EastCoastGuy

And the chances it would have a cockpit are . . . . . . :LMAO:

Oh I'm definitely going to keep at it with Flight. There's still a lot of fun to be had out there.

That's what I've been curious about; whether work already done on existing planes will be released.

So do you think that if there had never been any complaints, then Flight would be in great shape and everything would be coming up roses? Seriously?

The functionality is impressive, got to admit. People's reports like this in-game made me re-consider, then the same-day Steam sale did it for me -- that's a little more reasonable price. Only flown it for a little while, but I like it. Pity it may be the last.

Interesting to see that turning on carb heat lowers the RPM. Nice detail.

Well, I thought $15 was too much, so I decided to wait and see. Then I heard folks in-game describing a very good cockpit and VOR gauge. Ok, if they put it on sale I'll seriously consider it. Then Steam puts it on sale for 25% off on the first day? Ok. Got it. Pity it may be the last DLC we'll ever see. I already have the Steam version (long irritating story) and it's a little quirky, but Steam hasn't "taken over my computer." :lol: Unless it's the DivX Player. That d*mned thing kept reassigning my file extensions to itself every time it updated. Since deleted.

Pity, Flight has such potential. Not that big a surprise though, especially given their recent business losses. Still, the existing content still runs, and we have large areas to play with. I still haven't done all the Alaska challenges yet, and there are endless permutations of missions/weather/group flying to enjoy for some time to come. It's not like they suddenly turned it off. Curious though... it's been said before that MS develops DLC months in advance. Is it possible that there are a couple months' worth of DLC sitting in the ready room? Could there be another 1 or 2 aircraft still to be delivered? (Hey, I can dream can't I?)

Not at all. If anyone on the Flight team has an ounce of business sense [insert predicable jokes here] then it would certainly be in their best interests to scan customer feedback. Very true. Anticipating what will happen over the next year, there will likely be a number of better aircraft choices in the future. I think part of the complaining comes from frustration at the glacial pace of Flight's DLC releases.

And that would have made sense. $30 for Alaska with a new VC aircraft would've gone over well enough; it's pretty much what people were expecting. But Alaska is last month's news, and now people are faced with a cockpit that costs as much as Alaska did? Somebody over at MS is making some pretty bizarre marketing decisions. Very true. The Maule had a great deal of value at the time for what you could do with it. But the same price for a cockpit with no new capabilities seems a bit silly to me. Now, for somebody buying Flight for the first time, it might make sense to have a choice between a Maule or a Cub; but there's still the issue of the Cub being dead slow by comparison. That's what I'm holding out for -- a more capable and/or faster aircraft.

The in-game link pitches me out to Steam, where it's not available. And the Xbox page doesn't have it yet. But $14.99 for a frickin' cockpit? Seriously? :Phbbbt:

I'll admit I am impressed by Flight's water details. It looks far better than any sim I've seen before.

Great pics.

I'll let everybody else test it out before considering, although if it's dirt cheap I'll probably get it anyway.

I enjoyed flying with the mouse in Flight for a long time, it works very well except for extreme maneuvering needed for aerobatics, etc. I finally broke down and got a Logitech Extreme 3D Pro (like a lot of people here) mainly for dogfighting with buddies. :lol: It makes a big difference -- but you have to learn to land all over again.

Yeah, I wish MS had tailored the "job market" a little better such that choosing a pax/cargo mission would allow you to use the Cub IF it had the capability for a particular load. I really like flying the Icon too, and wish there were some jobs that required it. Flying Freddie Fisherman to Kumquat Cove or Lake Doodah would be a good start.

I also hope at some point in the months ahead that MS addresses the seaplane (amphibian) and seaplane bases thing. I know it's a bigger issue than just a plane -- the seaplane bases need missions as well.

Actually, I do the job anyway and pick a more appropriate aircraft. :lol: Now, if MS comes out with something more powerful like a Cessna 208 or a decent twin with VOR instruments, I'm all over it. B)

I finally bought a Corsair just to try out one of the warbirds -- about a week before they announced the free Red-Tail Mustang (aww grazzlefrat!) To me, they're only useful to go from A to B quickly - other than that, they fly like dung. Previously I said I'd buy anything with a cockpit, but if the upcoming VC Cub is anything more than dirt-cheap, I'm less interested. I'd prefer something with a lot more "oomph" for doing jobs across such a wide expanse as Alaska. (And flying 4 passengers in a Cub at a breakneck speed of 95 knots is just plain silly.)

Well, looking at this jewel of competent communication they released recently, investigated by a number of people in and out of group sessions: Taking them one at a time: The WWII bomber isn't there. On the east (not west) side of the island, 2 nm north of Atka, there's a derelict DC-3 (not B-24) like the one next to Nikolski. The Nikolski DC-3 is next to the airport. Reindeer Lake (AK) is a few miles NE of Fairbanks Airport. There's no downed DC-3 there either. There is, however, a crashed DC-3 next to a Reindeer Lake in Canada, on the border between Saskatchewan and Manitoba, around a thousand-odd miles away (give or take). So out of the three downed planes they've invited us to find, only one of them is actually there. Now, what could this tell us about the state of Flight's development team, and how much they communicate with whoever produced this jewel of customer communication? IMO, this is an indicator of some serious problems.

That might be because so many real world pictures are taken in perfect conditions. Much of the time the same areas could be slightly hazy. Perhaps Flight uses that kind of slightly-hazy look to keep from looking "too" colorful, or as samtx said, cartoonish?

I guess they wanted to improve reality?

The terrain isn't useless. Having a map capable of seeing farther than 5 miles out might be useful though, especially if it has the smaller airfields on it. Finding the huge ones is easy enough already.

On that point we'll just have to differ. On that point as well. IMO, it only tells me what I already know about the surrounding terrain. With that I strongly agree. The ability to adjust the range would be a major improvement.

To me, an aircraft-mounted GPS should help me find airports, or at least navigate. The Icon-ish one doesn't do that, except for the largest ones (that I can see from far outside its range anyway). If it had a waypoint function or the ability to identify small out-of-the-way airports, that would be useful to me.