AllFiredUp

I agree! Though in this screen-shot the full detail hasn't settled yet (I believe it's a bug with slow rolling-in detail). This screenshot was taken in the first week of flying with Flight. The moon was out in the night scene below. I love the details of the panel, and the fact that you can turn the dimmer knob on the instrument panel lighting. It's not simply on or off. The water is incredible. It has a sense of depth. I was able to achieve something close to this with the REX 2.0 add-on for FSX, but default FSX was no-where near as nice. I remember people complaining that the 3D modeling on MS Flight was "utter crap" - I beg to differ. Also, unlike FS9 and FSX the antialiasing is excellent with MS Flight, FINALLY smooth! The forests were simply amazing! Eye candy all around.

That's simply a blanket statement. The level of detail that is in Flight as it stands with no add-ons (for Flight doesn't use 3rd party add-ons) far exceeds that of default FS9 or FSX. Let's stick with the default engines for now. As it is Flight's graphics environment of the Hawaiian Islands is superb! To say "The one thing Flight does do right is haze, and frankly that's about it." is just flat wrong, and poor observation. You've omitted the obvious: 1.) dynamic light and shadows interacting not just on and within the planes, but all over the scenery. FS9 and FSX look very cartoony comparitively - and it doesn't matter how much add-on scenery you add on, they all are subject to the lesser default graphics engine. 2.) Haze isn't the only thing. Simply slipping into the clouds is a totally new sensation with Flight, that FSX or 9 can never achieve. The direct sense of motion between the cloud vapor and the airplane actually fools your eyes. That is something that the "As Real As it Gets" FSX doesn't achieve. 3.) foliage movement - all the foliage moves. Not so with FS9 or FSX. The foliage is swaying in Flight.. 4.) very smart autogen. I'm fairly certain there is an autogen going on, but it's far superior to FS9 or FSX. I'm sure other Flight users can add more. It is rather pointless to make a slap at MS Flight and just make blanket statements without good research. I'm fairly certain there are enough flyers here who are very knowledgable about the limitations of FS9 and FSX. We all know that Flight treads on new grounds and we are all aware of the critics howl over it. I say, get over it, and let Flight stand where it is and let it grow and be successful in that arena, it's a brand-new arena that FS9 and FSX didn't even attempt to enter.

With 6,459 square miles of land to explore, I don't find the Hawaiian Islands "claustrophobic" at all. I used to live there, can't get enough of those islands. FSX and FS9 was quite a bore as most of the area around the world was generic and repetitive autogen that didn't look at all like the real world. I fly locally. I never fly with the autopilot on (boring!) at 30,000 feet while I go get a pizza and watch TV and then come in a couple hours later to land it. That may be exciting for some, but not for me. When I flew FS9 and FSX, I wanted to fly around where I used to live in Florida. It was a complete bore and nothing looked like it should. At least with Flight, I can fly over areas that are pretty much modeled very close to the real thing. They took the time to get the details just right. One had to purchase huge scenery packages to get FSX up to snuff on the scenery but even then, those scenery areas didn't include where I wanted to fly locally. This is why I enjoy Flight so much, because they have concentrated on "6,459" square miles of land and have done a superb job of it. And that looks like they are going to do the same thing for even a bigger area, Alaska. So I'm sticking with Flight. I haven't gone back to FSX in a long time.

I love the Zero too, and definitely will get the P-40. I try to ignore all the negativity.

Have you seen the scratches yet? If you look at the sun through the window you'll see very subtle window scratches. Very good detail if you ask me.

Definitely getting the P-40.

That is just silly, getting so upset over this, even so much as to go on some crusade.. where's the "facepalm" smilie

Speaking about that very subject. I wouldn't call the P-40 being obsolete either. http://www.chuckhawk...-40_vs_zero.htm About the P-40 " its amazing ability to absorb punishment and still continue to fight" You couldn't say that about the Zero, even with it's nimbleness. And once most of the superb pilots of Japan's Empire were killed in combat and most that were left were rookies, the days of the Zero's superiority were over. The Americans learned good tactics, one of them was "don't try to out-turn a Zero, you'll lose every time." Also, think "Flying Tigers" They totally destroyed Zero's. A ratio of 40:1 using P-40's. http://yarchive.net/...avg_record.html A very good synopsis of the P-40: http://www.chuckhawks.com/p40.htm

That would be very nice! That's cool, didn't realize he was a part of Flying Heritage, I subscribe to them on Facebook. From Flying Heritage facebook

I would like to have a cockpit in it too. I have a feeling it will not (because the Mustang and Zero did not.)

Now that we know it is a P-40C (or possibly B, would be nice to know if it has a cockpit (I kind of doubt it).

Yeah I hope it has a cockpit too, but it may not. I think it's a P-40B, that's what was used at Pearl Harbor. Below is a model, doesn't have the ducts, but the oil cooler air exhaust is just like what MS Flight is showing. Um that's a P-40F WAY too late for Pearl. Totally different cowling too. Think early P-40B or C.

okay here is why I think it is a P-40 (probably B or C model) See that rectangle exhaust port leaning forward in the following pic? At first I thought the cowl flaps go over them, but they don't, I was wrong about that. The A2A model shows them well. http://www.martinsam...s/P-40/P-40.htm

This is a model and then a diagram of a P-40, but here: of course, most of the time, the lower cowling flaps cover over those ports, so most of the time we all see a P-40 we usually don't see those ports. tricksey :Thinking:

The oil cooler/exhaust cowl flaps look exactly like a P-40

I know what it is, it's a P-40 - which makes perfect sense being in Pearl Harbor

https://www.facebook.com/msflight This has to be a multi-engine! Thinking....

here it is, not sure why the other link didn't work. https://news.microsoftflight.com/blogs/news/archive/2012/04/13/update-aerocaches-not-saving.aspx

Just about 5 miles from my house is one of the Corsairs used in the production of Baa Baa Black Sheep - at Chino Planes of Fame, I did some art on that particular bird. http://fineartamerica.com/featured/airshow-corsair-dale-jackson.html they recently repainted it. Here's the write up on it: http://planesoffame.org/index.php?mact=staircraft,cntnt01,default,0&cntnt01what=stplanes&cntnt01alias=F4U-1&cntnt01returnid=128

I may get it along with my Zero because my son really likes the Mustang too.

It's actually up at Facebook and at the flight site, so it's public. https://www.facebook.com/msflight https://microsoftfli...com/en-US/home/ posted: Friday, April 13, 2012 10:00 AM

remember this series? http://youtu.be/w0FApC8PsVw

oh, I don't know why it duplicated, right when I hit the post key, it hung up. I was telling the moderator to delete the duplicate.

LOL oh man! "where's the pole?" hope she's not like "where's the runway?" but wow, she got across the balls good.

same here! My trackir5 is getting dust on it, need to fly with it soon. :)