Rush1169

I agree - Although as has been pointed out, the technology does exist to has a 'wind instrument' in the cockpit, it doesn't in Flight ATM. But sans ATIS or even a windsock, it's necessary at this point. . .but the other HUD data should be turn-offable.

Relative to heading. At first, it was the only reason I leave the HUD on, but now I'm using it for my instruments - which I try not to do and really wish I could just show the wind only. . .

Flight is missing a lot of "stuff" that we all expect to see brought forward from FSX. One of those items is "real world weather" wherein FSX would download weather data from a 3rd party weather reporting station/system and implement that weather in your flight. I've seen RWW references appear regularly in this forum as being an important missing component. So, being as I am, I pondered the thought and came to realize, for me, it isn't that big of a deal. In FSX, I often used the RWW feature. In practice, I found the RWW to be only kinda similar to actual weather conditions that I see out my window. Rarely did what was outside closely resemble that I found in my virtual world. What I liked most about it was I would get changing weather conditions that didn't really mimic actual but did mimic the fact that weather does change as time and distance passes, so that part I do like about the FSX RWW system. In Flight, I've noticed that weather does change in relation to time and distance so, for me, RWW isn't that big of an omission as it's the changing conditions that I like. That being said, I'd think RWW will be a pretty easy item to implement and they'll probably add it sometime in the future and I'll welcome it with open arms, I just don't miss it.

One could nail the "Curvature of the Earth" achievement while enroute. . .that'd be nice :)

I don't really understand that POV, but that's OK. I'm just saying, I'm not sure of any pilots who, other than manually pushing their GA out of the hanger, take their plane into a situation where they get stuck from going forward. I'm sure it happens and, since in Flight you can get out and walk, it would be "best" if we could push the plane back that way. Now, throwing in a Shift-P command is fine too for convenience, but there are a LOT of things missing in Flight that is more important (to me) than a pushback shortcut. . .

It's like putting the 172 in reserve. There is not a reverse gear. Getting out and pushing is realistic, but Shift-P or going to Map and moving the plane are both not.

I quickly learned to try not to get into any pushback situations :) - Probably very much like real life. . .I would like to see the ability to get out of the plane, engine off of course, and be able to push the plane back, but I don't miss the Shift-P command. If you do get stuck, as someone already mentioned, go to map mode and move your plane a pixel and you should be good - which is just a different way than doing Shift-P - both are very unrealistic

Is it spring yet? Is it spring yet? Is is spring yet? Is it spring yet?

Nah - DLC will keep my interest as long as it flows. Flight's flight model is fantastic, so even if it "shut down" today, just the immersion factor of Flight will keep me returning indefinately.

Interestingly, in the video he says, "Additional downloadable content will make. . ." exactly at the same time Alaska is shown. . .

Imagine a 737-200 pilot who was frozen in 80's who came back today and sat in an NG. "What is this thing?" LOL. Anyway, the Icon is a very cool, farily in-expensive real-world plane. . .

MSFT closing shop tomorrow is far fetched, don't you think? Actually, MSFT has a 30 year history continuous of flight development - take a risk, live on the edge - just the improved flight model is well worth the price. . .

Many of us "lobbed out" $120 for FSX+Accel then $80 for a PMDG plane, $30 x 10 for airports, $45 x 5 for scenery, 10 x $30 for various planes. . . so, for many of us, $15 per step is nothing ;) - Just wish it would come faster, LOL

Thank you - I did miss it and would have. . .That was sooooo intentional of MSFT to include Alaska in the promo - I love it :)

I cannot imagine what Flight is going to be like in the future. It has such a fantastic foundation or "flight formula" that I cannot wait to try it with faster planes. For me, I am so glad the FM was updated - I would have hated to see Flight continue on with the FSX 'formula'. Had it, I'd probably delete it by now as it would have been a disappointing deja vu' x11.Kudos to MSFT for the improvement

#1 - Flight Model. The FM feels real. For me, the coolest thing about Flight is how much better if feels that FSX, which felt like FS9, which felt like FS8, which felt like FS7, etc. The FS series has always been very sterile, predictable, mechanical, and, frankly unrealistic. I'm all about the FM - that's the most important thing to me and this is the first product from any company that is convincing. I have no RW experience in an RV, Maule, ICON, or Stearman but do have 10 student hours in a 152, and, for whatever reason(s), Flight is much, much better at tricking me.

