GPHowell

I like the airport based jobs and aerocaches. Good if you just want to have a quick flight (best with the waypoint markers turned off)

Ha, I like the picture and (only) one of the songs off the (generally terrible) album... G

Many thanks for the (on topic) reply. Maybe I'll go for the P-40 and give it a go...

thanks, I might just give one of them a bash...

Having resisted the P-51, Zero and P-40 thus far (due to the obvious lack of VC) I'm tempted to give one of them a try out of curiosity...maybe for aerobatics and the like. Is there anything that makes one of the three stand out? Any suggestions of which one to go for?

I'm trying to imagine the look on my girlfriend's face if I "surprised" her with that purchase...

I know this has been said ad nauseum already, but: How different can the P-51, Zero and P-40 be when flown from a chase camera view? I'd be interested to know how many of these planes MS are selling...

Nice tip, thanks. If the deviation bar were shorter (perhaps in a different plane?), aligning it with the lubber line would give a greater intercept angle... or are deviation bars always approx this length?

Has anyone noticed one of the loading screen tips mentions the need to use "seaplanes or helicopters" to get some aerocaches? Maybe helicopters are in the pipeline...

Tune into 115.7 and fly the 157 radial to about 70 DME. At 2000' you should pick up the marker...

Well, another 75 year old aircraft is certainly a disappointment for me (unless it has a VC, of course). But, let's not lose the plot just yet. I would imagine sales of this DLC will not be high and MS will get the message. If it does have a VC, it could be great fun ... and Alaska surely has to be out soon (they said Spring). We had 10 days of sun last month in UK which was apparently Summer; we're now into Autumn I think...

As an Englishman, I'm quite excited. Great Britain is an island of about the right size for a dlc region! I'm not sure what the selling point would be however. Compared to Hawaii and Alaska, the UK landscape would have to be described as "modest" or "crap."

Yep, me too. I'm not sure if it has always been like this or just post-update, though...

Does the grey colour (gray color in American :Peace:) have to have military connotations? Could just be a primer coat...

at the risk of antagonising a moderator ( :Just Kidding: ), the thread didn't begin criticising people, it began by criticising people's unrealistic expectations i.e. development of a sim that had Flght's performance and slickness with FSX's scope and depth for less than £30 (or even free!) is unrealistic. Do I wish Flight covered the whole world for no extra cost? of course I do. Do I wish there were fifty aircraft for no extra cost? we all do, surely? Is this realistic for a game that has a fraction of the sales power of Call of Duty or WoW? no! Some people seem determined to take it as a personal criticism. Some people have even made personal (and verging on the insulting) repostes. All of this is fine (and is what a forum is about) it's just obvious that some people are looking for a row that really isn't there.

I don't see how you can make comments like this and then accuse me of being disparaging. I made a statement in the OP and gave some reasons for it i.e. based on cost and development requirements, people's expectations for games are often unrealistic (note also the difference in wording between "unrealistic" and "unreasonable.") Your response to this is that I'm not intelligent enough to understand that other people have differing opinions to my own. Poor show. Well, that's pretty impressive from X-Plane I have to admit (like I said I haven't tried it yet). Although I did notice one of sixty or seventy expertly rendered lorries just disappeared when leaving an exit ramp... shoddy (joking!) What's the experience like from inside the cockpit? Does one need a mega-computer to get visuals like that? The external views win hands down, I won't disagree!

for slow-speed VFR, I think it beats all previous Microsofts and X-plane (although I haven't tried the latest version). Again, just my opinion! Which sims are better for the price in your opinion?

I'm not sure what a ###### is... but you missed the point of the OP. I wasn't trying to convince anyone that Flight is something it isn't. As I said, it does exactly what it says on the tin. It's not a world-covering, professional training sim with a every aircraft under the sun... it's a small area, four or five craft sim with (for me) the best flight/graphics engine.available. And for the price, it's great value for money...

I'm not sure who "you people" refers to but I've recently returned to this forum from a spell away from sims altogether; I didn't ask for any sort of forum to be created. As I said in the OP, it was a general opinion based on gamer's expectations in general. It's generated a lot of discussion. I wasn't trying to WIN anything.

MS haven't taken anything away from you. You still have FS2004, FSX and all the add-ons, don't you? All that's changed is that FS is now accessible to people who want a slick, fun flying experience without having to tweak the software ad infinitum...

Spot on. Even worse, some people (and I'm not referring to this particular game or forum) act like developers are malevolent entities who release games with the sole purpose of p*ssing gamers off...

but if we all had our local airports in MSFlight we'd have most of US/Europe...

Just some general comments here and all, of course, just my opinion... I'm amazed at some people's expectations for MSFlight (and games in general). A lot of people really do seem to want the moon on a stick. People seem very happy with the vast improvements in framerate and general performance that Flight offers (particularly vs FSX); and rightly so. No more buggering about with bufferpools. The scenery we do have (admittedly limited) seems much more accurate and detailed than the standard autogen we're used to. Similarly, the aircraft we have (again, limited) are much slicker and refined than the stock craft we're used to, the VC views in particular. And, so far, (depending on your DLC) it's cost us between £0 and £30ish. I've already had 35 hours of good fun flying with MSFlight and compared to other computer games, that's pretty good bang for your buck. I don't see how people can complain! As far as I can tell, a lot of people seem to want: High detail and non-autogen scenery (a la Flight) that covers most or all of the world A library of twenty or thirty aircraft, all highly detailed (a la Flight) The same dynamics and modelling as a training simulator High performance and framerates on medium spec machines (a la Flight) None or very few bugs (a la Flight) All of the above for less than £30. How much programming and development would be required for all of the above and how much would it cost? My guess is: about the same as a full-spec simulator at your local flightschool! I'm not saying Flight is perfect but we have to be realistic; its remit is to offer smooth, attractive and realistic flying (not to mention fun) that doesn't require daily .cfg tinkering or a super-computer. I think it does exactly what it says on the tin...

thanks for this, matey. Been stuck with this for a while...

Strict Standards: Declaration of group_forum_breadcrumb::sendOutput() should be compatible with that of output::sendOutput() in /opt/webdocs/newsite/forum/hooks/group_forum_breadcrumb_d29bf565a59f776807044fd19e49258a.php on line 107 All very true. I tried the work-around from Heimi (thanks for this!) and it does improve things but generates other issues (all other programs now use US units). There are various inconsistencies with units throughout Flight and ought to be a simple fix for MS... fingers crossed.