Tomsky

Thanks for the challenge, that was a really nice one. I just landed the RV-6 there going westwards against a 10 kts headwind. Killed altitude and speed coming down the hill by doing one long sideslip and managed to stop the RV briefly after the middle of the runway. Took off against the headwind and climbed safely out of the hole. Really enjoyed it. Also a nicely done surrounding, the best blending of urban and rural textures I've seen in Flight so far. Flew down south to another small airstrip and everything looked very natural from above.

If you zoom fully in you can see wheel tracks on the ice. Many seaplanes are actually amphibian (e.g. Grumman Goose, PBY-6 Catalina, Cessna Caravan and even the Maule M-7 seaplane variant). The float only versions are probably converted to wheels/skis during the cold season. Also looking more closely there seem to be several sets of disassembled floats sitting on the high ground whereas the aircraft nearby definitely don't have floats attached. I'm not familiar with float plane operations during the cold season in the high latitudes but I would assume that's the way they are doing it.

I'd bet the latter, sorry. PS: They released the Hawaiian Adventure Pack with the neat "deluxe" RV-6, a true marvel among Flight's planes. If they only superficially followed the various forums they must have realized that almost everyone expected another "deluxe" aircraft coming with the Alaska Package - and now this? What's that supposed to be? Looks as if they are on some self-destruction trip. Do they even faintly fathom the kind of damage they are doing to themselves/their business interests?

Call it empiric - so far everything dubbed "basic" didn't have a cockpit. If this Cub actually should have a VC the marketing guy who put "basic" into the promo text definitely deserves to be fired on the spot for recklessly doing unnecessary harm to the company...

Regarding "basic" and "deluxe" I'd probably just follow the in-game nomenclature: In the "hangar" all aircraft with a cockpit, regardless how frugal that may be such as the Stearman's, and checklists available are called "deluxe". The VC-less A/C are invariably called "basic". OK, I can only speak for the Redtails P-51 as it's the only VC-less aircraft in my hangar, but from what I've heard so far the other warbirds are also called "basic". I'd be really surprised if "basic" all but suddenly meant something different from what it had until now - but we'll see in a few days. Apart from these considerations I'd see the Alaska release as seriously "broken" if the only A/C to be released with it would be a VC-less Carbon Cub. With the Icon remaining the only amphibian for those 150+ seaplane bases for the time being? The Maule as the only half-way serious cargo hauler for how many thousands of square miles? C'mon devs, that must be some kind of silly joke? You better got some true ace up your sleeve (insert favorite heavy bush-plane, amphibian or airliner here) or your customers are going to have you for breakfast (at least verbally)...

+1

Content removed. Profanity will get your posting rights removed. Astericks do not reduce the results.

Given the currently available resources for the further development of Flight I’m not very optimistic at all. If the release cycle of new DLC establishes itself as it seems to materialize now – the first major (or deluxe) addition Alaska to be released mid-year/summer with the next one probably scheduled for the 2012 holiday season – Flight is most likely going to reach its very own technological obsolescence on this semi-annual release schedule before growing into anything more substantial. To me it just seems as MS tried the impossible; enviously looking at the revenue others were generating from their open platform MSFS franchise they decided to have the whole cake for themselves. What they apparently weren’t willing to do was allocating the required resources to that job properly. So they vaguely announced some kind of “flying experience” more appealing to the general public, which allowed them to leave out all the time-consuming and performance-heavy elements of the simulation. Borrowing heavily from the legacy, who could seriously deny that there’s still a lot of FSX in Flight, they eventually managed to get something pretty decent done within that deliberately cut down framework although their resources were quite limited. So what can we expect next? Alaska will probably bring nothing but an extension in geographical terms and one theme oriented deluxe aircraft along with some more specific missions and challenges as well as (hopefully) regionally appropriate weather themes. Maybe also some useful gizmos, such as skis/floats on the Maule and a working GPS. I would be really surprised if anything more substantial was included in the Alaska package. But who’s going to take bets that the next upcoming deluxe DLC includes more simulation oriented, more complex additions to the game? I for sure don’t. Given the estimated release date I’d rather expect a theme much more suited to the taste of the masses, let’s say a Reno Air Races theme. This would also offer the perfect opportunity to introduce the Kinetic controller to the PC market, for flying these cockpit-less air racers from 3rd person view. No questions here what the following DLC of cockpit-less “basic aircraft” would comprise of (I have to admit I’m still somewhat scratching my head which “appropriate” VC-less aircraft could make sense in Alaska…). FSX, despite being somewhat revolutionary at its release and in some areas still ahead of Flight but also severely lacking in others, can now rightfully be declared obsolete. Six years after its release, the major issues still unresolved, it is somewhat dead in the water as its developers have ultimately abandoned it. One can remain curious whether Lockheed Martin is capable of taking the dated code to new frontiers while retaining backward compatibility, but this only time will tell. Now, given the current development cycle of Flight, imagine where Flight will stand in six years if the team insists to do the entire content development themselves: Some limited areas to fly in but not in between scattered across the world, some more mission/challenge based themes (just speculating: air race, helicopter SAR, maybe soaring competition and last not least a proper flying school, which Flight despite its “newcomer” approach still almost completely lacks). But it will be a far cry from what’s been offered by FSX from the very outset. Apart from the fact that Flight may probably have become technologically obsolete by then I doubt that many of their customers will ultimately muster the patience to wait for its “completion” or “maturity” which actually may never happen, as the developers prefer to remain very secretive about their intentions and future plans at all. In addition the currently ongoing replacements of key figures in the MSF team (e.g. the lead designer post) do not exactly instill a sense of confidence that things in the team are going all smooth and well. My personal estimate is that MS will abandon Flight in about two years time from now due to lack of customers/revenue and the developers realizing that despite all their optimizations the already obsolete FSX core code cannot be pushed any further. I’ve been on some sinking ships regarding corporations or projects in my professional career and Flight definitely looks like one. If – after presumptuous announcements – nothing but silence except some minor diversionary blah blah is coming from the big shots at management you know for sure that there’s something wrong, irremediably wrong. You could even bet on a dead horse with more success rather than hoping that this particular project would still turn into something good. So my pessimism for Flight’s future doesn’t feed itself from its current state, but from an analysis of the resources that will most likely be available for its further development. And the answer is pretty straightforward: With a team that small and apparently somewhat unstable the developers won’t be able to achieve any essential expansion of the game before it has reached its own obsolescence. But as my current rig and controller are somewhat unsuitable to really enjoy Flight I’m in for an unexpected positive surprise when eventually giving Flight a second chance on a new computer somewhen a year ahead and finding out that it has grown into something substantially larger and complex than it is right now. However I don't really expect that and won't call anybody names if it hasn't happened.