I have to agree - the prices are what they are - if the DLC is too expensive to you then you'll have to pass on it - but if you do, it doesn't change the fact that it only matters if it's too expensive for me. Is $15 expensive for a plane? If you have plenty of money and a good stream of new money, then generally 'no'. If you are a broke student, then yes.

Sure, you can argue whether or not to call Flight a simulation. Call it a golf game if you want - it doesn't really matter what 'genre' you want to assign to it, many people really like Flight. Personally, I think it is 100x better than FSX on many fronts and many others do to. Many don't like it, but regardless of what the dislikers post, it will not change someone who likes it into someone who doesn't. HiFlyer likes it and no matter what genre you put it in, doesn't change his/her liking it.The point isn't the "realism" of whether an RV6 will be in that situation, it's the fact that that situation was intense, involving, disorienting, challenging, and fun. The same scenerio is FSX is not. For some.Certainly, during the RV6 Landing Challenge #6, the fact that you are limited to Hawaii doesn't matter. The fact that there are no jets doesn't matter. The missing AI, the lack of "real weather", no helicopters, etc - none mattered during the descent and landing.

I bought it just because it's only $15. Now, there may come a day when I can't or don't want to 'keep up' with the DLC - and I do hope that day comes, but for now $35 for the complete package is a great value and the Maule is part of it. Go for it.

Hmmm . . . I did the Kayaker mission with clear skies. I thought it was just a simple, beginner mission or something. Now that I think about it, I was in a MP session where the host had clear weather. So, I guess I cheated on that one ;). I'll need to do it again as it was designed - sounds really nice.

How about the Icon?

Yesterday four of us got our Icons on the slanted roof next to the cruise ship - we were all rolling watching other's failed attempts - it was a hoot.

I do understand you point, but Flight is on a much smaller scale than iPhone/iPad. The latter needs to be everything to everyone. The Apple products need to 'do' every possible thing they can do. A loan calculator for Joe and a recipie book for Jane and a idle-time gaming system to Jake and a camera to Jill. . .you get the picture. Contrast with Flight - It needs just a handful of things to be really good: ATC, AI, weather, planes, full IFR support, and scenery. It doesn't need a worldwide collaborative effort. The scope is such that MSFT could very easily provide all the content that would satisfy more than 90% of users. MSFT already has *all* the technology and knowledge and assets in it's studio to provide everything Flight is missing especially at this stage of the development. Joshua hinted at a possible limited opening for 3PD sometime in the future. It makes sense that 3PDs are not welcomed right now as the product is not nearly complete and MSFT knows that. What good would a PMDG 737 be today? So far, every facet of Flight that also exists in FSX is better than FSX. When ATC is released it will be better than default FSX. True with AI and they've already demonstrated the planes, weather, and scenery is better.Flight is very impressive and much improved over FSX in every 'facet' that can be compared to FSX and I expect that trend to continue. They don't need 3PDs right now.

FSX is not going away. Everything it is today can and should be fully preserved as long as possible (probably a very long time). It seems to be pretty "maxed out" in terms of the variety of add-ons and upgrades. Sure, in theory there is nearly an infinite more things that could be done to make it incrementally "better", but if time were frozen, it still offers a wealth of simming from all directions.Personally I don't mind paying for every single expansion I want. It's a lot of work to make a good one. There probably will be new designers/talents getting involved, either joining MSFTs team or when Flight is opened to private developers. There will be plenty of money going into Flight along the way, even without third parties - Sites like AvSim will adjust from lower revenues from 3rd parties / reduced bandwidth requirements - it won't be an instant thing. Lastly, I don't see the flight sim community collapsing - FSX is here for a long time and it will probably even expand due to Flight. It's all good.

You even said yourself that MS must be planning on offering at least one plane that will make hauling 1M tons of cargo achievable. I agree as I'd think any reasonable person would - we're getting bigger and faster planes sometime soon - that's exciting, but, at least to me, not really 'hilarious'.