AllFiredUp

If I'm reading it right, it says it was taken in 2010. I was just looking up on Google images for the Carbon Cub instrument panel and found it. http://flemingaviation.com/tiki-index.php?page=SportCub from the image specs: ype: PHP Date: Mar 17, 2010 Camera: Sony CYBERSHOT Less image info Settings: 1/500s, f/4.5, ISO 100 Focal length: 7mm Flash usage: Flash fired Exposure bias: 0 EV

definitely CC I believe

I was really waiting for this update, and love, ABSOLUTELY LOVE the ability to use my TrackIR again. Haven't used it since flying FSX a while ago. Also the graphics (all set to max/high) are silky smooth. There were just a few places around Pearl Harbor where it appeared just barely under smooth (sorry didn't have fps info in front of me), but all in all, VERY smooth. And I didn't notice the scenery chugging behind either. Nice! :Peace: So here's my part I: and part II: These are just me having fun, not being precise or following procedures. I even took off with the wind behind me (kind of a no-no). So don't hate. Just consider the recordings a demonstration of the new update with TrackIR. That's all there is to them. :) Enjoy! (best if seen in HD)

Here is the profile of the Flying Tigers P-40 that is flown in MS Flight And a bit of cool history about the Flying Tigers group: http://youtu.be/Yi-XTQIptiA It is good to learn the history of these aircraft.

It might have been my video? I was commenting about the rotating lighthouses a while back. Sorry I've been sporadic on AVSIM or flying MS Flight. Lots of "daddy time" with my boys is a priority. I dont' know much about lighthouses. Perhaps modern lighthouses are the flashing type. I think there are historical ones that have the old rotating beacons.

I use the Saitek X52 pro system. Looking to get some Saitek rudder pedals to go along with them. I also have used the Logitech extreme 3d pro joystick too.

I use my Saitek X52 Pro throttle and stick. Ground handling seems right on, it's a bit harder on the ground than the Zero and Mustang with their wide-spread gear. And there is an inside cockpit view, just that you aren't seeing the cockpit, but you are flying from the pilot viewpoint. What little I flew of it, seemed about right, like the Accusim A2A P-40 (a very good aircraft and model right there), but I like flying in MS Flight better (much smoother). Will do some more flying over the weekend and check how accurate it is compared to the A2A P-40. The one thing I have noticed with the tail draggers, and it's probably a model animation issue is that their tail wheel doesn't turn. The models themselves look very good, very detailed. The tail wheel not turning should be corrected. See there's my negative statement.

Me too, got it for free for guessing the plane.

uh oh, I feel a Heinrich Dorfmann urge about model aeroplanes in "Flight of the Phoenix" :LMAO:

The simulation market is puny compared to the rest of the gaming world. I believe MS did the right move by entering MS Flight into a new market. 3rd party vendors were probably making more money off of the FSX code than MS sold FS for. So, I'm guessing that's why MS sold the code to Lockheed and ventured into this new territory. Good for them. But I find it sad that people like to tell MS what to do with themselves or how to build a simulator. This is akin to an "armchair quarterback."

It seems that you haven't seen the spam, the COCKPIT COCKPIT COCKPIT COCKPIT chant going on, is spam. I'm not against negativity in and of itself, but it's way overboard, and certainly not balanced. People are saying they are getting ripped off? How are they getting ripped off if it is in very clear writing that the basic aircraft have no cockpit in them. It says it very clearly before purchasing as well as being told by MS Flight on their posts. No one is getting ripped off. People are flatly ignoring that and then complaining that there is no cockpit when it says it right there in b/w. No one is forcing anyone to buy a basic aircraft, or any for that matter. So there doesn't need to be any complaining about "no cockpit". Also the price for a basic aircraft is not anywhere as close as the deluxe aircraft, that's a clue. It's not impossible to fly a plane without a cockpit. R/C flyers do it all the time, they are flying an airplane outside of the airplane. And real aircraft have been converted into drones as well. The Radioplane OQ-2 used during WWII is a good example of a drone airplane used for target practice. 15,000 were made for the US Army back in WWII. At Chino Planes of Fame, they have a QF-100, a pilotless drone F-100 that was programed by computers to fly, and during takeoff and (if it survived) landing, it was controlled by R/C operators at the end of the runway.

It's very sad to see all the negativity and spamming that is going on the MS Flight newsletter page and all the negativity here as well. Very sad indeed.

I fly the cockpit planes too you know. For the exterior models, I fly them purely for the fun of it. The deluxe models are for some good simulation flying. The Basic models are for just the fun and cool flying. I can fly both planes easily and land them both very well, cockpit or non. What's so hard to understand? I have a lot of payware aircraft that I've purchased for FSX, including the B-52H and the C-130 from captain sim that cost far more than these basic exterior-only aircraft, but I don't fly them anymore because they just are very chuggy on the graphics cards. I've also bought mega scenery and Rex 2 add-ons for FSX. All in all, I like the smoothness and the default quality that MS Flight offers far better than the defaults that FSX provided. um, that's why I said "So I want to fly them in a simulation" and yes, I am getting into the planes, I'm flying a simulation of a P-40, regardless of it not having an internal cockpit, it is still a computer generated simulation of the real aircraft.

This is just sad. Why does flying a warbird in a simulator automatically mean combat? Have you heard of warbird collectors? Civilian pilots who fly warbirds? I fly the P-40 and the Zero because I can't get into the real aircraft and go fly them. So I want to fly them in a simulation. I love combat games too, but Flight isn't a combat game, yet people think that since they put in warbirds, that must mean that Flight is trying to be an "impotent" combat game. that's just bad reasoning right there. Look at Flying Heritage and Planes of Fame, and others that work very hard to take a junked aircraft and restore it to flying condition - all without operating machine guns in the wings. These men and women do something they enjoy doing and work their heart out to restore these aircraft faithfully. "Glacier Girl" is a beautiful example of a once lost warbird, a P-38, that was recovered from under 200 ft. of ice/snow and now is flying again. I saw this aircraft being built up in Kentucky and recently saw it flying at Chino near my home. I got to touch this amazing aircraft and see it's inner workings. These warbirds that MS Flight are releasing are probably based off of the Flying Heritage aircraft. See: http://www.flyingher...spx?contentId=1 And also Chino Planes of Fame: http://planesoffame....e=static-flying It is very sad to see so many people fueled up for a verbal riot and tell Microsoft "what for" just because they believe they are entitled for something more. More than that, there are these same people telling those who do actually like Flight that they are "wasting their money" - that is just plain wrong, to attack MS Flight for these beautiful aircraft models to telling the customers that they are wasting their money. I'm not joining the crowd mentality, I'm going to be uniquely different on purpose because I enjoy Flight and enjoy the aircraft they release. Flight simmers who are engaging in this type of verbal abuse upon Microsoft Flight team and those who support them, need to get a reality check and rethink their life.

Yes, thank you! I love VOR navigation. Need to do it more.