was typically two years between the cycle peaks. When Alaska is released, I will "go nuts" again and taper off more and more, and then a new 'real' plane or new scenery will be released and I'll do it all again. I see the excitement of a "new release" coming much more frequently than in the past FS series of releases. . .

With the new and improved weather, flight model, and sensation of flight, I'm anxious for a jet of any kind, but would prefer a business jet up to a 737. The island chain allows plenty of room for all phases of a flight. What is still the most important and exciting feature of Flight is how much better it flys compared to anything else I've tried. I've tasted the small GA flight model and it's delicious and if those characteristics carry over to larger twins and jets, it'll be like getting a new release of the FS series more frequently than every 2 years. . .

I'm not quite sure what to think at this point. The P51, Zero, and P40 are all "the same" to me: single engine vintage taildraggers. For me, got one, get 'em all. I'll assume the P40 will be sans cockpit. So, we have four very nice, "complete" planes: Icon, RV, Stearman, and Maule and all sufficiently different from each other and we have three very similar, non-cockpit planes. I don't see a "panic mode" coming on just yet. If I think as if Flight had been released day 1 with this hangar make-up: 4 GA planes and 3 "arcade" planes, then I don't think we'd be quite so 'alarmed' as a group. We have IFR capabilities, fantastic flight models and 'sensation' of flight, highly detailed scenery, and a spattering of stuff to do. The known arcade planes don't really 'fit' with Alaska, so if they had always planned to do 3 of 'em, it makes sense to get them out before everyone shifts to Alaska. So, with the first scenery area, we have 4x 'real' planes and 3x 'arcade' planes. I'll assume Alaska will come with a 'real' plane and it may be a good time to add variants for the Maule. We still have more 'real' planes than 'arcade' planes and that is a good thing. Let's not forget, even with the 3x 'arcade' planes, Flight is still a fantastic foundation for a simulator and MSFT has demonstrated they are taking the simming side of it more seriously than we had first thought. No, it doesn't have all the simming stuff, but when I load up FSX, position myself at Hilo, set some winds and IFR conditions and compare it within the limits of Flight, FSX feels very dated, simple, and 'flys' like in slow-moition. We're currently at a 4:3 ratio of real to arcade planes. Alaska should bring that to a 5:3 ratio. At least for now, it doesn't look too bad for Flight. . .

Perfect. So now when future content is available, I should at least visit Steam to see if they happen to be running a sale - basically we need to "shop" before be buy to get the best deal. . .

Like most of you, I installed Flight thru the Live system. Now Flight is available on Steam and some users have "reinstalled" Flight thru the Steam portal and I'm not sure why one would do that. I realize some have all bought all their other games and stuff through Steam and just want to put Flight in their Steam library. I realize some people just prefer Steam over Live. But, I don't have any alligence to either system and I haven't had any trouble with Live. I've purchased all the DLC before Steam was announced, but let's assume I wanted to buy the discounted bundle. Could I buy the discounted bundle through Steam even though I've installed Flight through Live? TY in advance!

Sales and bundle discounts happen all the time all over the place on all kinds of different products. Of course I don't get excited to see something cheaper than what I paid, but that's just the way it is. . .nothing exclusive or special about Flight products. . .

And on one engine??!!?? At least that was implied. . .

Such a relief to see I'm not alone - I was preparing a flame-suit for my post :) I think it's built into humans to be able to move your head around but keep a fixed view on whatever it is you are viewing. For example, you can move your head around and still read this easily. You can drive on a bumpy road (or fly in a bumpy cockpit) with your head bouncing around, but still keep a 'static' view. What I also found with TrackIR is that every little head movement caused on-screen movement which was very odd and actually, for me, annoying. The good 'ole hatswitch is pretty effective. . .

I'll be the "con" side of TrackIR. I have it and don't use it. 1: Windows. My setup has my back to windows and monitor facing windows. TrackIR does not work unless the window shades are closed. I guess the light messes it up. 2: Gotta wear a doohickey somewhere on or around your head. The doohickey I have is made to clip to the brim of a baseball hat. I hate hates. 3: Head movement + eye fixation is strange. It probably takes getting used to, but it's not "natural" movements to look around. It's rather awkward. 4: If you want your view "static", you have to sit very still, like a statue. Many times, I like to lean back or otherwise change comfortable positions and that really makes it haywire. TrackIR does what it says it does and it's probably just a matter of getting used to it, but I found it to be more of a pain than the good ole hatswitch.

I haven't tried this. . .but for those longer, heavier missions is it OK to plan and execute a fuel stop enroute? Any penalty for that?

