isaac

Flight in its current state is is a closed world if you compare it to fsxStill can't get ROF to run but I thought it was mission/skirmished based (closed world) in set places on the map? not free roam (open world) Dedicated host VS P2P hostThat's the problem with GFWL. Run flight on a highend line/machine and it should be fine.Look at the timeframes as well, what 5-9(?) years for ROF

In my opinion the biggest thing missing from flight is a damage/failure model (for structure and systems) and I can't quite understand the reasoning behind leaving it out. Even if it was like the damage in FSX (just stopping the game) it would of added so much. Is it even going to get put in? What do people want out of a damage model?GIVE ME BIRD CAUSED ENGINE/PROP DAMAGE AND RIPPED OFF FLAPS NOW rant over

Lol check it out was the worst game launch ever

arma - wide open world / bf3 - closed worldflight wide open world / ROF - closed world

AHHHH go on then tell us, is it the removal of the mouse and keyboard?

Don't play many pc games? Elemental: War of Magic was the worst launch strat.

Depends on how they are making the game, compare arma to bf3 how can bf3 look so good and arma so bad :Thinking:Hell lets compare battleground europe to cod

Compare the two, look at when they were announced, when they were released, what engines they use, the size of the game world.Flight Alaska 600,000mi² + Flight Hawaii ????mi² = ??????mi² / rise of flight map = 48,262mi²Can't find what the size of the Hawaii in flight is.

Really? :LMAO: :Doh: patch

That's just kids being kids, plus some people just don't like america and would probably fly in to the WTC if they could. We have german planes flying at airshows in england and people go see them. I hope they keep the historical planes coming, more to look at out the cockpit/from the ground, plus fun to mess around with when flying in the RV.

As quoted it was a response to "Kids Playing Kamikaze over the Arizona.". Why is one (no guns/bombs/death) worse than the other (guns/bombs/death)? You said "Why on earth would they do this with a civil aviation simulator?" I gave a possible answer You may well be right, I would guess it depends on how they make the planes and how many different hands it has to go through. Beta testers could you maybe try and get the devs to put up some "making of" vids, would be good to see how they go about getting a plane in to the game from scratch. Alaska DLC = 600,000mi² / rise of flight map = 48,262mi² (rounded down to 262) might be a reason, I don't know.

More genres need to start using headtracking (I've stopped following 360 games, have the devs started using kinect for headtracking?) but with the big companys going the console route it's going to take ages.One bonus I can think of with kinect (maybe a load of webcams would work?) is the ability to use the controls with your hands. I think the lack of a damage model for anything on the plane is more worrying :Doh: I want to rip a flap or wing off, while trying not to black out and then attempt a landing.

That's how they get you, glad you can pay with real cash on the pc marketplace.

from google search of AeroFlight FS have TrackIRGet into the pilot seat on the aeroflyFS and fly the most realistic flight simulator ....The aeroflyFS simulator supports TrackIR, which is one of the most widely ...

:Thinking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUgF056Sil0 40 experts in 3d modeling?