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.

5 hours ago, eelis said:

So do you mean no trees at all, that's weird?

-eelis-

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.

On 9/9/2018 at 2:33 PM, eelis said:

Thank you, I just increased lod_radius from 3.5 (default) to 5.5, and yes things appear more far away I think.

And it didn't hit my frame rate almost at all.

Now have to try something more, maybe  I experiment with vegetation_max_count next...(yes, I have made a backup copy of my Flight.cfg)

-eelis-

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! :-)

Interesting observations Chock. The so-called autopilot mindset is a killer; however, it is dangerous not only because automatic action occurs without thought, but because it's like a cold - there are symptoms, one of which is a lack of self-awareness (or an inflated sense of ability and/or reason to behave that way).

I find it ironic, too, that your signature announces the upcoming Hindenburg - a fatality for altogether different reasons, but an aviation tragedy nevertheless. Do big airships still fly nowadays?

Oh and here is another one which should rival others' mistakes:

• Taking off then realizing you forgot to load any passengers!

Amusing posts Captains, and an interesting anecdote Chock - I agree with your last sentence, and I think that a kind of 'tough love' mentality/demeanor is usually the most effective teaching/learning style.

Re: the original topic, here are my top / 'best' / worst events:

• Accidentally opening the cabin door at FL200 in cold, windy weather. (Opening a door at that altitude would be bad in any weather!)
• Taxiing in dark weather at an unfamiliar airport, inadvertently taking a small biz-jet down an unmarked service road towards the highway!
• Pretty much any maneuver which began with the the infamous words "Watch this!"
• Believing that one is having a private conversation with the public mic button depressed.

Hi Jarsky.

You just choose official GFWL mode in Toolkit and there you go, of course you then have only Hawaii and Alaska to fly and not the whole world.

 

-eelis-

Oh, OK - it really is that simple then! I just assumed that the MS servers shut down years ago and that multiplayer was facilitated via special software. Thank you eelis!

Another question though: how do Aerocaches work? I tried the non-GFWL version but all of the Aerocaches for Hawaii and Alaska were unavailable: apparently I lacked the Hawaii and Alaska DLC (I was awarded the Hawaii DLC for beta participation and I purchased the Alaska DLC, plus I use Flight Toolkit). Then, to my horror it deleted my profile but I was able to use a backup which was fine as I'd made no progress since creating that backup. I think Flight actually backs up the previous profile anyway.

Either way, I couldn't get Aerocaches to work. I always enjoyed them because (1) it was a challenging activity, something different from just point-to-point flying to find, and (2) it fitted well with the flight/exploration idea (I enjoyed reading about these places).

What a lovely tribute to a former member whose name I'd heard many times, but sadly whose acquaintance I never made. I am glad to see that Flight is still popular, albeit with a (perhaps diminishing) small crowd.

I'm interested in finding some additional Aerocaches. Must I upgrade to the latest Toolkit version? Also, how exactly do you fly in multiplayer mode? I thought it shut down since a long time ago. I remember the good ol' days, taking off in an Icon, buzzing Hilo Bay then landing on that infamous tarmac between the cruise ship and the warehouses at the docks...

Indeed, thank you stonelance and everybody else who analyzed, created, expanded and maintained MS Flight in some way, shape or form; 2012 seems a long time ago as a beta tester, and it is sad to see an unfinished product never reach even 10% of its full potential. It feels now like the tangible end of that era, and what a shame that is - MS Flight captured the beauty of low and slow/VFR flight better than any other sim in my opinion, and provided stunning visuals despite using the 32-bit architecture.

I wish stonelance - and everybody else - all the very best in your futures. Kudos!

I agree with jimburke on point numbers 7 and 8 especially! Oh and I miss when music was about music, not big bouncing titties, the same old rubbish about "love" when it's actually about profanity, debauchery and sin, when sport was played by honest people who really cared about the game, and when we didn't have Facebook - eugh, what nonsense, haha! You know, when people actually listened, cared, spoke with each other, rather than just mimicking others' experiences and taking moronic selfies and creating endless status updates, both of which actually detract from the thing one allegedly does!

Whew, what a rant!

Oh and 'member berries...I miss those too.

Wonderful Kavinda, thank you for the visual appetizer. Now bring on the main course! Flights, especially island-hopping in Hawai'i, is set to become more interesting.

Hi José,

 

Its the FSX Beech Baron which was discussed around last December here. It has been converted by FS-Tester in the FSDeveloper forums and is now in its final beta stage.

It should be here in about 2-3 weeks.

Excellent news, thank you for the update Kavinda!

Re: MS Flight coming again to the fore: for me, it was a program about Hawai'i which largely prompted me to return to MS Flight; however, the release of DTG: Flight Sim did trigger partially my return to Flight, through nostalgia and at a purely cognitive level by reminding me that there are other simulators out there.

I admire MS Flight because it was a fair effort and a simulator with a lot of potential. It was ended quickly, but I admire also that users and previous developers wish to sustain parts of it. For a 4 year-old 32-bit product, it runs surprisingly well and is a reminder (for better or worse) that had it been continued (and/or produced as a 64-bit simulator), then it could have been even better.

Usually I fly X-Plane 10 for the realism of long-haul flights and as a study-sim; however, the graphics, weather and flight physics, and nostalgia draw me back to Flight, especially for low-and-slow VFR flights. And what better place than Hawai'i? (Well, perhaps French Polynesia!)

Apologies to double-post; I cannot edit my previous response.

So for those of you who are still interested, and still roam the [lonely] skies of Flight, here is a brief continuation of my journey around Hawai'i's 'Big Island'.

I departed Upolu and flew along the south-western edge of Kohala. According to Google Maps, there is a 'Costal Grille' right up there in the mountain - seems an unlikely place for a coastal restaurant, no? But hey, what do I know?! I arrived at Waimea about 25 minutes later. I tried this flight previously with 16kt cross-winds and it was bumpy to say the least!

Elevation detail and waves really make coastal flights marvelous!

Turning to base leg for Waimea, admiring the view.

Parked at Waimea; a perfect opportunity to admire the A5's beautiful design (real-world and Flight counterpart).

Next I flew westwards to Puu Waa Waa Ranch, nestled at the foot of the Cinder Cone State Park. This next screenshot has an airline-esque perspective.

If the A5 had a built-in dashboard cam, then this would surely offer an excellent perspective on things ahead and below.

I landed safely at Puu Waa Waa Ranch after an initial go-around; Flight's weather engine really does offer a challenge, with sudden shifts in wind and gusts keeping boredom at bay!

Fifty minutes well-spent. Oh and by the way, a recent program on PBS about Hawai'i sparked my renewed interest in Hawai'i (and subsequently Flight).

Thank you HiFlyer, I'm keeping a keen eye on Aerofly 2.

Purely from a graphical point of view (I don't own it yet, so I cannot comment on any other aspect really), it looks great! It has most/all of those much-desired GTA5 graphical qualities in a simulator environment, and I really like that on Steam they said that they are "explicitly" welcoming third-party addons. Refreshingly honest, simple and ultimately good for flight simulation.