I never stated I wouldn't, but I didn't think I would when I first heard of the non-VC P51. I did anyway and will probably buy the Zero just because it's cheap. If we were to pretend that MSFT had a hanger full of GA, twins, jets, helicopters, and a dozen scenery areas to release on day 1 (or even month 1 or quarter 1), users would be looking at the offering with a calculator in hand realizing that it would cost $500 to go "all in" on the DLC, so I think it's 'by design' to trickle DLC so that doesn't happen to the same degree. The ratio of deluxe to basic planes is still 2:1, so assuming most future planes are going to be basic just because the first new DLC is a basic, seems rather silly.There is a certain group who likes the non-VC planes - they'll buy them all, it's their favorite. Then there are people who won't buy them no matter what. Then there are people like me, who buy them because they are cheap enough and add a little entertainment and variety to Flight while waiting on better DLC. If there were a wide variety of deluxe planes to pick from, I'd be much more inclined to skip the non-VC offerings, but since there are not (because many users would have 'sticker shock' - see 1st paragraph), the basic planes cause me to shrug and say, "eh, why not?" and buy it. It seems to be a strategy that causes more sales. . .

Thank you! - Got it and Air Display - those two make a great couple :)

I'm missing something - I went to the FSWidgets and search for GMAP and found GMap for Android, iGMap for iPhone, IPad, and Mac - what am I looking for?

Yeah - OK - I do understand why there is a static cockpit - there has to be something there and the camera controls allow us to move to pretty much any viewpoint, so when we are 'in' the static cockpit we are really just changing our exterior view to an 'interior' location of the exterior view :) - I get it now, but still don't understand why the static cockpit view isn't a more easily accessed view. . .

I suppose for what it is - a cockpitless vintage plane, it's pretty nice - I'd give it an 8 for what it is - it appears to be a nicely done VC-less plane. It's not too interesting to me, but as with FSX, there were a LOT of planes available that I didn't care for and those even had a cockpit :) - that being said, if it's only $5, I'll probably go ahead an buy it just because it's so cheap and being able to slide the view back into a static cockpit adds a lot to the fun. True too with FSX planes, if they were all <$10, I'd have a lot more of them if only for the variety and brief entertainment value. I also consider the purchase a minimal investment 'risk' to help ensure the continued development of the Flight platform. I suppose in other words, I really don't want non-VC planes, but if it's cheap enough and that's all there is to choose from, and it helps further Flight development, I figure I might as well. . .

I dunno - if they release their DLC as they finish, it makes sense that a non-VC plane would come before a VC plane or scenery. Maybe there are three teams - one does external planes, one does cockpits, and one does scenery and they just release each as it's finished. If that is the case, then it follows that we'll get a quicker flow of non-VC stuff. . .

I hope that's the case and it seems logical. So, maybe the "hid" the static cockpit so that when they release the working cockpit people wouldn't skip the upgrade because they already have the non-working cockpit? Maybe they'd risk introducing bugs had they made it impossible to 'find' the static cockpit but it was a simple XML switch to make it a pain to find (lesser of two evils)? I dunno. You'd think if they plan on selling the deluxe version then there would be no cockpit of any type in the basic P51 rather than just trying to hide it. . .still strange to me :)

The Zero with zero cockpit seems like a really strange product offering for 'round 2' of DLC releases, but I think it's still way too early in Flight's development to think that cockpitless planes are the 'bread and butter' of Flight. It may be that the P51 was the best "bang for the buck" from round 1. Maybe the P51 generated the most net profit. But, I'd think the Zero decision was made before DLC sales figures were being tallied (before Flight's release). As it stands, we have 4x planes with cockpits and 2 without. If that 2-to-1 ratio continues, it's nothing to care about. When there are 30 planes, there will be 20 complete planes and 10 'gamer' planes. No big deal.What I find most strange about, at least the P51, is that there is a cockpit view but MSFT made it a pain to change to that view. Sure, it's static, but it's much more enjoyable to fly from the cockpit view than from exterior or from well in front of the propeller. Why on earth would they include a cockpit, but make it annoying to switch to that view? It's a very strange decision, to me. If the Zero also includes a static cockpit, I'll continue to be baffled. . .I think the Zero was decided well before Flight was released and should not be considered an indicator as to the primary direction of Flight.

Pretty awesome simulation isn't it? If you have the ILS Challenges purchased (Hawaiian Pack), those are a great starting point for learning to deal with conditions like fog or clouds. You can then add VOR navigation combined with ILS landings while in Free Flight for more education/practice with flying in weather. It's pretty sweet to navigate to and land with instruments when you don't have the ground as a reference. Breaking out of the fog at a couple hundred feet with a runway dead ahead is a fun accomplishment, but it ain't easy :)