jarsky

I still use MS Flight and run the Toolkit sometimes. It would be a shame to see it go, but I respect your situation and whichever choice you make. You've extended the shelf-life and replay value of MS Flight significantly stonelance, so long may that continue.

That's right, all trees were gone. I could not see them any more and my frame rate increased quite a lot too. Hmmm, obviously I did something wrong. Fortunately this was easy to reverse and good advice, I took a backup first. I'll play around with it another time, but even with my Intel i7 4790K (4.4GHz base clock) I cannot achieve much better performance, and increasing visual settings quickly eats into fps. But like I said, it's old software and 32-bit, always a big limitation for simulation. Have you ever flown from Pedro Bay to Port Alsworth? They're both very nice, but what I really need is some way to place objects here and there - any solutions, anyone? They're so bare! I wish we had some sort of basic SDK for placing objects, and importing satellite orthos and other objects.

I tried to increase tree density, just to see what would happen - they all disappeared! (With "custom=1", by the way.) Anyway, I will have to look into that but I cannot run at max settings - the fps drop is too substantial, being an old piece of software (2012) and 32-bit. But for what it is worth, I did manage to capture this screenshot on arrival to Port Alsworth, flying up from Pedro Bay. This is my favorite short flight in Alaska because it is short, scenic and quite challenging getting into and out of these small airstrips in tougher weather. I posted here because so little traffic seems to come this way. I am still genuinely saddened that Flight ended and was such a colossal mess - it was great 'out of the box' and it had great potential. It still looks visibly unfinished in parts (e.g., some limitations in cockpit functions, and some airstrips looking a little basic and bare), but it can still be fun for low 'n slow, VFR flying. The weather effects look real to me, and the physics/handling seem realistic too. Anyway, I have some great memories from Hawai'i too, which I will post in due course. I guess what I am saying is I'm pleased to see some Flight enthusiasts are still around and active here.

Out of interest, where is the MS Flight config file located? I cannot find it on my current install and the forum search has found nothing. I appreciate any help anyone can offer, thank you. Edit: For anyone interested, I did a long search on my hard drive and I located Flight.cfg at this address: C:\Users\<name>\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Flight

Ah right. Clearly very well optimized, hopefully the Vulkan API will be a so-called game changer. I'd like to see trueSky implemented, it looks great and would enable developers to focus on other aspects of the simulator. But I get why people like to do it themselves too.

Forgive me if I sound a bit naïve here, but how does Aerofly FS 2 achieve such astounding frame rates? I am accustomed to thinking of fps in double figures, perhaps triple figures in exceptionally rare circumstances. But 500fps, 600fps, >1000fps - just how?! Really, I am flabbergasted. (Although, does the human eye not capture >60fps? Either way, I see the benefits in terms of headroom and better performance than what we are used to achieving.) Secondly, I read about Aerofly FS 2 lacking a weather engine - just clear and a basic blue sky + clouds setting presently. Do you think trueSKY will provide something special? Would people here want that? Just curious.

I may be alone in this thought, but I believe that social media can trivialize a product. I noticed that FSW's Facebook page had content quite heavily laden with DLC. It would be fatuous for me to say that selling a product makes obvious business sense; however, I found that the DLC focus clogged and detracted from that space in which to engage with the flight simulator and the act of flying itself. I prefer the use of forums for a more in-depth and a usually more balanced, content-driven approach. On that note, I did not like the apparent emphasis on DLCs when the simulator was rather basic overall relative to, say, FSX, P3D and indeed XP10/11. Specifically, I didn't like the idea of paying for camera movements as a utility, when this function is native to FSX, P3D and XP10/11. I try to be balanced and measured in my words, but I still do not know whether FSW was intended to be FSX in a 64-bit environment or entirely new. It also did seem to be rather arcade-like; more like casual gameplay rather than the simulation I am accustomed to. But maybe FSW was not aiming at existing flight sim enthusiasts or IFR pilots but at newcomers and/or aviation enthusiasts more generally. I still find FSW very enigmatic, but I see that others have somewhat sustained interest in and development of MS:Flight. One good thing about social media and the Internet more generally is that is can foster collaboration, so I do wonder what may happen next.

Yup, this looks fantastic! If anybody on their development team reads here, then please know I register my interest in a stand-alone (e.g., non-Steam) version. I read somewhere that with sufficient interest, an alternative to Steam will also be considered. (I guess a digital download, but I'd prefer that to a Steam version.)

Yeah true, I appreciate that demand is probably quite low. I used to rig a second monitor on which the moving map was displayed. I suppose that it might be a decent project for someone like yourself, but I cannot reasonably expect someone to invest such time and effort with such small demand. Either solution could work (and perhaps even "make Flight great again!" - haha!) but something I like about Flight is relying on VFR landmarks to get around. Although that works much better in Hawai'i than it does in Alaska - it's so huge! Anyway, thanks for the reply cyberix. Happy flying!

Thank you majuh and Segador77, indeed that is the case; I just re-tested each different mode and I know understand how the different modes work. Having been away from Flight for a long time, I forgot how it all worked! Stupid me, I did not create an offline profile during that time period - I remember it being at the top of my list of things to do, but one thing got in the way of another and I never did it. Oh well, as you say backups can be taken and switching profiles is not too bad, but an offline profile would be the better option. I have all of the DLC selected using the Flight Toolkit but I realised that I need to obtain the first Aerocache to unlock the others. I used to have the entire globe installed but that was on my previous PC. For anyone looking for interesting places to go, St Maarten converted especially well in my opinion and so did Las Vegas. So thanks again and maybe I'll grab a few of those Aerocaches now. Happy flying! :-)

Out of interest, can anyone help me re: my previous comment? Official GFWL version = no Aerocaches available; cannot connect to Flight Server, so nothing for Hawaii or Alaska. Non-GFWL version = Aerocaches are all unavailable; apparently I lack the Hawaii and Alaska DLC even though I was awarded the Hawaii DLC for beta participation and I purchased the Alaska DLC, plus I use Flight Toolkit latest version. This method also = deletion of my Profile but I reinstated from a backup. Any help greatly appreciated!

This looks really good thanks cyberix, well done! Out of interest, is there any way to display a moving map on, say, a tablet PC? I know that some apps exist to control flight inputs and/or to view flight statistics (e.g., X-Plane and FSX), but does anything exist that would allow a moving map to display on a tablet PC? I appreciate that it's probably quite difficult to allow Flight to communicate with a remote device.

Haha, IKEA helicopters! (Well, kit cars and planes exist - why not helicopters?!) I'll check out the screenshots. :-)

What sort of strange things? (I wonder if FSX in any way attempts to replicate the oddities of the Bermuda Triangle.)

Interesting question, very subjective. I think that you're right: purpose creates immersion in flight, and since it's neither gratuitous nor mocking, then it's not only not a 'bad' / immoral thing, it is actually a 'good' / moral thing. Plus, clearly the flight plan and flight itself show that you are doing something (albeit virtually) for others, and your post shows that you have others in mind. Otherwise stated, people do far worse on Facebook and Twitter. I trust your flight was a good one? The only thing close to a helicopter I ever flew was the 'Verticopter' for X-Plane, and it was very forgiving! :-)