It's been a pleasure, Sir. ;-)

Sorry if I hurt your feelings - but to be informative for everyone this thread should probably reach beyond the OP's initial question regarding the best choice of stick. As you probably know that there's a place called Ebay where people on a tight budget tend to shop. As the MS sticks still have a good reputation for their electronics and build quality some prospective buyers might be tempted to go that direction. Was just trying to avoid some disappointment and frustration... and allowed myself to an ironic remark about MS' continuity regarding their very own products. But if that's already too much criticism, ah well, gotta take better care of your sensitive Flight ###### souls in the future, promise.

Stick 1 - MS Sidewinder FFB 2 Pro USB Turned into a piece of junk as - under Flight - not even the artificial centering forces worked anymore. Useless piece of c**p sold now. Stick 2 - MS Sidewinder 2 No real joy at all. All planes are way too twitchy and super nervous (mouse mode feels better - but flying with a mouse? #####?). One little jitter during approach = major crash. Flight keeps overwriting the edited standard.xml. No fun here as well. Seeing that MS just shun their very own legacy products in their latest flight game/sim implementation makes you think about their long term commitment to anything they ever did. Wouldn't put too much hope into the further development of Flight.

Not at all. At the current state of affairs nothing justifies any kind of optimism. The developers are strangely "incommunicado" and the sales figures are apparently not that stellar at all. MS is most likely going to cut the line anytime soon and sink Flight. Potential is only great if you make good use of it - otherwise it's just wasted.

Stay clear from their products - I've yet to see something convincing from Perfect Flight... Everything they ever made for the previous MSFS versions was second rate at best but definitely a far cry from "perfect". And yes, 13 $ definitely look like a rip-off for what's being offered. Thomas

Well I'm not going to argue with you beyond this post as I also don't do it with such self-righteous flip-floppers like you are in real life. But let's get some things straight:1) I've enjoyed almost every release of MSFS ever since MSFS 98. Some had issues, sometimes I couldn't afford the proper hardware right away, but it was fun. I've bought every release since FS 98 and paid the premium for the imported original English versions as English is THE aviation language and I even own multiple copies of some versions. Not enough support for MS(FS)?2) Right, I've been more or less an observer on these forums since 2005. I had been more active even here in the early 2000s but some server crash or something else wiped out my previous accout and I had to re-register. And as I'm not a member of the anglo-saxon cultural circle nor a native English speaker I was usually around in forums of my mother tongue. Nevertheless, the AVSIM forums have been a valuable source of information through all these years.3) If I can make something work on my own devices I'm usually not running around bragging "Hey look, I'm cool - blah, blah." My minor contribution to the flightsim community in my country actually was a guide how to do the electrical design of a jet throttle quadrant with thrust reversers and trim wheel in the early 2000s. Never got mine fully finished (due to 4) but it defintely sparked a surge in DIY TQ's at a time when there were no affordable ones commercially available.4) Between 2002 and today I've learned a whole new profession for making a living working on real aircraft avionics although I had absolutely no previous training or experience in this field other than my private ventures into flight simulator land and a general interest in electronics. I'm not particularly proud of that but it did consume much of my spare time through these years including moving places from one state to another several times. And as flightsim is not my #1 pastime it definitely suffered through this period.It's just that now as I wanted to pick up flightsim a little bit more seriously again that Flight was released and I was somewhat excited about it as FSX is definitely not without its shortcomings. However seeing the current development I'm much less than excited any longer. And as Flight has almost passed into oblivion in my home country and I also doubt that the Flight developers are actually analyzing foreign language forums I've decided to voice my concerns over here, closer to developers.Now you can go and call me names if you want to - but I won't give you the satisfaction of a reply.Thomas

Hmm, let's see - profile of "isaac": Joined today, already 21 posts and distinctively vitriolic against everyone not being a blind follower of JH, aka "The Messiah of Flightsim" and the direction Flight is currently taking.Is that really the last joker in your sleeve, MSGS? Hey, Mr. "I-know-something-you-don't", as you apparently have more insight than anybody else around here: How about a little enlightenment for us lowly lifeforms what's going on behind the scenes? NDA time is over.Or are you just out to continue JH's infamous smearing campaign against everyone and everything not fitting in his narrowminded concept of an arcade "flightsim game". Just a little bit too transparent, try harder next time. LMAO